And since those definitions are (in your case, at least) directly related to God they are also religious beliefs.
That's close enough to accept as is, but deserving of a clarification. I can, have, and do define good and evil wholly independent of god. Just that the very same concepts can also be defined in relation to god, or god in relation to them. I could offer you twenty or so definitions (never counted, really, so give or take a few) for good and evil, all independent, AND all intertwined -- all referring not to different concepts, but to the same two ideas.
To call them religious beliefs, however, comes with a connotation, a certain "article of faith", and my views in this regard are not so removed. There are numerous empirical elements, about which conclusions may be drawn in regard to my definitions, without any need for speculation or subjectivity... or faith.
If your evangelism were successful enough you would be indeed be the founder of an organized religion.
That point doesn't follow. Are guest lecturers who offer their opinions on a subject with the intent of informing others, of persuading them to a particular view, automatically evangelists? I get the sense you're trying to fit me into a peghole here, to define me as something you already understand and know about. Perhaps I don't fit that hole.
I do not think they contain all that is true, and I do not think that every belief somebody else has is wrong.
That may be true of you. I do not mean to paint all adherents of religion with this brush. However, the institutions themselves? I believe I'm spot on.
But when somebody else has a belief which directly contradicts my faith, of course I consider them wrong.
But if that faith says, "You are the chosen people, the favorites of god", or... "only through this ritual or this method or by faith in this way can you relate to god, with all else forsaken by god", or... by encouraging specialness and sense of inherited or earned moral superiority, such as the jews vs the gentiles, the puritans vs the heathens, the muslims vs the infidels, the scientologists vs the WOGs, pick an organized religion, they all do it, or... when that faith presumes to evaluate your spiritual worth for you, setting you out into castes and asserting your superiority or inferiority based on the trappings of your life, your "karma"... or... shall I go on?
When faith offers you this package in whatever guise or form, do you embrace it? Do you accept that the particulars of your brand and flavor of this package are true, even when they lay claim to exclusive validity? They do, all the major religions do.
(Well, OK, not all. Not the portion of Bhuddism that asserts the Bhudda was a man, not an exclusive divinity. Those Bhuddists don't lay claim to exclusivity, but the rest do -- I suppose there are exceptions to everything. I'm limited here to skipping out on some details. This is just the start of an opening, per se -- me offering a few bits of information, with no grand plan, and no intent to lead things all the way around in the manner in which I came to believe them. Still, if you forgive me some absolute language and some language imprecision, I'm NOT talking here in "native terms" to things I believe. There would be no use in using words that describe concepts, if you may not be familiar with either those words or those concepts. I'd be spinning my wheels to do anything other than drive toward an opening, on roads well traveled and commonly known. You don't offer a study of math by beginning with calculus. Any presentation must make sure to offer a line of thinking others can follow along with, or it's useless).
At least stipulate that there is an automatic corollary to "We have the only true path to god", and that is, "Everybody else's paths to god are untrue." This arising from that little word "only". Will you stipulate that point?
A typical attitude I have heard many times is "You can have your religious beliefs but don't try to force them on me!" When addressed to an evangelist, this is a contradictory statement.
You fail to draw a distinction between offering your views and insisting somebody else agree with them.
If your beliefs tell you that it is not only right, but your DUTY, for you to go out and insist that others agree with you, well... I have an opinion about that. Look back on my definitions and you'll figure it out pretty quickly.
Such a subtle point, perhaps, but that same subtle point defines the difference between sex and rape, between guest and invader, between a loan or gift and a robbery.
I would phrase it this way:
"Don't force your beliefs onto me." Period. That first part just muddies the waters. The latter takes priority. Don't force your beliefs on me, but SHORT OF that, believe whatever you like. Now if you want me to hear you out, maybe I will or maybe I won't, and maybe I will or won't agree with your offering, but I'll retain the right to decide that for myself, thank you very much.
Besides... ever heard of the concept of the ends justifying the means? That's the favorite of evil. That's one of its most persuasive twistings, and folks acting on that point have caused no end of misery.
Trying to influence the beliefs of others is in some cases a fundamental part of practicing that faith. Trying to discourage an evangelist from evangelizing is hypocritical
Point One, yes. Point Two? Hypocritical to whom? Not to me. If WHAT they are practicing and evangelizing shows itself to be evil, then discouraging them from spreading that around would not at all be against my beliefs, quite the contrary. However, as long as they did not cross the line into exerting force (of whatever kind) to dominate me, I would leave them alone or at most, limit myself to offering an opposing view. It's up to people to make up their minds as to which, if either, they would put their faith in.
Some people believe that good and evil can be categorized based on some bullet list. "Is it this? Is it that? Then it's good, or it's evil." I know that evil is too adaptive for any such list to survive the first ten minutes. Maybe less.
Let me try a gaming analogy.
In Diablo 2, there are any number of things you can do to play the game. The game has rules, "laws", and lets liken this to a list of things that are Good. Some of the things you can do involve ignoring or breaking the "rules", at direct expense of others, and we can liken these to being Clearly Evil. Yet there are things you can do that are technically within the rules, which are still distinctly shady. If you rely on the rules only, you can in effect have Evil masquerading itself around as Good -- such as in the case of Duped Items in D2. Those intent on subverting the function and spirit of the rules can adapt to ANY list of rules, poke and prod at them, and break them. The list could be updated over and over, but this is never going to stamp out the intent or the ability of some who are bent on subversion.
Every single example, event, intention, action, instance, or interaction must be examined carefully to determine whether it is a display of Goodness or of Evil, or of a mix of both, and to what degrees. There is no pat answer: the price of power is eternal responsibility. You must respond to everything individually, to measure it on its own merits, to gauge it as a unique event, not take the lazy way out of earlier-similar, making snap judgements that its the same as something else that looked similar from before.
So with this example of yours, the evangelist. What views is he putting forth? Are those views essentially good? Or do they contain lies, distortions, twistings and faults? If that passes the test and the views are good, then do the actions of the evangelist match his words and views, or is he displaying hypocrisy? Every case has to be examined as a unique case. Evil could easily hide itself under the label of "evangelist", but it can't hide its stripes if you ignore the categories, stereotypes and presumptions and LOOK at the specific case and judge by that.
This is how I believe a person must live, moment by moment by moment by moment. Take nothing for granted, evil is adaptive and its temptations lurk at every turn. "Oh, so much work! So much effort!" Not at all. Once you train yourself to it, you can spot evil in an instant, it displays the same dense properties every time, just that you have to look closely, cut past the adaptations to the flows of energy and the results of actions, past the camouflage (if any) to the core.
In training yourself to observe, the first concern is not the other guy, but yourself. Clean your own house first, then keep it clean, and only offer help to others in dealing with their demons when they ask for it, or when you see potential harm playing out that you might prevent if you intervene.
Both sides have rights (the evangelist and the one he's trying to persuade). It is incumbent on the evangelist to realize that the ends (converting the target) do not justify any means. If they aren't willing, he'd have to let them go. If his belief says otherwise, he's got a serious problem, and he may well end up in a fight, verbal or otherwise, when he pushes the wrong person and they start pushing back. No label of evangelist would save him then. His actions would reveal his specific intent in that instance to take control of, to dominate, to impose his will.
One act of evil is described in some traditions as a "sin". That help any? We all do some wrongs. Most of us also have a desire to stop doing wrong, for any number of reasons, some fear-based, some born out of conscience or character or goodness. Human beings are a mixed bag and I could forgive any evangelist for being a little pushy, especially if they wake up and stop that, but... even if they don't. Only... buyer beware. Those who come to my door to evangelize may get an earful in return.