This is a serious question of why people care whether or not someone is religious.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Note to readers:

I currently don't belong to any religion and when I was a child I despised my parents for bringing me to church.

Hated waking up early on Sunday, causing only one night for me to sleep in because of no school and all the sleep overs I missed. Now I do love my parents just as much as the next son or daughter so don't get the wrong impression!

Recently my belief is that a higher being (knowingly or not) created the earth we live on, which has all the right factors for life to exist. I don't believe he cares one bit about humans (if he knows we are here) and so called, "god's miracles" are just random factors that created a result which is so slim for most people to believe or know why it happened or are just a hoax.

As every normal human, I myself am open to listening to people and learning things daily because the world changes and people discover new things.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Now my question, "why people care whether or not someone is religious" is not meant to be taken as an insult to either side of the spectrum.

Since I'm absolutely sure there are people that think like me on both sides.

This questions is really aimed at the people that debate or even try to put people onto or off religion, on the internet or even in the real world on the street.

I can't imagine the beneficial outcomes that will effect you, your loved ones, or even your children's children by throwing your beliefs on someone.

There is no evidence anywhere for benefits of the argument.

Even if somehow we were able to create a forced/controlled environment of a single belief for a reasonable sized population of people. There is bound to be opposite thoughts and beliefs over time that will develop (years or centuries in time).


I'm even willing to question if the debate is healthy or not.
My first thoughts on the word, "debating" make me think of a discussion that stimulates creative thought on a subject. The human's brain is truly fascinating, the more a person devotes himself/herself on an activity, the better they get in that skill or knowledge.

I question if the debate is unhealthy to where one's own beliefs are threatened that they are more likely to take an extreme path in their belief, which can result in disaster for non believers.


Anyway I'm not going to proof read this, just felt like rambling my thoughts and hopefully I don't feel too foolish when reading your response.

For people wondering why I ask this, well I used to be the person that would care of what other people believe and my thoughts used to be rapidly different. Now I just feel like I no longer care and maybe it's because I'm getting older or there is something wrong with the way I think.

I always take the approach that listening to God comes first. That establishes order.

God is the perfect one. He's preeminent and knows the right way to do things.

If you ask me people are in different stages of chaos so when you take your cues from them you can't get your own bearings because what you need to learn from God and focus on is similar yet different from what other people learn.

I like your post because the message is similar to how I feel, how observing people is so beneficial because you can relate with people and learn before you face similar problems or events.

My question is aimed more at people that almost feel a duty or just want to put the other out of their belief and or onto their belief.

Well if you think about it soul winning has a competitive element to it but there's a right way and a wrong way to do it.

Christians are commissioned by Jesus Christ to help win souls.

But a lot of people get in trouble when they are introduced to the Gospel. They get offended by it. But why should they when it was given with their good in mind? Isn't the bible just delivering the news that the human condition is sinful? Sinfulness creates chaos. But God doesn't leave people without any option out of sin He provides them with a deliverer out of it.

To me, the labels that a person would apply to themselves is not so important. What I think is really important is whether or not they do harm - to themselves or to others.

I think debate is good and healthy, but we may be using the words differently. I don't see it as trying to win anyone over to my side in an all-or-nothing type atmosphere. Perhaps, a better word for me would be discourse. Yet, I think that two people for different traditions should debate the meaning of certain elements in the respective traditions - in this way, I think it can build understanding and tolerance. Also, I think it helps in stripping away certain elements that may have attached themselves to a teaching - cultural, political, personal, etc ... - and in this way we can attempt to get to the bare teachings without any confusion. (As a side note, I always find it amazing when agreements across a broad spectrum of spiritual traditions are realized; e.g., the Golden Rule, to me it always feels as if there is a profound meaning - not to take away from the differences, these are important as well).

I have to admit, I know some Christians who participate in this "soul-winning" game and I always thought it was quite rude and unchristian. In the end, if the Christian hypothesis is accepted - wouldn't an individual have to be humble in front of others? I mean, how can a person know God's plan for another person? It seems an acceptable point of view that God may have other plans for a person and that should be respected - its impossible for anyone to know if another is travelling the path of God or not, so one should be humble and tolerant.

Do you think everyone is automatically humble or is there a humbling process? If there's a process then doesn't there have to be a starting point to it?

I think you're right about people not knowing God's complete plan for another person though we do know some important things.

That's why I teach what I know about the bible. So people can personally relate to God and let God teach them Himself.

But you have to have a relationship and accept a few good things about the other Person before you can learn anything.

I think this thread is similar to this
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/13...66/?highlight=

And I think this might also be of interest to you
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/47...flict-1210583/

Debate altogether of any kind may actually be the real issue.

Sure, there is a learning curve and people are dynamic - the humble person is developed. I have to say though, feeling as though you are commissioned by Jesus to "win souls" doesn't seem very humble - it appears to be the opposite. It seems that you would want to "put people onto your belief," the OP said.

I think you're projecting your own opinion now. You have to realize you can't see people on here and you could have already dedicated yourself to anti-religious ideas so you have an interpretive bias in place against every statement I post.

Soul winning is a competitive activity. You're competing against sin, false ideas and the devil when you engage in soul winning activities.

You better have some confidence in something when you do that.

You think a weakling should take on the world?

Do you think reform crusaders are weak? If they were how could they lead a change in anything?

Yes, I thought it was pretty clear I was stating my own opinion. Still though - how is that you know that you are not acting against God's plan for an individual, when you are "winning souls?"

Perhaps it is God's plan for a person to experience Jainism, or to act out the role of an atheist, or be doubter? How do you know that an individual needs to have their soul won? Perhaps God is working out a revelation to that individual in a way that the individual finds meaningful?

That's why they have free will and an intellect.

Don't people always have some say in their own beliefs?

But personally I'd like to have less of my own reasoning and let God be in charge. I think God knows better than me and has better plans for me than I can plan or dream.

I believe a lot of people unknowingly work against His plan for them. Social conditioning and bad role models can lead to that.

Oh, I think you misread my post.

I think observing people isn't always beneficial because God is a better problem solver than people and other people's behavior could confuse us.

In fact, God will teach you how to avoid getting into troubles. People just illustrate the troubles.

Observing people's behavior ought to convince you that God is right when he says sin is the human condition. God's the only one with the cure to sin.

I think you misread my post, as well my friend. As I've said, I do believe there is a god but I don't follow necessarily the same beliefs as you and I respect you if you can understand that.

None the less I will still respect you if you refuse me respect because it's very hard for me to put all my thoughts on this subject into any sort of text or words because It would take me years to write. I don't really even feel comfortable writing much in this thread because I feel I have to be so detailed and I'm not being very much at all.

Now originally I wasn't necessarily talking about people's behaviors when mentioning observation but how they've reacted to their sins or to their life that was dealt to them.

People can never in my eyes truly be clean of sin because of the injustice that is in this world and even I have came to believe that the world can't function without it. Now I feel like I have to write so much text but will not but I hope you sort of understand why I choose not to and it's a huge thread derail anyway.

Of course, I wouldn't refuse you respect. Jesus Christ was all about restoring people and you don't restore them by disrespecting them.

Everyone is loved by God. Some people recognize that and some people don't.

If God holds you in high enough regard to love you then how could I want to disrespect you?

Disrespecting and correcting are different things aren't they?

Well I don't believe that religion deserves any privileged place in society, no special pillar on which it is placed. So while we may all discuss politics and various ideas along that or heck, debate vociferously whether we like the canucks better than the kings, or whether we like a c/r line better than a b/3b line, so to is it entirely acceptable to debate the existence of god. But I doubt you would start a thread in a sports forum asking what the benefits of debating sports was.

Personally, I find that religious views have consequences in society, often negative ones. If there was not such strength in religious underpinnings for homophobia marriage discrimination, teaching fictional creationism in schools, justifying policy to israel, etc, and it was truly just a personal belief with little outside consequences it wouldn't be all that important. I like to debate politics and think, moreover, that it is important to debate politics and think that religion is entirely with that sphere of acceptable debate.

It should be noted that for a religious person there is an asymmetry here. Namely, if you truly believe that nonbelievers are going to spend an eternity burning in hellfire, it would be extremely immoral NOT to do everything in your power to prevent that from happening.