A New Years Resolution For Christians, “I Will Not Evangelize In 2018.”

The somewhat prominent preacher, Greg Laurie, preaches that each and every Christian has an obligation to convert others to the faith. What he means, apparently, is that Christians should invite others to their churches and/or try to convince them they are on the wrong path and should get right with Jesus.

I’m sure there are many believers that joined churches after being invited by someone. Many these days change churches because of something they like or dislike.

But, to think a person who does not believe there is a Jesus or a god will pleased at an invitation to church seems like a stretch. In fact, it would anger many people. In most cases, the best thing a Christian can do is to be likable and keep their religious views to themselves. Evangelizing is the worst thing they can do.

If someone asks you, “Do you know a good church I could attend?” the door is open to respond accordingly. Without that question, it is best to assume a person does not want to hear about your faith.

A further place not to evangelize is in our public laws. I hope some Christians would resolve that in 2018 they will not lobby against gay marriage or against abortion rights. The only reason to oppose gay rights and abortion is because parts of Christianity view them as sin.

Other parts of the faith do not see them as sin and other religions do not.

34 Responses

  1. Schurkey

    “The only reason to oppose gay rights and abortion is because parts of Christianity view them as sin.”

    “Gay” is a mental illness. “Accepting” mental illness harms society. They want to be crazy in public, and I’m saying “no”.

    We’re ~45 years behind in finding treatment(s) for LGBQTxyz because both brain-care organizations hung “Gays” out to dry in the early/mid 1970s. This has had the effect of harming both “Gays” and society in general.

    Would we tell people with Cancer or Diabetes that what they have is a normal facet of life .NO treatment, NO drugs, NO research, NO help, NO insurance…tough it out?

    1. Schurkey 6:44 We’re 45 years behind in finding treatments for LGBQTxyz because both brain-care organization hung “Gays” out the dry in the early/mid 1970’s.

      That is not true. There has been research into the gay issues all during this period. Their brains have been studied, there have been controlled behavioral studies and you name it. Drug companies are profit-making businesses, not part of the Doctors’ organizations. They would look for ways to change people if the potential was there.

      The facts are simple. People are gay for reasons no one understands. Furthermore, there is no reason, except religion, they should try to be anything different than they are. The best thing for religious organizations to do is face the truth.

      1. Henry

        Jon, we have been here before. The decision to remove the LBQYXZG from the DSM II was purely political and by force at the early ’70’s APA convention. Parliamentary procedure in laying out their case was egregiously breeched, and they assumed control of the floor by grabbing the microphone. The “research” followed the political decision.

        1. Henry 7:45 Your opinion of what happened at an APA convention is not worth arguing about. What is worth talking about is the definition of mental illness. Here is one definition. It would not include homosexuality.

          If you have a professionally authored and professionally adjudicated please provide it for us.

          Here is another definition used in law enforcement:

          The real reason homosexuality was taken off the list of mental illnesses was that it did not meet the APA’s own definition.

          1. Henry

            John 8:40 “Your opinion of what happened at an APA convention is not worth arguing about.”

            Correct. You shouldn’t argue about it. It is a fact:

            Jon 8:40:“If you have a professionally authored and professionally adjudicated please provide it for us.”

            Absolutely. The basis of the current mental illness definitions with regard to homosexuality is from Dr. Kinsey, a researcher who like to film minors having sex for his scientific “research”. Great professional authorship and adjudication! Furthermore, his sampling also consisted of an overly heavy sampling of convicts raping each other. Great stuff.

        2. Schurkey

          There are two “APA”s, the American Psychological Association, and the American Psychiatric Association.

          Both of them bowed to activists within and without, removing homosexuality from their respective doctrines.

          As I recall, transsexuality is still on the list at one or both, as it should be.

          At least one of the organizations had to change their bylaws which at the time restricted the society from taking a stand on an issue unless it was supported by science (the “Leona Tyler Principle”)–and removing “gay” from the list had no supporting science.


          Point being, a few activists (some violent) changed the course of history, and the changed history is now self-sustaining due to massive propaganda efforts.

          1. Schurkey 11:26 Both of them bowed to activists..

            The truth is the “illness” category could not stand up to challenge. Please look up mental illness definitions and find one that put LGBT in the category of being “ill”.

            That LGBT were once considered “ill” is exactly like the days of segregation and discrimination against black people. There was the view they were inferior, white women were in danger around black men, interracial marriage was harmful and on and on. None of these arguments held up against challenge either. Now, you know as well as I do there were years of protests, boycotts and all the rest that gave a political appearance to the eventual repeal of first slavery and then segregation. The arguments against these wrongs prevailed and today they are history. The argument against the wrong of calling homosexuality an illness has also prevailed.

            Here is the thing. If homosexuality is actually an illness, then forty years of opportunity has been there to make the argument. It has not been made because it cannot be made.

  2. Jay S

    Just wondering if you say they same thing to Muslims and others that do this and are quite more adamant about it?

  3. Jay S

    To not lobby against abortion. I’m sure they would once humanity can decide on when life actually starts. The hypocrisy from pro choice is beyond belief. Killing a baby through abortion is okay and not illegal, but if that same women was murdered, it would be a double homicide in the criminal system no matter how many weeks along the baby is. You can’t have it both ways. Decide and stop doing double talk.

    1. Jay S 7:55 I’m sure they would once humanity can decide on when life actually starts.

      Here you are doing the tricky business often done in the anitiabortion industry. You are using the word “life” instead of what antiabortionists really mean, “human being.” When lobbying against abortion those doing so claim one fertilized cell is a human being. It is not. There is no body of science which agrees one fertilized cell is a human being. Please use the term you mean, human being, instead of the slippy term, “life.”

      1. How about live human being? Or is that too clear for you?

        Basic reproductive biology among mammals clearly indicate the complex creature we associate as a lion starts off its life as a 2-cell creature, divides in to 4 cells, and continues until the millions of cells we associate with a lion. Any 100 level college course on reproductive biology will confirm this. The 2 cells that differentiate a lion from a rabbit and a human being can be found in the chromosones. Dang, I wonder if this is all covered on day 1 of that college course. The human beings known as Donald Trump and Melania Trump are both human beings but are of different genders and many other characteristics which make them unique.

        So, yes, we pro-lifers agree with Jon that we all started off as a 2-cell creature that defines us a living human beings. Where we part ways is that Jon believes that unborn baby can be killed without any consequence whereas Matt believes killing that baby deliberately is murder. An atheist doesn’t have to agree with my religious views on life but to disagree with basic science is entire politically and quite insane.

        1. Matt 8:09 …Jon started off as a 2-cell creature…

          Slippery stuff, this anti abortion religion “science”. You are admitting I was not a human being when I was 2 cells. Science does not declare this, only religion does so.

      2. Jay S

        Jon, there is nothing tricky about it. The point of the original post is if the person was murdered and knew they were pregnant at 4 or so days after conception, it would be double homicide — no matter what term you want to use – human or life. Period. But pro abortion people are okay with killing babies up to 20 – 25 weeks. It has been proven scientifically a baby can survive as a ‘human being’ outside the womb at 20 weeks, but that is not murder.

        And by the way you can’t have life and a human separately. They kinda go together. Meaning of life – “the existence of an individual human being or animal.” OR “the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death.” In other words they have to exist and change and are not inorganic material. When does that happen for humans? Meaning of human “a human being, especially a person as distinguished from an animal or (in science fiction) an alien.”

        So the human definition says that you are distinguished from an animal. Life is a much closer term, since it encapsulates growth, functional activity, and continual change — all in the womb every single second. In fact more changes are happening in the womb before birth than at any other time in the human’s life. So using ‘Life’ is totally appropriate in the first posting. It kinda sounds like pro abortionist, like yourself, love to change the meaning of things thinking if we say it enough, people will believe us. But the definition is pretty clear to anyone that can read.

        And while we want to be so right in our wording as you pointed out, why don’t we call it pro abortion instead of pro choice? Because it is nicer to hear and plays into a person’s strong inclination of choosing what happens over someone else. In this case the mother over the child.

        And while we are on it why does places like planned parenthood string these mothers along until they are right up to the week limit (like 20 or more weeks) before an abortion is done? I assume you know they do things with the fetuses they just aborted, which is well documented. Why not, if a mother (and I’m not advocating this) goes in when she is 5 weeks and says do it right now, planned parenthood does it? And don’t say it is because of some law, because that is a straight out lie.

        I guess with all liberals the same logic goes like this — when science doesn’t help your cause, you ignore it as when life starts. But when it does help your cause you embrace it.

        1. Jay S 9:46 Thanks for expanding on your views. Life is present when human beings like you and I are alive. There can be life, however, that does not involve a human being. My finger nail clipping is “life”. It has my DNA and cells that grow, etc. But it is not a human being. One fertilized cell is not a human being. But, it is a form of life.

          That is why anti abortionists use the term “life” because they can slide it every which way. The term human being is appropriate only when there is an actual human being. One cell is not a human being. Whoops, I forgot if religion is involved it might be a human being. Outside of that, no.

          1. Jay S

            Jon, No nail clipping are not life. Yes they have DNA, but so does a dead body. And I’m pretty sure everyone agrees a dead body does not have life.and doesn’t grow. The reason nail clippings grow is because at the nail bed, new cells push out old dead and hardened ones called keratin – ie a protein. Hair isn’t alive or has life either and happens the same way. At the follicle the new cells push out the old dead ones. DNA does not dictate life. Please be scientifically and and more importantly intellectually consistent in regards to abortion, or really any argument..

            But you still don’t have an answer to the issue. Why is one called murder (at any week of gestation) when a mother and baby get killed say from a murder, but the abortion is not considered murdered until after a certain number of weeks? Is it because you can’t say when a human goes from life to a human being? Is it because you won’t acknowledge a human being after a certain threshold is reached? Is is it because you and others really don’t know when a human being comes into existence? You see doesn’t matter if you use human or life, because you can’t have one without the other.

            Liberals and especially pro abortion people, have no scientific and intellectually consistent views. In other words it has to hold water all the way through your arguments, and it doesn’t.

          2. Jay S 4:34 The rock solid position of anti abortion religion and the politics that follow is that abortion at any stage of a pregnancy, including one fertilized cell, is murder. That makes one fertilized cell a human being.

            One fertilized cell is not a human being. I am not in the business of deciding when fetus changes into a human being. Our laws establish a human being at birth. Various cultures establish that the life of a human being starts at other times. For example, places with very high infant mortality delay naming until as long as two years to help the emotional struggle with infant death. When a human life begins is a cultural/religious construct. It is not about science.

            A popular religious idea in the West is that one fertilized cell is a human being. They are trying to pass laws making this so. This is a ridiculous idea.

          3. Catcher

            “One fertilized cell” “One fertilized cell” “one fertilized cell”. NO, NO, NO! That just does not stand up.

            8 hours after fertilization, it is not “One fertilized cell”. Real biology.

          4. Catcher 5:14 8 hours after fertilization, is is not “One fertilized cell.

            I’m sorry you do not understand anti abortion theology. If the cell is killed during those eight hours it is murder. Ask Matt.

          5. Catcher

            @ 5;52; Not talking “anti abortion theology”. or religion. Starting at about 8 hours after fertilization, cell division starts, then doubles, then doubles, etc. Biology science. Look it up. “One fertilized cell” (a mantra you use constantly) is simply dishonest given an 8 hour time lag .for the first division. producing 2 cells. Then the divisions are off and running.

          6. Henry 6:23 The law is the law. I do repeat what the law is often. If society agrees there is some better definition it might be fine with me. Except, I will not ever agree one fertilized cell is a human being.

          7. Catcher

            @ 6;41 and 6;45; I could care less what you “am”. You continue to use “One fertilized cell”, even proven biologically wrong. The process to divide starts the moment of fertilization, and approx. 8 hr. later, there are two cells. So much for a man who brags about science and evidence.- – Then denies it.

          8. Catcher 7:02 I could care less what you “am”.

            And, I could care less what you are talking about. I am talking about a religious idea. The idea is that one fertilized egg is a human being. It’s bonkers. If you think it is not bonkers, be my guest. It is what the entire Catholic Church believes and plenty of Protestants. I don’t know what your point is bringing up the correct notion that in eight hours it starts to split. What does that have to do with Catholic dogma?

          9. Catcher

            @ 9;45; Again; the “one fertilized cell” Don’t know how to use Google or Bing I see. This has nothing to do with religion, or even pro / anti abortion. It’s biological science.

  4. Danl

    It’s a bit ironic that you’re using your forum sharing your world view to tell Christians not to share their beliefs. I’m guessing that as mayor you didn’t simply file for office and then hope people found out about you and your position on issues. You told them. Faith is the same thing. In this broken world where pain is everywhere, when people are in need, I’m going to share what God has done for me in my life, not simply hope someone finds out I’m a Christian and asks me about it. No, I’m not going to stand on a street corner and preach, but I’m also not going to be shy because it’s too good of a story not to share.

    1. Matt 1:35 The suicide rate among homosexuals is higher than heterosexuals….It stand to reason that to save more lives, those homosexuals should be converted to heterosexuals

      Apparently you did not actually read the link you provided. At the top in bold letters is warns there is not world wide agreement on the conclusions implied.

      Toward the end of the article is cites the National Association of Suicide Prevention which says there are not nations statistics verifying a higher rate among LGBT people because this is not noted on death certificates and there is not an agreed upon criteria for separating this population from the general population. There has always been these three parts to gender orientation. One is how people present themselves to others. Some straight people even present themselves as gay. Many, maybe most, people attracted to same sex present themselves as heterosexual. Then, there is what people themselves think of their sexual orientation. Many who seem to be attracted to same sex do not think of themselves as homosexual. Third, there is the actual attraction experienced by a person.

        1. Matt 3:24 I would not be survived if any group which is marginalized, ridiculed and lonely has a higher suicide rate.

          I’m just saying research can measure accurately relationships between variables that are reliable indicators. We know the age of people, location, etc. Conservative people argue constantly about the percentage of gays in our society. They say the number is lower than what is often claimed. If you are in a population of people who are not intimidated by being “out” it will appear there are more gays than in a population where they do not feel safe being out.

          I was on a national talk show (RFD) once debating gay rights and my opponent said children of gay parents are more likely to be gay. He was trying to make the point gay parents are harmful. Well, duh! Children raised by gay parents do not think there is anything wrong with being gay so they are more likely to out themselves if they are gay. The opposite with children of hetero parents.

          I repeat, your source had a disclaimer there is not agreement on the percentage of gay suicides.

          1. Society tends to use social pressure to minimize those individuals and groups which they consider to be practicing behaviors which are detrimental to society. Society and individuals also tend to behave in a way the pleases them. Some behave in a way to please their God.

            Pedophiles tend to be shunned by everyone. Criminals naturally try to hide their activities. People who seek abortions are generally not thought of welll, but better than pedophiles. Same for atheists, Christians, Republicans, Democrats, Tom Brady fans.

  5. Jinx II

    Skimming through the posts here today brought me back to the Dark Ages….ignorant, hateful, and filled with righteous indignation. Definitely the opinions of the cult of christian sharia follows.

  6. Nikki

    lol I did not read just Christian view points Jinx, I read atheist hate speech ranting loudly xD but what I see here happening often is two sides continue to argue with what the each think is the rightful way, neither side ever agrees with the other. Honestly this article could have been written the other way too, look how much the other side tries to stifle Christian freedom of speech. I bet if those two quit talking about religion and politics all together they might be able to be good friends lol, bet they have a lot in common considering the time they spend on here combating each other. And one last side note, not every Christian shoves their religion down people’s throats; as a matter of fact I usually fear I can not talk about it as not to offend people. So yay for both sides making both sides feel offended!!!!

Comments are closed.