Come off it, parrot. Take your copy-paste gibberish somewhere else.

God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, so that no human being might boast in the presence of God. And because of him you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption, so that, as it is written, “Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord.”

I was brough up in the unitarian universalist church, as was a close friend of mine(whom I had no clue was brough up in my church, albeit 2 years after me). We were confronted in a mall at a monthly meeting we held there by some evangelists as we were leaving around christmas. We both gave long explanations of why we had doubts, the base being a)people who , in good faith, have believed things we now as a culture know to be wrong(such as slavery and the inquisition) were despite their ‘faithh, despite their ‘personal relationship to God’, wrong. If they, in all good faith were wrong, how could these evangelists know they were right in their -interpretation- of what they believed. And b) I had just read ‘Who Wrote the Bible’ by Richard Friedman, and recounted to the evangelists the real story behind the golden calf & the breaking of the tablets of the ten commandments. We ended up leaving with no real resolution, as with all confrontations with evangelists.

But a year later, again at our monthly meetings, we were confronted by evangelists. Again, we engaged them in conversation, again offering similar statements which tried their faith – and eventually, after about half an hour, they asked if we were there a year previous. A group from their church had come to prosoletize the mall at christmas, and in the end, they all left their church – some entirely, some to less evangelical churches. We had deconverted them by getting into their worldview, and creating serious problems – it wasn’t by streight out telling them they were wrong, it was our core argument that we both could be wrong. I can handle the fact I could be wrong – their worldview couldn’t.

The real challenge is not to bash heads with the religious, but to convince them of the error of their ways.
The way to do this is not from our view, but from theirs.
The question we need to be asking is not ‘what is the worst experience you’ve had’ but ‘how can we effect real change’ – because as much as conversations with evangelists can feel like smashing your head against a brick wall, it can work, and we as a group need to figure out how to do that on a larger scale. It can be done.

So according to you Darryl personal actions and choices don’t matter? It doesn’t matter if someone never supported Bush or his policies? If they share the label “Christian” or “evangelical” with someone who does, they’re just as culpable?

You know, Mike, I’ll say this – I would like to see progressive evangelicals being a lot more vocal about these issues. I’ve felt for some time that at least part of the reason the conservatives were able to seize control (denominationally and otherwise) is that liberals and moderates allowed them to. In recent years, you have people like Jim Wallis speaking out, but, even then, he’ll only go so far. I think they have a sentimental attachment to that world, and they display a reticence about criticizing their “brothers and sisters in Christ” too vehemently. Jim wants to bring the conservatives to the table; I heard him say as much in a public talk he gave in Boston about three years ago. It influenced my opinion of him, frankly. I’m not keen on engaging them, as I don’t think conservative evangelicals understand dialogue; they only understand monologue. I’d like to see Jim and the rest of you becoming visibly and publicly as angry as are those of us on the secular left.

And you can tell him I said so!

So according to you Darryl personal actions and choices don’t matter? It doesn’t matter if someone never supported Bush or his policies? If they share the label “Christian” or “evangelical” with someone who does, they’re just as culpable?

No.

As far as what would work? Nothing. I know the story. I know the drill. I probably know the bible better than the person making the attempt, so don’t even go there.

Those suicidal “values voters” share the blame for this debacle–no matter how many of them voted for John Kerry.

So according to you Darryl personal actions and choices don’t matter? It doesn’t matter if someone never supported Bush or his policies? If they share the label “Christian” or “evangelical” with someone who does, they’re just as culpable?

Shall we apply that same standard to atheists as well? Do you want to be held responsible for every stupid or evil thing any other atheist has done?