What method of evangelism do you find least objectionable?

Yesterday, the question of whether it's a sin not to SPAM non-believers [I'd wondered how all that was getting into my SPAM filter]:

"Is not re-posting "God" bulletins on myspace really denying Him?"

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;...

Today scotishbob posted this:

"You might want to be a bit of research of the validity of species evolving from another species before reading about Darwin's theory.

"Recent discoveries using DNA have shown that not a single species has evolved from another."

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;...

A websearch will tell you how scotishbob's assertion compares to what's actually been found about evolution through DNA research. It will also show you the gospel site authority he didn't cite in his post.

So the question is intended to assist Christians in evangelism. Which of these methods leaves you disliking, resenting, mistrusting them least?

What method of evangelism do you find least objectionable?

I also appreciate the laughs. Good question, too.

But seriously, there's only one way that evangelism ever had any effect on me, and that was from those who basically shut up about their beliefs and just lived them. There have been a couple of kinds of people who really got my attention just by the way they lived their lives.

Maybe that doesn't fit into the definition of "evangelism", but it works as a way to stimulate my curiosity. Sometimes it was like pulling teeth to get these people to explain why they lived that way... a few of them didn't know, they just were brought up that way and didn't question it... others knew and were happy to elaborate... others were so wary of doing any evangelization that they had to be assured of my motives before answering.

But if there really are any Christians out there reading this, they might take a lesson from it. That goes for anyone who feels "called" to evangelize.

What method of evangelism do you find least objectionable?

Amen Report It

What method of evangelism do you find least objectionable?

Amen Report It

What method of evangelism do you find least objectionable?

None.

What method of evangelism do you find least objectionable?

"What method of evangelism do you find least objectionable?"

Self-immolation. It never fails to draw a big crowd - every one of them attending voluntarily. Self-immolation makes a profound statement. Self-immolation provides souvenirs.

What method of evangelism do you find least objectionable?

How about not misrepresenting things that actually have nothing to do with religion? Science doesn't say there is no god, so why do the posts you cite try to give so much misinformation on science?

What method of evangelism do you find least objectionable?

To answer the question and not the qualification: I don't

find any of them objectionable.

What method of evangelism do you find least objectionable?

Uncle Al summed it up for me......if more Christians started setting themselves on fire to spread the word of God I would have to think more about turning my life over to Jesus....I'd like to have some of those souveniers too! I was just saying to one of my friends how my home really needs more ash and bone ornaments....

Second to that would be en masse and very protracted vows of silence with churches of all faiths handing out free marijuana, cheetos and slurpees....

If these things happened not only would I start brylcreeming my hair and praising Jesus IMMEDIATELY, I think I could even convincingly pretend to be sad about Jesse Helms dying!!

What method of evangelism do you find least objectionable?

Preachers in small churches are the least objectionable.(really no objection) They often preach for no pay. Just to help us understand how magical Gods word is. I dislike preachers that get on TV and tell you that God needs our money for their Church to survive. I think Jesus would toss them out like He did the the money changers at the Temple.

What method of evangelism do you find least objectionable?

All evangelism makes me Mistrust the evangelist. Even in the non-Christian form. When a company has to scream at me about how great their product is, it tells me that their product 9 times out of 10 is not what the advertiser is trying to tell me it is. Same with religion, when an evangelist feels the need to tell me I'm going to Hell if I don't accept his God, it tells me that their God would not be worthy of worship. There are multiple religions out there, which I believe for all intents and purposes worship the same God by a different name. The evangelism that doesn't offend me so much, is when one only preaches their beliefs to those who they know wish to hear them. Meaning the preacher in the church is much less objectionable than they guy holding the sign out on the street reading "The end is near," or "God hates fags." This is not to say the church preacher isn't objectionable (more-or-less so depending on what he's preaching), I still disagree with him, but I don't have to hear it unless I want to, and if for some unlikely reason I were to debate religion with him, the chances of it being somewhat intelligent are much higher than the street preacher, who would probably just shout me down, and use circular logic, among other stupid tactics. Any form of preaching which forces someone to hear it, who doesn't want to hear it is quite objectionable (and annoying) to me.

Also, Uncle Al's post made me laugh.

What method of evangelism do you find least objectionable?

I do not find any method of evangelism least objectionable, they are all most objectionable and the utter bane of my existence.