... The tip thing is pretty horrible.
Yeah, that part is pretty lame -- witnessing to your waiter at his expense, so to speak. It's not a lot different than dumping tracts and no candy into the bags of kids who come to your door at Halloween. I think sensitive proselytizers would understand to do both, if they're going to distribute tracts at all; this way, it feels like total cluelessness in regards to the needs and perceptions of others.
You have to see it from his perspective, he meant well, he honestly thinks he's doing a good deed here...
Actually I think the RUDEST part was when he said accepting Jesus would save her soul, because it implies that her soul needs saving in the first place, it implies that he thinks there is something wrong with you.
Reference your first comment. It is more loving to suggest someone needs their soul saved and pretty hateful to avoid saying it if you think they truly will burn for eternity in hell.
Of course, if you're someone who doesn't believe in their religion, it does come off as mighty offensive... that someone thinks that, without talking to others, they have a handle on their personality morality and ethics enough to damn them to hell.
We find such behavior unacceptable because of the values that we hold to. The values I have in mind are those that are typically associated with the civilized Western culture. We tend to think that most people deserve the basic right to personal space, freedom of thought and common courtesy. In other words, it seems intuitively obvious to us that any person has a right to go about his or her own business without random intrusions. We also tend to think that what they believe regarding their philosophy on life and the after-life should be up to them, we are not in the position to force our views onto them. In addition to that we assume that most people are decent enough to have our basic respect. This means that we certainly are not going to tell them that they are reprobates deserving eternal damnation if they don't look at life our way.
What's interesting is that I know a lot of Christians who are both -- they hold the fundamentalist view here about what "gets you into heaven" and that everyone is automatically a sinner, etc., but especially in this area it's considered rude by many to interfere or be publicly critical of others in the context described. (i.e., within the right arena, one can express such views openly, and maybe within close family under certain context). I have had pastors from my mom's church write me hateful letters and while many Christians I know around here probably agreed with the contents, they all stated it was extremely inappropriate contextually for me to receive this letters from these guys. There really is a sense of propriety in some religious circles about when and how beliefs can be openly discussed, regardless of the stance held.
I always find it interesting hearing about how in India there are records of an Isha Nath who would seem to correspond with Jesus: white guy, came from middle east, "the missing years".
I'm sure you're right. (Let me go check Snopes!)
Make an argument for why these proofs should be read as as attempts to establish the conclusion that the Christian God exists and not the conclusion that God exists.
Thank you, that's exactly right.
(Sort of like ID assuming blithely that if there was a designer, it was in fact the Christian God and not some other variation.)