The *Ultimate* Response to “Do You Accept Jesus as Your Personal Savior?”

Just say no that is offensive to many christians,he did die for you be thankful dumbass

Love it! ^__^

Whatever your views on religion, Madeleine Albright has some interesting things to say about the perils of ignoring religion in foreign affairs in a recent CNN interview:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/08/17/albright.qa/in...

As someone that does preach the gospel of Jesus Christ, let me re-assure everyone that people do not as a rule avoid criticizing religion. I run into it on a weekly basis. And it does not bother me. This country is founded, among other things, my right to tell you something and your right to not listen and tell me to leave or respond with what you will. Out side of the church, religious speech is not protected and nor should it be. Given the gravity of what the importance of the topic to the presenter I would say that respect is warranted. Respect does not mean agree, just basic manners and being polite, which is a lost trait with most people.

But as for the content or the original post. If someone said that to me it would cause me to respond and I would challenge them on that statement. As Carl pointed out, they do not believe that, it is something to say to try and catch someone off guard. But the merit is very low. Now if I do talk to someone and they simply tell me they do not wish to talk about it, I offer to leave something for them to read, and if they say no... I wish them a good day and thank them for their time.

Perhaps I'm simply missing something obvious, but I honestly don't understand this one.

Taking the relevant parts of the New Testament at face value, Jesus' death wasn't human sacrifice .. it was self sacrifice. Suppose someone made a choice that THEY would die if it would save (in the non-religious sense of the word) 50 others. In an appropriate context (you can make up your own scenerio) this person would be called a hero (he jumped onto a grenade -- he spent the last hour of his life helping people evacuate a building that is about to collapse -- OK, I said that you could make up your own scenerio). Would the saved people give that answer? ("I wouldn’t wish to accept personal gain as a result of an act of human sacrifice.") I don't think that they would.

On the other hand, if one views the death penalty as human sacrifice, then I suppose you'd view Jesus' death (as presented in the New Testament) as human sacrifice. In this case, IF (and ONLY IF) you believe that any benefits to society brought about by the death penalty are outweighed by the negatives of the killing itself, THEN you might say something like "I wouldn’t wish to accept personal gain as a result of an act of human sacrifice." Was this the point?

This time I'm not trying to be picky. I am just trying to understand the point of the post.

It's probably more polite to summarize your arguments on the blog and ask them to read it there.

If you add some Google ads, you might even make some money.

If somebody clicked on a Google ad everytime they try to convert you, you'd be a Googlionaire.

It is harassment if not only for the reason that they are approaching you asking if you've accepted Jesus as your savior. Maybe if they kept walking instead of harassing us, it wouldn't be consider harassing...

I agree that it's a big problem in America. Since tons of history focuses on either the government or religion, it's safe to say religion is a fairly large part of people's lives. Just because there's a rise in atheism and agnosticism doesn't mean religion isn't big anymore. There's still a lot of unexplained questions/corruption/blah blah blah going on in religion and it's a huge part of what happens everywhere.

This post is pimp.

You said "People should not be able to harass you about their pet delusions without facing real responses".

Perhaps that's the point you need to explore - how come another person stating a belief has the power to harass you.

Usually people who state their belief don't harass me (unless their belief includes me not being alive or such AND they are going to act on it). It won't bother me because I don't let it bother me.

-- Arik

I simpler but possibly more emphatic response would be:
"I don't want to profit from someone else's suffering"

(a little harder hitting)

Once I simply said, "I do not desire to be proselytized to." Something to that effect, and they simply said "ok" and it came to an arupt hult! It was very effective. I feel no necessity to get into a debate for which your response may trigger. Sometimes when you debate, this is what they desire. Saying "I don't want to be proselytized to" worked for me.

I wouldn't consider this a "problem" we have in this country. It really isn't significant. Illegal immigration is a real problem etc. I don't know what you're talking about in regards to not being allowed to criticize. On the contrary, when I was in college there would sometimes be preachers preaching out in the open. They got criticized plenty. Freedom of religion is a real gift and I'm glad to live in a country which affords this.

Just saying "no" is an opening for them to go into their speech. This is a non-rude way of giving a response with actual content -- one that will signal to the other person that conversion is not overly likely.

I think you give religion too much respect. It's a problem we have in this country. You go to Europe and try that question you're going to get some VERY dirty looks. People should not be able to harass you about their pet delusions without facing real responses.

It's the culture in this country that as long as someone attaches religion to their spiel you are not allowed to criticize it, and I (and many others) are tired of that shelter. If I go to someone and ask them if they've accepted Ra the Sun God or Zeus as their divine leader they'd think me insane.

So, yeah, I think this is a perfectly justified response to such questions.

Rather than being a smartass about it, Why not take the higher ground and be respectful with just a simple "no"

This is dumb. Please stop.