Why is fear mongering a central tenet to fundamentalist evangelism?

Nothing, and I mean nothing, serves to push me farther away from what evangelists wish to convey to non-believers than the constant threat of eternal torment in hell. Do they honestly believe that this helps their cause? All it accomplishes is to place the threatened immediately on the defensive. There are some, but very few, theists on these boards that preach acceptance, compassion, and a feeling of welcome. No eternal torment, no brimstone. That immediately takes me off the defensive and makes me much more open to learning about their beliefs and willing to listen to what they have to say. I remember seeing on the CWU boards a while back someone post that they were disappointed they could not use fear as a tool for evangelism in OT after the rules for religious debates were posted. I couldn't believe it.

So I ask those concerned: In which way do you think that your threats and the prospect of eternal condemnation serve to benefit your efforts? Has it ever occurred to you that your attempt at scare tactics are simply pushing farther away those that you are trying to save?

Fear is a power motivator. Elraptor

Bingo!

Fear can make people do things that they would otherwise not do.

This is one of the main things that drove me away from Christianity a few years ago. IMO, it's really a rather evil abuse of human psychology.

When asked about my opinion on religion, I'll generally say that I believe eastern religion is a good thing whereas Abrahamic religion is a negative for the world. However, I think that a better answer would be that I think that Christianity and Islam (and even then mainly fundamentalism) are negatives and that Judaism is probably a good thing, or at the very least neutral.

Damn, I posted an answer last night and it didn't take.  Oh well, as many have said fear is a motivation to many, and the Church has made it's name and fortune off of it.  It's worked for nearly two thousand years, no reason for them to stop now.btaylor2404

I actually was shocked when I looked up the origins of Christianity and such like.  Something I never knew until I did that was that the entire doctrine of eternal punishment for sins gained mainstream acceptance basically because the Roman government officially endorsed that doctrine, barred anyone from openly contradicting it, and then used the threat of eternal punishment as a weapon.  That's basically where it came from; prior to that, the majority of Christians were universalists (i.e., believed that all humans would eventually go to heaven).  I never knew this until I looked it up, but when I did, it's amazing how many things make perfect sense in light of that historical tidbit.

[QUOTE="btaylor2404"]Damn, I posted an answer last night and it didn't take. Oh well, as many have said fear is a motivation to many, and the Church has made it's name and fortune off of it. It's worked for nearly two thousand years, no reason for them to stop now.GabuEx

I actually was shocked when I looked up the origins of Christianity and such like. Something I never knew until I did that was that the entire doctrine of eternal punishment for sins gained mainstream acceptance basically because the Roman government officially endorsed that doctrine, barred anyone from openly contradicting it, and then used the threat of eternal punishment as a weapon. That's basically where it came from; prior to that, the majority of Christians were universalists (i.e., believed that all humans would eventually go to heaven). I never knew this until I looked it up, but when I did, it's amazing how many things make perfect sense in light of that historical tidbit.

Can't we attribute much of Christianity's conservatism on the fact that it coincided with the Roman rule? I mean from my point of view, the Romans were quite conservative. Couldn't the socio-political principles they established affect it so much?

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="btaylor2404"]Damn, I posted an answer last night and it didn't take. Oh well, as many have said fear is a motivation to many, and the Church has made it's name and fortune off of it. It's worked for nearly two thousand years, no reason for them to stop now.Teenaged

I actually was shocked when I looked up the origins of Christianity and such like. Something I never knew until I did that was that the entire doctrine of eternal punishment for sins gained mainstream acceptance basically because the Roman government officially endorsed that doctrine, barred anyone from openly contradicting it, and then used the threat of eternal punishment as a weapon. That's basically where it came from; prior to that, the majority of Christians were universalists (i.e., believed that all humans would eventually go to heaven). I never knew this until I looked it up, but when I did, it's amazing how many things make perfect sense in light of that historical tidbit.

Can't we attribute much of Christianity's conservatism on the fact that it coincided with the Roman rule? I mean from my point of view, the Romans were quite conservative. Couldn't the socio-political principles they established affect it so much?

EDIT: But the Romans were conservative? If I recall correctly, they had (for a while) a republic of sorts, which was pretty revolutionary at the time.

That's actually a theme some people around here have been toting. I have no clue myself since I haven't read the Bible.

EDIT: But the Romans were conservative? If I recall correctly, they had (for a while) a republic of sorts, which was pretty revolutionary at the time.

helium_flash

EDIT: But the Romans were conservative? If I recall correctly, they had (for a while) a republic of sorts, which was pretty revolutionary at the time.

helium_flash

[QUOTE="helium_flash"]

EDIT: But the Romans were conservative? If I recall correctly, they had (for a while) a republic of sorts, which was pretty revolutionary at the time.

Teenaged

Actually, no. Part of the reason why the Roman empire collapsed was decadence on all levels of society. Looking beyond that, they were great fans of good food and drinks, brutal and simple entertainment and also were much more open about sex than we are today. In fact, IIRC some richer Romans even had male slaves which they used for sex - as long as it was with a slave it was ok, and being gay was not seen as that weird anyway. :P

Christianity was actually one of the direct reasons for the fall of Rome as well, as priests and other Christian characters took more and more power from the corrupted and weak government.

They were definitely no monks.

[QUOTE="Teenaged"][QUOTE="helium_flash"]

EDIT: But the Romans were conservative? If I recall correctly, they had (for a while) a republic of sorts, which was pretty revolutionary at the time.

inoperativeRS

Actually, no. Part of the reason why the Roman empire collapsed was decadence on all levels of society. Looking beyond that, they were great fans of good food and drinks, brutal and simple entertainment and also were much more open about sex than we are today. In fact, IIRC some richer Romans even had male slaves which they used for sex - as long as it was with a slave it was ok, and being gay was not seen as that weird anyway. :P

Christianity was actually one of the direct reasons for the fall of Rome as well, as priests and other Christian characters took more and more power from the corrupted and weak government.

They were definitely no monks.

But again I am not sure. It's just the impression I had. :?

[QUOTE="inoperativeRS"][QUOTE="Teenaged"][QUOTE="helium_flash"]

EDIT: But the Romans were conservative? If I recall correctly, they had (for a while) a republic of sorts, which was pretty revolutionary at the time.

Teenaged

Actually, no. Part of the reason why the Roman empire collapsed was decadence on all levels of society. Looking beyond that, they were great fans of good food and drinks, brutal and simple entertainment and also were much more open about sex than we are today. In fact, IIRC some richer Romans even had male slaves which they used for sex - as long as it was with a slave it was ok, and being gay was not seen as that weird anyway. :P

Christianity was actually one of the direct reasons for the fall of Rome as well, as priests and other Christian characters took more and more power from the corrupted and weak government.

They were definitely no monks.

But again I am not sure. It's just the impression I had. :?

That was probably true in the early period of the Roman empire. Later on (certainly before Christianity became important) the Romans became lazy and fat themselves, metaphorically speaking. The fact that the Orthodox (Greek) part of the Roman Empire survived almost 1000 years longer than the Latin (Roman) part does tell you something about the quality of leadership in the two states.

That was probably true in the early period of the Roman empire. Later on (certainly before Christianity became important) the Romans became lazy and fat themselves, metaphorically speaking. The fact that the Orthodox (Greek) part of the Roman Empire survived almost 1000 years longer than the Latin (Roman) part does tell you something about the quality of leadership in the two states.

inoperativeRS

Well, if I started a religion, the first thing I'd do is make the punishment very severe if anyone left if. Then I'd say that if you give into your doubts you will be punished as well.

That is why it is so hard for people to leave Christianity.

So I don't find anything unusual here.

[QUOTE="Teenaged"][QUOTE="inoperativeRS"][QUOTE="Teenaged"][QUOTE="helium_flash"]

 

inoperativeRS

But again I am not sure. It's just the impression I had. :?

That was probably true in the early period of the Roman empire. Later on (certainly before Christianity became important) the Romans became lazy and fat themselves, metaphorically speaking. The fact that the Orthodox (Greek) part of the Roman Empire survived almost 1000 years longer than the Latin (Roman) part does tell you something about the quality of leadership in the two states.

I remember seeing on the CWU boards a while back someone post that they were disappointed they could not use fear as a tool for evangelism in OT after the rules for religious debates were posted. I couldn't believe it.

Rekunta

Link, please? This tactic is certainly not used by our union. It is a fact of our belief that if you don't accept Christ as your saviour and repent of your sins you will go to hell. 

Well, if I started a religion, the first thing I'd do is make the punishment very severe if anyone left if. Then I'd say that if you give into your doubts you will be punished as well.

That is why it is so hard for people to leave Christianity.

So I don't find anything unusual here.

helium_flash

As I said the fear mongering is not in the bible,and jesus sure id not preach that way.

mattykovax

We shouldn't become Christians out of fear, or on the "off-chance" that it might actually be right. As you said, Jesus didn't use that tactic, he just told it as it was. We should do the same.

It tells you that the capital was moved to Byzantium :Phelium_flash

The state was split into two, and the western part was still governed under Rome. While it never 'fell' per se it's usually said to have ceased to exist around 476 AD, when a Germanic general took control of Rome and sent the last emperor into exile.

[QUOTE="Rekunta"]

I remember seeing on the CWU boards a while back someone post that they were disappointed they could not use fear as a tool for evangelism in OT after the rules for religious debates were posted. I couldn't believe it.

Lansdowne5

Link, please? This tactic is certainly not used by our union. It is a fact of our belief that if you don't accept Christ as your saviour and repent of your sins you will go to hell.

I will look for it, it was back when the OT rules were posted and I've no idea what thread it was in so I'll have to do a search. As for not using fear as a tactic, what does the question "based on your answers, what do you think your eternal destination will be?", which I've seen in many OT threads (most commonly asked by a very prominent member of the CWU), imply exactly? That that person is either destined for heaven or hell, meant to instill fear of the consequences if their answers don't coincide with your beliefs.

If that's not a fear tactic, then I don't know what is.

This is pretty much the biggest thing that drove me from christianity as others have said. The way the bible was always preached I always had and still have this image of the universe as a sandbox,with god and lucifer in it,two five year olds fighting over who has the most toys. Thats not accurate if you read the bible without church interference,but hearing hellfire and brimstone preaching from a very early age has made it an image i cannot erase.mattykovax

Most of the people who do it view it as a success that they're driving people out of Christianity, as it shows that Christianity is being persecuted against. It's a double-edged sword.

I always got the impression that the New Testament God was not as nice as the Old Testament God, because the NT God didn't create eternal punishment for sinners, where as the OT God just killed them right away. 

Jesus didn't use that tactic, he just told it as it was.

Lansdowne5

Jesus spoke in parables, so no, I don't think he told it as it was. 

Jesus spoke in parables, so no, I don't think he told it as it was. 

Genetic_Code

No? So when he said - "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me" (John 14:6) he wasn't telling it as it was? Because it sure sounds like he was . . . . . .

I will look for it, it was back when the OT rules were posted and I've no idea what thread it was in so I'll have to do a search.

Rekunta

Any luck? :) 

 

As for not using fear as a tactic, what does the question "based on your answers, what do you think your eternal destination will be?", which I've seen in many OT threads (most commonly asked by a very prominent member of the CWU), imply exactly?

Rekunta

It implies that if you don't find Salvation through Christ you will go to hell. Which, for 1) should not bother the person in the first place because if they are a non-believer they do not accept God exists, and 2) is not intended to scare anyone, but merely state what will happen, according to our belief, if you do not repent of your sins and accept the Lord.

  

That that person is either destined for heaven or hell, meant to instill fear of the consequences if their answers don't coincide with your beliefs.

Rekunta

No it's really not....

As for not using fear as a tactic, what does the question "based on your answers, what do you think your eternal destination will be?", which I've seen in many OT threads (most commonly asked by a very prominent member of the CWU), imply exactly?

Rekunta

No? So when he said - "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me" (John 14:6) he wasn't telling it as it was? Because it sure sounds like he was . . . . . .
Lansdowne5

With statements like that, He told it like it was. I'll give you that. 

With statements like that, He told it like it was. I'll give you that. 

Genetic_Code

I think you mistunderstood what I meant. When I said Jesus "told it as it was" I meant specifically in regards to who would go to heaven and who would go to hell. :)

[QUOTE="mattykovax"]This is pretty much the biggest thing that drove me from christianity as others have said. The way the bible was always preached I always had and still have this image of the universe as a sandbox,with god and lucifer in it,two five year olds fighting over who has the most toys. Thats not accurate if you read the bible without church interference,but hearing hellfire and brimstone preaching from a very early age has made it an image i cannot erase.Genetic_Code

Most of the people who do it view it as a success that they're driving people out of Christianity, as it shows that Christianity is being persecuted against. It's a double-edged sword.

I always got the impression that the New Testament God was not as nice as the Old Testament God, because the NT God didn't create eternal punishment for sinners, where as the OT God just killed them right away.

[QUOTE="Genetic_Code"]

[QUOTE="mattykovax"]This is pretty much the biggest thing that drove me from christianity as others have said. The way the bible was always preached I always had and still have this image of the universe as a sandbox,with god and lucifer in it,two five year olds fighting over who has the most toys. Thats not accurate if you read the bible without church interference,but hearing hellfire and brimstone preaching from a very early age has made it an image i cannot erase.mattykovax

Most of the people who do it view it as a success that they're driving people out of Christianity, as it shows that Christianity is being persecuted against. It's a double-edged sword.

I always got the impression that the New Testament God was not as nice as the Old Testament God, because the NT God didn't create eternal punishment for sinners, where as the OT God just killed them right away.

Hmm, now I'm curious. Why do you have a Christian Fish (?) in your signature? 

In both religion and politics, fear always has and always will be a formidable weapon in the repertiore of those seeking to control they're followers. It also raises the question of of why Heaven and Hell was even mentioned in the Bible, if God's intention is to allow only the good into heaven. For example, if a person found someone else's wallet in the street and returned it not expecting a reward then surely that person is better than someone who returns it only out of fear that they'll get into trouble for keeping it or because they want a reward. Wouldn't a better system be to just lay down the rules, without fear of punishment or the promise of reward, and see who followed them of their own free will because they felt it was the right thing to do.

 As an interesting side note, I found out recently that the name of the Norse goddess of the underworld was also Hel.

[QUOTE="Rekunta"]

I will look for it, it was back when the OT rules were posted and I've no idea what thread it was in so I'll have to do a search.

Lansdowne5

Any luck? :)

As for not using fear as a tactic, what does the question "based on your answers, what do you think your eternal destination will be?", which I've seen in many OT threads (most commonly asked by a very prominent member of the CWU), imply exactly?

Rekunta

It implies that if you don't find Salvation through Christ you will go to hell. Which, for 1) should not bother the person in the first place because if they are a non-believer they do not accept God exists, and 2) is not intended to scare anyone, but merely state what will happen, according to our belief, if you do not repent of your sins and accept the Lord.

That that person is either destined for heaven or hell, meant to instill fear of the consequences if their answers don't coincide with your beliefs.

Rekunta

No it's really not....

Here's the link, second post.

In response to your points:

1) Whether or not the person believes in God is completely irrelevant, it's the intention that is at issue here. So by your logic, if someone was on the verge of believing or undecided as to whether God exists, and the idea of hell does bother them, does that then not constitute using fear as a tool for evangelism? How about the continual threat of going to hell to attempt to keep those that do hold faith but wish to convert/leave? Seems like coercion through fear to me.

2) Then why reiterate what people already know so well? They know what hell is and what you think will happen according to your beliefs, it's no secret. You put a gun to someone's head and tell them that unless they believe something they will be shot. Sure, that's what's going to happen, however it does not negate the fact that it still holds the intention of creating fear.

[QUOTE="Genetic_Code"]

With statements like that, He told it like it was. I'll give you that.

Lansdowne5

I think you mistunderstood what I meant. When I said Jesus "told it as it was" I meant specifically in regards to who would go to heaven and who would go to hell. :)

Here's the link, second post.

Rekunta

1. Why make the generalization that because ONE of our members says something, we all agree?

2. He was not "disappointed [that he] could not use fear as a tool for evangelism in OT". Silenthps was worried that he would be unable to state his belief, i.e - that if you don't believe in God you will go to hell.

 

1) Whether or not the person believes in God is completely irrelevant, it's the intention that is at issue here. So by your logic, if someone was on the verge of believing or undecided as to whether God exists, and the idea of hell does bother them, does that then not constitute using fear as a tool for evangelism? How about the continual threat of going to hell to attempt to keep those that do hold faith but wish to convert/leave? Seems like coercion through fear to me.

Rekunta

Nope. It's a fact of our belief that if you don't accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior and repent of your sins you WILL go to hell. It's not a fear tactic, anymore than me enforcing the off-side rule in a game of football is. If people want to play the game, they have to abide by the rules. If people don't want to abide by the rules, don't play the game.

  

2) Then why reiterate what people already know so well? They know what hell is and what you think will happen according to your beliefs, it's no secret. You put a gun to someone's head and tell them that unless they believe something they will be shot. Sure, that's what's going to happen, however it does not negate the fact that it still holds the intention of creating fear.

Rekunta

Sure. ;) You're telling me that everybody who uses this gaming website knows exactly what hell is? Exactly what rejecting God means? And exactly what the Bible says on the subject? I have news for you, THEY DON'T! :o I've seen numerous people in the OT threads learn things about Heaven/Hell which they previously had no knowledge of. Just because 'you' may know all about it, doesn't mean other people do.

1. Why make the generalization that because ONE of our members says something, we all agree?

2. He was not "disappointed [that he] could not use fear as a tool for evangelism in OT". Silenthps was worried that he would be unable to state his belief, i.e - that if you don't believe in God you will go to hell.

Lansdowne5

*sigh*

1) Read my original statement. I made no such generalization, please do not put words into my mouth.

2) This is what he said, and I quote:

"The only thing I'd really have a problem with is:

In addition, you may not direct predictions of dire personal consequence--e.g. "You're going to hell!"--to specific individuals.

There will probably be alot of grey areas to this rule... we all know how those mods are :S."

That is a threat, plain and simple. I can see how you don't see it as such as it's genuinely what you believe and you see it as simply stating a fact, but to anyone that may be curious about religion or doesn't believe in the first place, it is. And no, not believing a threat exists based on belief/non-belief that it will be carried out does not mean that the threat doesn't exist in the first place.

Your logic really is incredible. I think I'll start living my life with the idea that I can go around threatening who I please under the premise, "it's not a threat, it's simply my belief". :lol:

Nope. It's a fact of our belief that if you don't accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior and repent of your sins you WILL go to hell. It's not a fear tactic, anymore than me enforcing the off-side rule in a game of football is. If people want to play the game, they have to abide by the rules. If people don't want to abide by the rules, don't play the game.

Lansdowne5

Are you going to address my questions in the above posts instead of restating what you believe? I well know what they are. :) Quit side-stepping. And the football game is a terrible analogy. Play the game, abide by the rules.....sure.... for those already playing. Oh yea.....don't play the game, suffer eternal torment.

Sure. ;) You're telling me that everybody who uses this gaming website knows exactly what hell is? Exactly what rejecting God means? And exactly what the Bible says on the subject? I have news for you, THEY DON'T! :o I've seen numerous people in the OT threads learn things about Heaven/Hell which they previously had no knowledge of. Just because 'you' may know all about it, doesn't mean other people do.

Lansdowne5

Oh, c'mon. Hell is one of the most well known places aside from Mother Earth herself. It is a concept that runs across many cultures and has existed for a very long time. OK, I'll grant you that many are possibly ignorant of exactly what scripture describes it to be, but they know what hell is.

[QUOTE="Rekunta"]

Here's the link, second post.

Lansdowne5

1. Why make the generalization that because ONE of our members says something, we all agree?

2. He was not "disappointed [that he] could not use fear as a tool for evangelism in OT". Silenthps was worried that he would be unable to state his belief, i.e - that if you don't believe in God you will go to hell.

1) Whether or not the person believes in God is completely irrelevant, it's the intention that is at issue here. So by your logic, if someone was on the verge of believing or undecided as to whether God exists, and the idea of hell does bother them, does that then not constitute using fear as a tool for evangelism? How about the continual threat of going to hell to attempt to keep those that do hold faith but wish to convert/leave? Seems like coercion through fear to me.

Rekunta

Nope. It's a fact of our belief that if you don't accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior and repent of your sins you WILL go to hell. It's not a fear tactic, anymore than me enforcing the off-side rule in a game of football is. If people want to play the game, they have to abide by the rules. If people don't want to abide by the rules, don't play the game.

2) Then why reiterate what people already know so well? They know what hell is and what you think will happen according to your beliefs, it's no secret. You put a gun to someone's head and tell them that unless they believe something they will be shot. Sure, that's what's going to happen, however it does not negate the fact that it still holds the intention of creating fear.

Rekunta

Sure. ;) You're telling me that everybody who uses this gaming website knows exactly what hell is? Exactly what rejecting God means? And exactly what the Bible says on the subject? I have news for you, THEY DON'T! :o I've seen numerous people in the OT threads learn things about Heaven/Hell which they previously had no knowledge of. Just because 'you' may know all about it, doesn't mean other people do.

How do you know that 'your' version of hell has any more truth in it than the other people's??THUMPTABLE

Quick! Someone get the wheel of power!

As an evangelical I myself get rather annoyed at others who "evangelize" by means of telling people who horrible they might be. Insults and an I'm-holier-than-you attitude is not how Jesus nor Paul evangelized so why should Christians do the same? I am not saying to never mention eternal punishment, but I'd much rather show the beauty of the gospel message than have a judgemental attitude... I do not seek to be a Pharisee shouting how unholy everyone else is while displaying my own "righteousness." ...meh.

As an evangelical I myself get rather annoyed at others who "evangelize" by means of telling people who horrible they might be. Insults and an I'm-holier-than-you attitude is not how Jesus nor Paul evangelized so why should Christians do the same? I am not saying to never mention eternal punishment, but I'd much rather show the beauty of the gospel message than have a judgemental attitude... I do not seek to be a Pharisee shouting how unholy everyone else is while displaying my own "righteousness." ...meh.

 

mindstorm