Spiritual Terrorists [psychological]

[Veritas Aequitas]

Here is a case of Spiritual Terrorism [psychological].

Just as some atheists who lacked empathy for theists, theists [some] like Christians [and Muslims] in the desperate grip to God do not have empathy for non-theists as human beings. {eta}

Muslims, yes; Christians, on the average, absolutely not. There's actually no more generally compassionate and empathetic group of people on the planet. And you can see that much from the fact that they are the overwhelming contributors to charity and the public good. And if you know Christian theology, you know that Jesus was hated because of his association with the tax-collectors, prostitutes and lowlifes of his day. Far from lacking compassion, He said, "The Son of Man has come to seek and to save that which was lost," i.e. the "non-theists" and those otherwise very far from God.

I just had a personal bad encounter from some Christians; one son of my relative coerced his father [terminal, bed-ridden and skeletal] into declaring his faith for Christ; the father in his weakened state agreed due to the son's persistence; but later he told the other children he does not accept Christ; the father died a week later and the other children [all except one are Christians] gave him a non-Christian burial.
This is spiritual terrorism!

Well, maybe that's how it happened; maybe the boy was overzealous and became unkind. Maybe.

But now, try to look at it the other way. One son of your relatives was the only person who had concern for his father's soul. He might have stayed silent and saved himself the conflict with your other relatives. He might have let the older man go to Hell. But he did not. He risked his own situation, pled with his father to choose an eternal destiny with God, even at the last minute, when the old man had no other prospect in view but death; and the father refused. How tragic! Who, in that situation, was really deficient in empathy: the boy, or the other relatives?

That's not terrorism. It's compassion.

Compassion??
Btw, most of his other relatives are already Christians as converted by the very zealous fundamentalistic son [using the usual threat of ending in eternal hell].

Having spoken to the father, I can sensed he was subjected to terrible stress from the persistent threats by the zealous son in addition to his already terminal, bed-ridden and skeletal state.
You are supporting spiritual terrorism in this case.
In such a particular case you are without a moral-compass, re morality-proper of generic human nature.

Is it written in the Gospels [not the OT] that a Christian is duty bound to convert even those in the most weakened near-death state?

Discuss??
Views??

[Iwannaplato]

Discuss??
Views??

Inthe context of the original thread, your post is what you well know is called anecdotal evidence. Further, since it is your story, you can now add any details you want to make it fit your label.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I wrote;

"Here is a case of Spiritual Terrorism [psychological]"
"I just had a personal bad encounter ..."
Obviously that is a personal case.

I would like to hear from those who have their own personal experiences of such cases.

The above is a very common things as I have heard from many people and it is well reported in the internet.

I would like to hear from those who have their own personal experiences of such cases and their views on this issue.

[Immanuel Can]

Compassion??

Yep. Think about it: if you believed what he believed, what's the worst thing you could do to somebody? And what's the only thing a decent, moral human being would do?

But don't ask me. Let's ask the arch-Atheist, Penn Jilette what he decided about that issue:

“I don’t respect that at all. If you believe that there’s a heaven and hell and people could be going to hell or not getting eternal life or whatever, and you think that it’s not really worth telling them this because it would make it socially awkward, and atheists who think that people shouldn’t proselytize — ‘Just leave me alone, keep your religion to yourself.’

“How much do you have to hate somebody to not proselytize? How much do you have to hate somebody to believe that everlasting life is possible and not tell them that? If I believed beyond a shadow of a doubt that a truck was coming at you and you didn’t believe it, and that truck was bearing down on you, there’s a certain point where I tackle you. And this is more important than that.”

Right on. So if you see it from your relative's perspective, maybe you can have a bit of empathy for him, even if you don't agree that he was operating on good information. If he genuinely thought you were going to Hell, how much would he have to hate you, if he stayed silent? What could he possibly do that, from his worldview, was more cruel, selfish and hateful than to say nothing?

But you want him to do that?

[Iwannaplato]

I wrote;

"Here is a case of Spiritual Terrorism [psychological]"
"I just had a personal bad encounter ..."
Obviously that is a personal case.

OK; notice what VA does here. I point out that in the original thread it was anecdotal evidence.
He pretends that somehow I was saying he did not say it was a personal case. Not the same issue.
Here's the original quote:

On the other hand, Christians [and Muslims] in the desperate grip to God also do not have empathy for non-theists as human beings.
I just had a personal bad encounter from some Christians; one son of my relative coerced his father [terminal, bed-ridden and skeletal] into declaring his faith for Christ; the father is his weakened state agreed due to the son's persistence; but later he told the other children he does not accept Christ; the father died a week later and the other children gave him a non-Christian burial.
This is spiritual terrorism!

So, notice what VA does. He starts with a generalization about Christians and Muslims. He tells us they do not have empathy for non-theists as human beings. How does he justify this really quite extreme generalization?
With anecdotal evidence.

VA posts with this kind of slippery disingenousness with great regularity. Which is what makes him a terrible discussion partner.
The lovely thing is: now he is engaged with another poster who is also disingenous with great regularity and who also has a very hard time managing to admit his mistakes and that his poor arguments and just that.

They mirror and deserve each others.

The fun question is: can either one of them muster the courage to notice how much they have in common?

I'll step out of the way and let the IC vs. VA battle for disingenousness expertise continue.

[Veritas Aequitas]

So, notice what VA does. He starts with a generalization about Christians and Muslims. He tells us they do not have empathy for non-theists as human beings. How does he justify this really quite extreme generalization?
With anecdotal evidence.

VA posts with this kind of slippery disingenousness with great regularity. Which is what makes him a terrible discussion partner.
The lovely thing is: now he is engaged with another poster who is also disingenous with great regularity and who also has a very hard time managing to admit his mistakes and that his poor arguments and just that.

WTF!
Originally, we were discussing only one person, i.e. Dawkins.
There was an omission in my original post which my intent was with reference to individuals.
Thus I corrected it with the following {eta} = edited to add.

Just as some atheists who lacked empathy for theists, theists [some] like Christians [and Muslims] in the desperate grip to God do not have empathy for non-theists as human beings. {eta}

As such this the intent thread should be restricted to whatever is posted and not to the original post [which was merely a reference to another thread of discussion].

This IWP is like some whiny bitchy grandma on petty stuffs instead of the gist of the OP.