Threatening??

[Jane_the_Bane]

You shouldn't try to befriend people just so you can attempt to convert them.

I was just about to point that out as well. Befriending people for the primary purpose of converting them seems awfully manipulative.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I have learned that as it says in Corinthians somewhere, that it is best that I befriend such person before I speak of Jesus. Once they are a good friend of mine and trust me, they will be less volatile to my reccomendation of eternal salvation. Im pretty sure that is how it should be done rather than shaking someones hand and start talking about Jesus right away.

I suppose this is okay if this is primarily friendship for friendship's sake. If there is no sincere desire to be friends with someone -- if all you have is an ulterior motive, no matter how sincere or benevolent -- what you have is a corrupt friendship. That's certainly not a way to live in truth or engender trust.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Tariki]

Well, at least I've learnt something from this thread......if some new dude at work starts coming across as over friendly, I can immediately feel threatened.....

 

[sanjaya1984]

I have learned that as it says in Corinthians somewhere, that it is best that I befriend such person before I speak of Jesus. Once they are a good friend of mine and trust me, they will be less volatile to my reccomendation of eternal salvation. Im pretty sure that is how it should be done rather than shaking someones hand and start talking about Jesus right away.

So you're going to try friendship evangelism? There was an article on Hinduism Today a couple years ago warning about this sort of thing. Here it is:

Friendship Evangelism - Magazine Archives > October/November/December 2009 - Publications - Hinduism Today Magazine

If you don't mind my unsolicited opinion, I have two thoughts on this.

1.) Friendship evangelism seems rather hypocritical, because you are essentially feigning friendship with someone you might otherwise not befriend, using them as a means to the end of conversion. This is why I don't befriend evangelicals. I know that they regard me as fit for hell and in need of conversion, and will never see me as more than a potential convert. Indeed this practice is outright deceptive. When Mormons or other Christian heretics do this, evangelicals call them a cult. Ever wonder what the rest of us think of evangelicals who befriend people just to convert them?

2.) This practice isn't consistent with your view that people who don't convert are going to an eternity of hellfire. Evangelicals often make the comparison to a person running off a cliff. I would not attempt to befriend such a person or waste time winning him over; I would stop him from his fall to death quickly, forcefully if necessary. Likewise, if I thought someone would go to hell upon death if they didn't convert, I would plead with them night and day to become a Christian, and do little else. Maybe this is why your Christian ancestors in Europe converted others by force. Whatever else one can say, it's the logical option: better to take away someone's liberty than let them condemn themselves to eternal hell. In the time you take to befriend someone, he could die and go to hell. Obviously I'm not trying to convince you to be more aggressive in your conversion attempts, since I think that converting someone who already has a religion is a bad thing. Rather I am asking you: do you really believe that non-Christians go to eternal hell? Because it seems like the actions of you, and indeed almost all evangelical Christians, are inconsistent with this belief.

 

[Gardenia]

I would plead with them night and day to become a Christian, and do little else. Maybe this is why your Christian ancestors in Europe converted others by force. Whatever else one can say, it's the logical option: better to take away someone's liberty than let them condemn themselves to eternal hell.

Of course, this doesn't really mesh well with Christian beliefs either. A person has to sincerely repent to be saved, so a person who is forced or otherwise coerced into belief - well, doesn't seem it would do them much good in the end.

 

[sanjaya1984]

Of course, this doesn't really mesh well with Christian beliefs either. A person has to sincerely repent to be saved, so a person who is forced or otherwise coerced into belief - well, doesn't seem it would do them much good in the end.

Sure, but how do you quantify or measure sincere belief. Putting myself into the shoes of a Christian for a moment, I would say that while belief can't be coerced, it's definitely easier for a person to produce sincere belief when he is separated from any non-Christian influence. Therefore, it's necessary to destroy non-Christian religion and put non-Christians in Christian environments. Getting a person out of his religion and essentially forcing him to go to church seems like an excellent way to encourage belief.

At any rate, this is the approach I would take if I thought that non-Christians were going to eternal hell. If the Christians are right, the death of a non-Christian is the worst of all tragedies, and should be prevented at all costs.