Run in with a street preacher

  • Thread starter Thread starter StrawberryJam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Woah now!

Don’t call yourself dumb!

I know you are not. So please don’t say that. K?
Meh, I guess I may be more intellectual as people keep telling me. Still, trust me, I’ve done some pretty stupid things that sometimes make it difficult to believe them. :o

Anyways back on topic. If stupid people were to be banned from the net. These street preachers would definitely be one of the first to go. :rolleyes:

Sometimes, for fun, I’d find myself rehearsing things I would do around them or say to them.
 
So you have experienced this type of evangelism.

Can you tell me if you feel this particular type of evangelism is par for the course, or is it a bit on the fringe?
I go to school in Cleveland and occasionally i will go down to Tower City and hang out there. SOmetimes there is a guy at public square who is playing a guitar and with a microphone is trying to evangalize everyone walking by at once. He also has people distributing literature with Cristian basics;

Wages of Sin is Death

Death equalls etenal punishment

Jesus is the only way to save us from this death BLah blah blah

Evangelism in general is random to me I hardly get someone trying to convert me as much as i would like now. I’m always disappointed when I miss JWS coming to my house and trying to convert me. So is it a fringe I would say so. Doesnt mean its bad though Christ instructed his followers to preach the gospel…🤷
 
🙂

You sound like a very kind person.🙂
Thank you. That was a very nice thing to say.
It takes a lot of bravery to do street preaching, and I do admit that.
I try to be as open as I can, and I hope I am nothing but respectful to those who do it.
But, I also feared arguing with him because I don’t want it on my head that I may have caused someone not to believe
There’s nothing wrong with saying, “No thank you” or “My beliefs are very personal and I don’t really feel comfortable discussing them here”. I know that I always try to respect that when someone tells me that.
 
I don’t do open air preaching nearly as much as I used to (not for lack of desire, just opportunity), but that’s not what I did. I never called out any individual’s sin, nor did I ever urge him to convert “TODAY!” The Bible talks quite a lot about false converts and I believe that by pressuring someone to make a decision on emotion and not on conviction only encourages false conversion.

Basically, I just preach a short Gospel message and tell people that if they have any questions or would like to talk or ask questions or ask for prayer, that I’m there and, if I’m there with my evangelism team, that they can just look for anybody in the blue shirts (and if we’re all in our blue shirts, I’ll usually make a joke like “…but make it quick because we’ve got to be back to Best Buy in twenty minutes”…the people on my team hate when I say that.)

Very simple. No pressure. No calling out anybody’s personal sins. Just “Here’s the Gospel, do with it what you will.”
Oh boy do them YouTube street preachers need a lesson from you.
Then again, maybe not. I find it a guilty pleasure witnessing their idiocy. XD

On a more serious note though, how would you approach such confrontational evangelists?
 
I miss having random people come up to me and trying to convert me. Sometime it gets annoying when i openly challenge their beliefs yet they dont acknowledge that challenge and try to avoid it altogether. In the future when im secure enough with my religious intellect i want to go to every fundamentalist church and challenge there belief system, ok may not just challenge but get into a fruitful dialouge to find the truth.
“a fruitful dialog to find the truth?”

Lessee…find the winning lottery ticket in the parking lot, or tag along with you to see if that happens…tsk…

Odds are better with the lottery, I think.

Oh, that’s not a personal attack either on you OR on the fundamentalists you plan to visit. It’s just that in my experience, ‘challenging their belief system,’ no matter who does it or why, is about as likely to result in a fruitful dialogue as I am to get married again…and that event is about as likely as me getting hit by lightning while being eaten by a shark–in Death Valley.

Better you just…once you are ‘secure with your religious intellect,’ teach them what you think is true, and let them use that information to challenge their own beliefs. People do that all the time.
 
Oh boy do them YouTube street preachers need a lesson from you.
Not necessarily. There are some really good open air preachers on YouTube.
On a more serious note though, how would you approach such confrontational evangelists?
Well, first of all, while I’m sure that the OP is describing the situation sincerely and as best as he remembers it, I don’t really feel comfortable judging someone without witnessing them in action for myself.

If they were clearly someone who was not willing to accept rebuke (say, like a Fred Phelps-type), then I’d just ignore them and go on my way. But if they were someone who would accept correction, I’d just say something like “Hey, brother, I’ve been watching you a little bit and I’ve got a couple of concerns about some things you’ve said. Could you give me just a couple of minutes to share those concerns with you? First, I just want to say that I really appreciate your zeal for the Lord. I think it’s great that you’re being obedient to preach the Gospel, but I’m concerned that you may have gotten a little off track in your methodology…” And I would show him from scripture what the Bible says about being bold in preaching the Gospel but also being respectful and doing it in a spirit of humility.
 
Not necessarily. There are some really good open air preachers on YouTube.
I’ve found some decent ones, true. Still, it’s always the confrontational ones that get the most online publicity. :rolleyes:

I find it interesting though that you’re wise enough to check first if someone is willing to be corrected or not.

Regardless, as someone who street preaches (or at least used to), don’t you find that problematic? It’s true that they’re probably doing this all for attention. Regardless of how negative the attention they get, it still attention… and they’re still getting it.
 
I know the bible does give believers a charge to evangelize.

That is not my concern. I respect it, and understand that desire if that is the belief of that person to do so.

He may have not been able to understand a person like me, and did the best he could.

The problem and warning bells to me were, when he knew I was going to church, he claimed I was making mistakes.

Maybe I did not understand what he meant.
Maybe I did.

I got the impression, that even though I went to church- I did not go to the “right ones”

I am sorry, but I am starting from the basics and going from there.

There is no church earlier than catholic. Where shall I go?

I went to 3 protestant churches.

I realize I could live the rest of my years going to others.

I don’t have that kind of time.

Until anyone can tell me why catholics or orthodox are wrong, I just don’t know how many more I will go to. There are so many.

I will give a go to Methodist though. Anyway, I want to also go to a Jewish temple, but I have no idea how to approach that or if I can attend as an observer.

I would like to, and there are many temples in my area. I am in a hotbed of temples.

anyway,

I know Jews do not try to convert anyone.

I think this is the main reason I like christianity more.

But, I am still wondering about that whole thing too.

you both are supposedly linked.

Urrrgh!

More for my mind to have to wrap around.
 
I find it interesting though that you’re wise enough to check first if someone is willing to be corrected or not.
Learned that one the hard way, believe me.
Regardless, as someone who street preaches (or at least used to), don’t you find that problematic?
Honestly? I used to but now I just really don’t care. No matter what they do or how they choose to do it, I’m still responsible to do what God has called me to do.

It’s really no different now than it was in Jesus and Paul’s day. Didn’t seem to bother them.

Besides, you have to remember that the power of the Gospel isn’t because of me or in how I preach, but in its power to save sinners. I can’t make it any more powerful and they can’t make it any less powerful. It’s all God and what He chooses to do with it.
It’s true that they’re probably doing this all for attention. Regardless of how negative the attention they get, it still attention… and they’re still getting it.
And they probably always will. But the Gospel still rolls on.
 
Besides, you have to remember that the power of the Gospel isn’t because of me or in how I preach, but in its power to save sinners. I can’t make it any more powerful and they can’t make it any less powerful. It’s all God and what He chooses to do with it.

And they probably always will. But the Gospel still rolls on.
I respectfully disagree. Impressions can do a lot in shaping a person’s view. Biases that spring from such impression can be hard to crack. If someone tries to present Christianity as all hellfire and brimstone, then don’t be surprised if a lot of people would suddenly start rejecting it because of that. I should know, I’ve got the bad luck to witness atheist rantings as much as fundie rantings (especially given that they’re not seen too far apart than you might think). From what I’ve seen, I can definitely theorize that confrontational preaching is a dangerous and self-shooting method that needs dealing with.
 
I respectfully disagree. Impressions can do a lot in shaping a person’s view.
Then how do you reconcile that with scripture, which says that the Gospel is the power of God unto salvation?
Biases that spring from such impression can be hard to crack. If someone tries to present Christianity as all hellfire and brimstone, then don’t be surprised if a lot of people would suddenly start rejecting it because of that.
Jesus spoke quite a bit about Hellfire and brimstone and people rejected it. Why should it be any different for us?
I should know, I’ve got the bad luck to witness atheist rantings as much as fundie rantings
Whoa! Didn’t see that coming, particularly after I’ve tried so hard to be respectful to you.
From what I’ve seen, I can definitely theorize that confrontational preaching is a dangerous and self-shooting method that needs dealing with.
Then deal with it.
 
Then how do you reconcile that with scripture, which says that the Gospel is the power of God unto salvation?
If it truly did have that power in the way that you’re implying then anyone who hears a Bible verse would be moved to accept it, regardless if it’s done gently or in your face. Clearly reality dictates otherwise.
Jesus spoke quite a bit about Hellfire and brimstone and people rejected it. Why should it be any different for us?
He didn’t do so on the same level as these people. Let’s compare the ratio of how much Christ spoke of hell with the rest of the more wonderful things He taught.
Whoa! Didn’t see that coming, particularly after I’ve tried so hard to be respectful to you.
How am I being disrespectful? I’m merely saying that I’ve heard as many atheist ramblings with regards as to how Christians do nothing but spread fear of hellfire and brimstone and how that’s exactly what the fundies are doing. :confused:
Then deal with it.
I do when the opportunity presents itself.
However, I don’t really advocate proselytizing as a method of evangelizing.
You on the other hand, have experience with it so I figured you’d be the best type to correct these people.
 
If it truly did have that power in the way…
So then, are you saying that the Bible is wrong when it says that the Gospel truly does have that power?
that you’re implying then anyone who hears a Bible verse would be moved to accept it, regardless if it’s done gently or in your face. Clearly reality dictates otherwise.
Nope. Not what the Bible says at all. The Bible says that the Gospel is the power of God unto salvation, but also makes it clear that not everyone will hear the Gospel.
He didn’t do so on the same level as these people. Let’s compare the ratio of how much Christ spoke of hell with the rest of the more wonderful things He taught.
First of all, Christ spoke about Hell quite frequently and very graphically. He made it very clear to sinners that if they did not repent, then their fate would be an eternity in a literal Hell.

Second, you seem to imply that because Christ may not have talked about Hell often (which is not true), then we should not talk about Hell. Nothing could be further from the truth.

We determine our doctrine and practice by what the Bible says about a subject, not how often it says it. I just don’t see, either Biblically or practically, how one can preach salvation without first explaining what one is saved from.
How am I being disrespectful?
Calling us “fundies” isn’t exactly a show of respect.
However, I don’t really advocate proselytizing as a method of evangelizing.
That’s what evangelism is.
 
So then, are you saying that the Bible is wrong when it says that the Gospel truly does have that power?

Nope. Not what the Bible says at all. The Bible says that the Gospel is the power of God unto salvation, but also makes it clear that not everyone will hear the Gospel.
Are you suggesting that some people are predestined or have it in their inherent nature to reject the Gospel? If so, so much for free will.
Second, you seem to imply that because Christ may not have talked about Hell often (which is not true), then we should not talk about Hell. Nothing could be further from the truth.
I did not say that. I merely said that too much emphasis on fear-mongering tactics such as preaching hellfire and brimstone isn’t going to do you any good. Not even on the long run. Furthermore, if you’re so confident that Christ spoke frequently about hell compared to everything else, do a little math for me and compare the percentage of how much He spoke of hell in the Gospels.
Calling us “fundies” isn’t exactly a show of respect.
“Us”? I think you already have enough common sense to know I’m not referring to individuals like you. Furthermore, I despise political correctness so please have a thicker skin.
That’s what evangelism is.
On the contrary. One does not have to stand on a soapbox to spread the Gospel. Living via example is just one good alternative.
 
Are you suggesting that some people are predestined or have it in their inherent nature to reject the Gospel? If so, so much for free will.
Foreknowledge does not negate free will.
I did not say that. I merely said that too much emphasis on fear-mongering tactics such as preaching hellfire and brimstone isn’t going to do you any good.
What you’re talking about is called pragmatism and we don’t base our evangelism on pragmatism, but on what the word of God says. If the word of God says that we’re to warn people about Hell and call them to repent, then it really doesn’t matter whether or not you think it “does us good”. God tells us to go, we go, He takes care of the rest.
Furthermore, if you’re so confident that Christ spoke frequently about hell compared to everything else, do a little math for me and compare the percentage of how much He spoke of hell in the Gospels.
First of all, you’re misquoting me. I never said anything about the frequency of which He spoke of Hell in relation to other topics. I simply said that Jesus (and, by extension, the rest of the Bible) spoke of it frequently.

Second, like I pointed out to you, frequency has nothing to do with it. We do not get our doctrine from how many times something is said, but what is said.
“Us”? I think you already have enough common sense to know I’m not referring to individuals like you.
Go into a black neighborhood and throw the “N-word” around a couple of times and then explain to them, “Oh, but I didn’t mean you”. Let me know how that works out for you.
Furthermore, I despise political correctness so please have a thicker skin.
I despise political correctness, too. But that doesn’t give me an excuse to be rude to you.
On the contrary. One does not have to stand on a soapbox to spread the Gospel. Living via example is just one good alternative.
Actually, it isn’t a good alternative for a couple of reasons.

The first and most obvious is because that isn’t how God told us to do it.

The second is that my “living via example” will not make someone understand the Gospel.

If that is how we’re supposed to practice evangelism, then why don’t we see that in the Bible?
 
Foreknowledge does not negate free will.
Yes it does. Look it up in the dictionary. It is synonymous with foresightedness. You can’t get any more unpredictable than free will. The two are in direct opposition to each other. If you say a person is destined to reject the gospel or is inherently hateful towards it, then you are in direct rejection of that person’s ability to choose his/her salvation.
What you’re talking about is called pragmatism and we don’t base our evangelism on pragmatism, but on what the word of God says. If the word of God says that we’re to warn people about Hell and call them to repent, then it really doesn’t matter whether or not you think it “does us good”. God tells us to go, we go, He takes care of the rest.
Once again, I am not saying you shouldn’t preach about hell at all. I am merely saying that too much emphasis on hellfire will result in reinforcing stereotypes non-believers have about Christianity being a religion of fear.
First of all, you’re misquoting me. I never said anything about the frequency of which He spoke of Hell in relation to other topics. I simply said that Jesus (and, by extension, the rest of the Bible) spoke of it frequently.
First, let’s focus on Jesus’ words and only His words for this discussion. Secondly, I am asking you to do a simple calculation of how frequently He spoke of Hell (much less threatened people with it) and compare to how frequently He spoke of other topics. You will find the former to be significantly less.
Second, like I pointed out to you, frequency has nothing to do with it. We do not get our doctrine from how many times something is said, but what is said.
Actually it does. When you give a speech, the best way to emphasize certain points is to constantly repeat it. Never fail to refer to it. Always having people to constantly focus on it.
Go into a black neighborhood and throw the “N-word” around a couple of times and then explain to them, “Oh, but I didn’t mean you”. Let me know how that works out for you.

I despise political correctness, too. But that doesn’t give me an excuse to be rude to you.
One thing I’ve learned in Linguistics class is that words must accumulate enough negative connotation over extended periods of time before they even start sounding offensive.

Fundie hasn’t reached that level I assure you. I’ve bashed with people like this and they never get worked up like you are. One even deliberately called himself TheFundie.

Furthermore, it’s that very phenomenon that causes me to despise political correctness. First ****** was bad, but then people are already getting all worked up just by the word black and instead insist on African-American. Gimme a break. Please realize that the world is not a place to make people conform to oversensitive standards.
Actually, it isn’t a good alternative for a couple of reasons.

The first and most obvious is because that isn’t how God told us to do it.

The second is that my “living via example” will not make someone understand the Gospel.

If that is how we’re supposed to practice evangelism, then why don’t we see that in the Bible?
And preaching on a soapbox is the only method that you find worth doing? Come off it. These days, all people do is talk. It’s another thing to actually do something. Talking and arguing with people (as you yourself have admitted) can be futile so why not just simply show it instead of trying to convince others with your words?

You know what they say, seeing is believing. Actions can speak louder than words.
 
Are you suggesting that some people are predestined or have it in their inherent nature to reject the Gospel? If so, so much for free will.

I did not say that. I merely said that too much emphasis on fear-mongering tactics such as preaching hellfire and brimstone isn’t going to do you any good. Not even on the long run. Furthermore, if you’re so confident that Christ spoke frequently about hell compared to everything else, do a little math for me and compare the percentage of how much He spoke of hell in the Gospels.

“Us”? I think you already have enough common sense to know I’m not referring to individuals like you. Furthermore, I despise political correctness so please have a thicker skin.
just chiming in here…

The first time I heard the term ‘politically correct’ it was on a radio call in program many years ago. I don’t remember the program, the host or the topic of conversation; I was running through channels trying to find some music. I heard those words, though, and I went cold; I stopped channel flipping to listen. The caller was a young woman who was criticizing the host for some position he was taking. She was honestly appalled…and she told him, in all seriousness, that his attitude was not ‘politically correct.’ She was dead serious.

It’s the first and last time I ever heard the term used as if it were a good thing to be, but that once was enough. Visions of 1984, Anthem and* Brave New World* were flashing at me…and ever since then the term gives me the shudders.

Being politically correct is not a good thing. We should all be as politically incorrect as we can possibly be.

However, common courtesy is not the same thing as political correctness.
On the contrary. One does not have to stand on a soapbox to spread the Gospel. Living via example is just one good alternative.
So. You are telling them that they should cease their “hellfire and brimstone” street proselytizing, because it isn’t effective even in the long run,; that a life well lived as a good example is a better way to evangelize–right after you call them an offensive name and tell them that since you don’t believe in political correctness, that they have to 'grow a thicker skin."

Right.
 
Yes it does. Look it up in the dictionary. It is synonymous with foresightedness. You can’t get any more unpredictable than free will. The two are in direct opposition to each other. If you say a person is destined to reject the gospel or is inherently hateful towards it, then you are in direct rejection of that person’s ability to choose his/her salvation.
Again, foreknowledge doesn’t negate free will. For instance, I know that my daughter is going to be in a competition today, but that doesn’t mean that she is compelled by my knowledge to compete.
Once again, I am not saying you shouldn’t preach about hell at all. I am merely saying that too much emphasis on hellfire will result in reinforcing stereotypes non-believers have about Christianity being a religion of fear.
I’m cool with that. My job isn’t to make Christianity look attractive, only to preach the Gospel.
First, let’s focus on Jesus’ words and only His words for this discussion.
2 Tim 3 15-17 says that all of scripture is Jesus’ words.
Secondly, I am asking you to do a simple calculation of how frequently He spoke of Hell (much less threatened people with it) and compare to how frequently He spoke of other topics. You will find the former to be significantly less.
And I’ve already explained to you two times why this is irrelevant.
Actually it does. When you give a speech, the best way to emphasize certain points is to constantly repeat it. Never fail to refer to it. Always having people to constantly focus on it.
But we’re not talking about giving a speech.
I’ve bashed with people like this and they never get worked up like you are.
So then you admit that you’re using that phrase to “bash” us.
And preaching on a soapbox is the only method that you find worth doing?
It’s a Biblical method.
It’s another thing to actually do something. Talking and arguing with people (as you yourself have admitted) can be futile so why not just simply show it instead of trying to convince others with your words?
For two reasons. The first is that it’s not how God has instructed us to do it.

The second is that our actions cannot bring about the understanding of the Gospel.
You know what they say, seeing is believing. Actions can speak louder than words.
Not in this case. The Bible says that it’s the preaching of the law and the Gospel that brings about conviction, not our actions.
 
So. You are telling them that they should cease their “hellfire and brimstone” street proselytizing, because it isn’t effective even in the long run,; that a life well lived as a good example is a better way to evangelize–right after you call them an offensive name and tell them that since you don’t believe in political correctness, that they have to 'grow a thicker skin."

Right.
Just to clarify, that was LostWanderer who said that, not me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top