4 ms·

What makes people like you think it's a good idea to go and bother people in their home about your religious beliefs? Many people must find it frightening or ju

What makes people like you think it's a good idea to go and bother people in their home about your religious beliefs? Many people must find it frightening or just very annoying. Why subject people to that? It doesn't seem nice, let alone Christian.

ohitsdom 11y ago
> Why subject people to that? If Christians truly believe nonbelievers are going to hell, it's the only loving response. The magician (and atheist) Penn has a great story about this [0]. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owZc3Xq8obk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owZc3Xq8obk
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  It can only be viewed as a loving response if you think its effective, rather than alienating. If you believe unbelievers are going to hell, and believe (or observe) that that approach to evangelization is alienating, then its more than just rude...
  - HCIdivision17 11y ago
    My two cents on this off-topic discussion... I've never been a part of the goin't'hell group, but in my fairly extensive experience as a young adult in an evangelical religious group, I certainly got the impression that the high touch personal approach was taken as more effective. Most people don't really like doing the door-to-door salesperson routine[0]. But they do it because it seems to work - assuming anyone actually answers the door (which is the real rarity). Or at least is effective enough; conversion rates are, shall we say, low. It doesn't need to be high, though, since the risk and reward is so high (failure means more lost, success is a life). [0] For introverts it can be extremely stressful - practice is the only thing that seems to make the terror go away for them. If the person at the door preachin' the word looks awkward and is stammering, be kind - they're more afraid of you than you are of them :) EDIT: slight grammar/clarification. EDIT EDIT: This is off-topic enough I'm going to just truncate part of my comment to gist: https://gist.github.com/anonymous/dead25324e4f74ccc183 https://gist.github.com/anonymous/dead25324e4f74ccc183
    - littlepooghish 11y ago
      > If the person at the door preachin' the word looks awkward and is stammering, be kind - they're more afraid of you than you are of them :) Wait a minute - so they don't like it, I don't like it... so why are we doing this?
      - HCIdivision17 11y ago
        It's the theological equivalent of "eat your vegetables". The link to Penn's commentary explains it reasonably well: no one wants to tackle another person, but you'd do it to stop someone from getting hit by a truck. Likewise, if you're sincere in thinking educating others of the theological risks can save their life - like you're not just going through the church-on-sunday motions, personal feelings take a back seat. To them it's too important to let petty things get in the way. Naturally, this can backfire pretty hard. But that's the cost of taking the faith seriously.
    - dragonwriter 11y ago
      > It doesn't need to be high, though, since the risk and reward is so high (failure means more lost, success is a life). I think the risk:reward is often seen as higher than it should be even given the "going to hell" assumption, because the failure cost of the attempt is seen as capped at zero because alienation is not considered. This might make sense in a context where your particular door-to-door attempt was very likely to be the only exposure to Christianity that the target would ever have, but (since alienation of an unbeliever in that case would have the same effect as not making that particular door-to-door conversion attempt), but somewhat unlikely in the modern world.
      - HCIdivision17 11y ago
        Nicely put. This is exactly why there was (is?) quite a lot of effort in finding effective alternatives to the door-to-door method. There's still a lot of people who aren't modern (and the 'no person left behind' policy dictates that you'd continue to do door-to-door to sweep them up), but alternatives are needed.
dropit_sphere 11y ago
It seems like you're purposely picking a fight. Is this really a line of discussion that belongs here, given the topic?
- littlepooghish 11y ago
  Oh I'm sorry - is it rude to interrupt someone's day with a question about religious beliefs? I had no idea! (sarcasm)
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - girvo 11y ago
    Hacker News is not the place for this.
TorKlingberg 11y ago
This is too off topic.
- littlepooghish 11y ago
  So is religion on someone's doorstep.
DanBC 11y ago
It strengthens their own beliefs and it also will rarely brings new converts. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-life/11257637/Religious-sect-whats-it-like-to-grow-up-in-one.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-life/11257637/Religi... > Rachel Underhill, 39, a florist who lives in Peacehaven, East Sussex, was brought up as a Jehovah’s Witness before leaving the religion in her twenties [...] > We weren’t allowed to make friends with anyone “worldly”, which meant anyone who wasn’t a Jehovah’s Witness, or do anything outside the religion, which they called “outside the truth”. It was incredibly isolating. We were brainwashed into thinking all worldly people wanted to abuse us, and this was confirmed every time we knocked on doors to try to convert people – you can’t imagine the damage it does to a child being constantly yelled at to go away. This is why you might see me arguing against mocking religious people - it does nothing to convert them and may just strengthen their beliefs.
- themodelplumber 11y ago
  Well, that particular former Jehovah's Witness's experience doesn't match my experience with my own religion. In fact I grew up with JW friends, so I'm not sure it's even representative of their religion. > This is why you might see me arguing against mocking religious people - it does nothing to convert them and may just strengthen their beliefs. It's a good idea, and the same principle really applies to any person or group, regarding any framework, religious or not. From atheists to zookeepers.
petercooper 11y ago
Not to comment on the actual benefits (or not) of the process, but the enduring presence of Jehovah's Witnesses (and Mormons) is a sort of natural selection proof that their methods at least work to maintain their population.
deciplex 11y ago
Maybe, but "go away, I hate white people" seems a slight overreaction.
tsotha 11y ago
How would he know if he's "bothering" them without asking? Not everyone in the world is reflexively atheist.
- tomcorrigan 11y ago
  Most adults have settled views on religion which they are unlikely to change during their life. A Muslim, Jew, mainstream Christian or a person of any other religious persuasion is just as likely to be totally uninterested in the preachings of a Mormon.

ohitsdom 11y ago

> Why subject people to that? If Christians truly believe nonbelievers are going to hell, it's the only loving response. The magician (and atheist) Penn has a great story about this [0]. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owZc3Xq8obk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owZc3Xq8obk

dragonwriter 11y ago
It can only be viewed as a loving response if you think its effective, rather than alienating. If you believe unbelievers are going to hell, and believe (or observe) that that approach to evangelization is alienating, then its more than just rude...
- HCIdivision17 11y ago
  My two cents on this off-topic discussion... I've never been a part of the goin't'hell group, but in my fairly extensive experience as a young adult in an evangelical religious group, I certainly got the impression that the high touch personal approach was taken as more effective. Most people don't really like doing the door-to-door salesperson routine[0]. But they do it because it seems to work - assuming anyone actually answers the door (which is the real rarity). Or at least is effective enough; conversion rates are, shall we say, low. It doesn't need to be high, though, since the risk and reward is so high (failure means more lost, success is a life). [0] For introverts it can be extremely stressful - practice is the only thing that seems to make the terror go away for them. If the person at the door preachin' the word looks awkward and is stammering, be kind - they're more afraid of you than you are of them :) EDIT: slight grammar/clarification. EDIT EDIT: This is off-topic enough I'm going to just truncate part of my comment to gist: https://gist.github.com/anonymous/dead25324e4f74ccc183 https://gist.github.com/anonymous/dead25324e4f74ccc183
  - littlepooghish 11y ago
    > If the person at the door preachin' the word looks awkward and is stammering, be kind - they're more afraid of you than you are of them :) Wait a minute - so they don't like it, I don't like it... so why are we doing this?
    - HCIdivision17 11y ago
      It's the theological equivalent of "eat your vegetables". The link to Penn's commentary explains it reasonably well: no one wants to tackle another person, but you'd do it to stop someone from getting hit by a truck. Likewise, if you're sincere in thinking educating others of the theological risks can save their life - like you're not just going through the church-on-sunday motions, personal feelings take a back seat. To them it's too important to let petty things get in the way. Naturally, this can backfire pretty hard. But that's the cost of taking the faith seriously.
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    > It doesn't need to be high, though, since the risk and reward is so high (failure means more lost, success is a life). I think the risk:reward is often seen as higher than it should be even given the "going to hell" assumption, because the failure cost of the attempt is seen as capped at zero because alienation is not considered. This might make sense in a context where your particular door-to-door attempt was very likely to be the only exposure to Christianity that the target would ever have, but (since alienation of an unbeliever in that case would have the same effect as not making that particular door-to-door conversion attempt), but somewhat unlikely in the modern world.
    - HCIdivision17 11y ago
      Nicely put. This is exactly why there was (is?) quite a lot of effort in finding effective alternatives to the door-to-door method. There's still a lot of people who aren't modern (and the 'no person left behind' policy dictates that you'd continue to do door-to-door to sweep them up), but alternatives are needed.

dropit_sphere 11y ago

It seems like you're purposely picking a fight. Is this really a line of discussion that belongs here, given the topic?

littlepooghish 11y ago
Oh I'm sorry - is it rude to interrupt someone's day with a question about religious beliefs? I had no idea! (sarcasm)
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- girvo 11y ago
  Hacker News is not the place for this.

TorKlingberg 11y ago

This is too off topic.

littlepooghish 11y ago
So is religion on someone's doorstep.

DanBC 11y ago

It strengthens their own beliefs and it also will rarely brings new converts. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-life/11257637/Religious-sect-whats-it-like-to-grow-up-in-one.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-life/11257637/Religi... > Rachel Underhill, 39, a florist who lives in Peacehaven, East Sussex, was brought up as a Jehovah’s Witness before leaving the religion in her twenties [...] > We weren’t allowed to make friends with anyone “worldly”, which meant anyone who wasn’t a Jehovah’s Witness, or do anything outside the religion, which they called “outside the truth”. It was incredibly isolating. We were brainwashed into thinking all worldly people wanted to abuse us, and this was confirmed every time we knocked on doors to try to convert people – you can’t imagine the damage it does to a child being constantly yelled at to go away. This is why you might see me arguing against mocking religious people - it does nothing to convert them and may just strengthen their beliefs.

themodelplumber 11y ago
Well, that particular former Jehovah's Witness's experience doesn't match my experience with my own religion. In fact I grew up with JW friends, so I'm not sure it's even representative of their religion. > This is why you might see me arguing against mocking religious people - it does nothing to convert them and may just strengthen their beliefs. It's a good idea, and the same principle really applies to any person or group, regarding any framework, religious or not. From atheists to zookeepers.

petercooper 11y ago

Not to comment on the actual benefits (or not) of the process, but the enduring presence of Jehovah's Witnesses (and Mormons) is a sort of natural selection proof that their methods at least work to maintain their population.

deciplex 11y ago

Maybe, but "go away, I hate white people" seems a slight overreaction.

tsotha 11y ago

How would he know if he's "bothering" them without asking? Not everyone in the world is reflexively atheist.

tomcorrigan 11y ago
Most adults have settled views on religion which they are unlikely to change during their life. A Muslim, Jew, mainstream Christian or a person of any other religious persuasion is just as likely to be totally uninterested in the preachings of a Mormon.