Proselytizing

[rreppy]

No Buddhist monk has ever come to my door on a Sunday morning and confronted me about whether or not I was "saved". I like that. I feel if you are confident that your religion is worthwhile, then you should have faith that people will find it and be convinced on its own merits, without the need of a bunch of pushy salespersons trying to "close a deal".
I admire the fact that the Dalai Lama, in almost every speech he makes to westerners, exhorts them to stay in the religion of their upbringing and merely explore whether Buddhism might have some tools and insights they may find useful. I could never imagine in a million years the Dalai Lama doing what Christian missionaries have done, going into foreign cultures and blasting their native religions as lies and blasphemies, destroying their works of art, burning their books, and telling them tales about how they will "burn in torment forever" if they don't convert.
Islam, of course, is even worse; the first 500 years of its history was "convert or die by my sword, infidel scum!".
I say, let a person find their own path and make up their own mind. Don't insult me by calling my beliefs inferior to your own and then shoving yours down my throat. A worthy religion shouldn't have to proselytize. Don't demean spirituality to the level of a popularity contest.

[1robin]

I agree with some of what you say but it's far to simplistic. There should be no compulsion in any religion. However to suggest that people who believe the Gospel (The medicine) should not make it available to the lost (The sick) is counterintuitive. I know that is a crude example but maybe you get the point.
I know that if I was an unbeliever and I died and went to hell I would surely regret all the times I avoided evangelists.

Why, yes, yes, that is a crude example. That crude and threatening example is precisely why the 'you are all sinners' as a marketing ploy is , in itself evil.


Of course, then there are many people who feel that 'Sin', and 'Hell' are imaginary diseases that Christianity claims to be the cure, sort of a snake oil for a condition that it claims exists, but actually doesn't.

I think that the sinful propensity of man is a forgone conclusion. The biblical account of it's origin is the only one that is satisfactory and complete in my opinion. Even if Christianity maybe false the chance that it it maybe true is justification for noncompulsory evangelism.

That is such a Christian way of looking at things.. so , no ,I don't agree at all.
I don't think 'sinful prospensity' is a 'foregone conclusion' at all.

Of course it is a Christian way of looking at things but that is no reason to reject it. (your doing so reveals the real problem here, you don't like it so it can't be true)
If it is possible that Christianity is true then my point about non-compulsory evangalism is indisputable. Your comment expressing doubt about man's inherent sinfulness is so obviously incorrect I have no response. I suppose that Stalin, Hitler, ritual sacrifice, and slavery are all hallmarks of our righteousness.

I find the 'oh, some people are evil there fore we are all sinners ' and beating to heck the concept on how bad and evil people are is evil in itself. It IS the technique that many abusers do it to their spouse to control them though.

And, when it comes to the 'Christian way ' .. no, it shouldn't be rejected because it is Christian, it should be rejected because that abusive and controlling technique is evil in and of itself.

Trying to sell the idea that 'oh, you are an evil person, and need the guidance of my personal beliefs' is egotistical, obnoxious, annoying to no end, and disrespectful of everyone else. People don't need to have that kind of religion shoved down their throats.

I reject your reality and substitute my own. Just kidding, but every point you made could be used a textbook case for what the bible predicts will result from man's fallen nature. You have a distorted and completely unrealistic view of Christianity. Christ never compelled anyone to do anything he merely asserted, proved, and demonstrated what the bible predicts and offered a solution if we but admit we have a problem. Any argument that depends on the inherent righteousness of human moral conduct is defeated before it begins by it's own assumption. The pages of human history are replete with man's inhumanity toward man and it is necessary and obvious to admit the problem before any corrections can be undertaken. How can you even imply an objective moral evil by which to judge Christianity without assuming Christianity exists to justify the objective standard. It is obvious you hate the concept of being accountable to a Christian God and your distorted view of the religion is an outworking of this fact. It would be far more credible and intellectually honest to admit the obvious moral problem that man has and introduce some other cause or solution. If you deny reality in the beginning whatever fallows is a waste of time.

I am judging Christianity by how the people who practice it use it. In this case, I am judging the method of proclaiming everyone a sinner, but WAIT , We have an answer to this disease.

And I bet you couldn't show me , in context, passages in the bible that predict that. One thing I noticed about many people who proclaim themselves Christian is that they lift single sentences out of the Bible to string them together to make a theology so much different than what the original passages are trying to say.

I do find it ironic that the two examples you use learned about evil people (Hitler and Stalin) received their moral training at the hands of Christianity. Hitler proclaimed himself to be inspired to the Holocaust by Christianity, and Stalin was educated in a seminar.

Stalin completely rejected Christianity, he was selected to lead the communist party specifically for that reason. Hitler was raised in catholic church when he was young but the faith never had anymore than a superficial effect on him it was a philosophy not a relationship. I could run out the door kill fifty people while screaming Darwin is great but would you accept that as an argument against evolution? What did have an effect was evolution's implication of favored races which convinced him of the Jews inferiority and the German's superiority. It is intellectually dishonest to attribute the actions of a person on the basis of a chosen philosophy unless that philosophy is consistent with their actions. Stalin and Hitler's actions are diametrically opposed to Christian values to make that connection reveals desperation. You probably don't understand the difference between a true born again Christian from an unregenerated person who has an intellectual consent to the religion and call themselves a Christian. If you find this confusing I completely understand but one group has a personal relationship with God and one does not so shouldn't be included.

"I am judging Christianity by how the people who practice it use it. In this case, I am judging the method of proclaiming everyone a sinner, but WAIT , We have an answer to this disease."
There is nothing whatsoever wrong with someone making a statement like this and if it's true it would be as rightous an action as could be. It may ultimately be incorrect but there is nothing evil with having an incorrect philosophy unless it is used to force you to do something against your will. The world is full of people with ideas, some wrong, some correct but there is nothing wrong with expressing them. In your idealogy there is no basis for even declaring anything evil more substantial than your own opinion. In my worldview what you have said could be considered evil but I recognize that you do not share my worldview and I must show the compassion and tolerance that Christ did in similar situations. Jesus (God) met many people completely opposed to him and some who even wound up killing him yet he did not retaliate even though the bible claims he could have summoned an army of angels and wiped out everyone. Is that an example of how evil and compulsory Christianity is. The religion of Christianity cannot be blamed for peoples misuse of it.

[Goat]

Jesus (God) met many people completely opposed to him and some who even wound up killing him yet he did not retaliate even though the bible claims he could have summoned an army of angels and wiped out everyone. Is that an example of how evil and compulsory Christianity is. The religion of Christianity cannot be blamed for peoples misuse of it.

Well, there are many stories about Jesus.. I wonder how many are actually factual. And, yes, I CAN judge Christianity , when they act the way the religion is taught.

When the preaching, and the idea of 'you are all sinners', just like I can blame the Mormons and the Jehovah witnesses for bugging me at home when I want my privacy.

They won't say they are 'misusing' it. I think the concept of Proselytizing is bad in any case..

[1robin]

Jesus (God) met many people completely opposed to him and some who even wound up killing him yet he did not retaliate even though the bible claims he could have summoned an army of angels and wiped out everyone. Is that an example of how evil and compulsory Christianity is. The religion of Christianity cannot be blamed for peoples misuse of it.

Well, there are many stories about Jesus.. I wonder how many are actually factual. And, yes, I CAN judge Christianity , when they act the way the religion is taught.

When the preaching, and the idea of 'you are all sinners', just like I can blame the Mormons and the Jehovah witnesses for bugging me at home when I want my privacy.

They won't say they are 'misusing' it. I think the concept of Proselytizing is bad in any case..

The fact that Christianity contains ideas you don't like (original sin) is not an argument for or against it's being true, especially given the obvious truthfulness of this one. In all my debating experience (mostly watching the pros) I have never heard a claim against the bibles indication of our sinfulness ever used as a argument against it. It is usually admitted but accounted for in different ways.

Whether someone admits to a wrongful act or not has nothing to do with their being guilty or not.

I don't remember whether I stated that my opinion on this is that no religion has a right to force anyone to accept it, or force a person to listen to a recruiting pitch (for lack of a better word) but to suggest that people should be prevented from making their faith available is illogical. If someone forces you to listen then I would condemn their actions with you but I don't think that is where your argument stops.

I don't know by what ultimate standard (there is no escape from objective morality) you would use that would be meaningful to judge Christianity. Actually I would like you to clarify this further as I need more specaficity.

[Goat]

Jesus (God) met many people completely opposed to him and some who even wound up killing him yet he did not retaliate even though the bible claims he could have summoned an army of angels and wiped out everyone. Is that an example of how evil and compulsory Christianity is. The religion of Christianity cannot be blamed for peoples misuse of it.

Well, there are many stories about Jesus.. I wonder how many are actually factual. And, yes, I CAN judge Christianity , when they act the way the religion is taught.

When the preaching, and the idea of 'you are all sinners', just like I can blame the Mormons and the Jehovah witnesses for bugging me at home when I want my privacy.

They won't say they are 'misusing' it. I think the concept of Proselytizing is bad in any case..

The fact that Christianity contains ideas you don't like (original sin) is not an argument for or against it's being true, especially given the obvious truthfulness of this one. In all my debating experience (mostly watching the pros) I have never heard a claim against the bibles indication of our sinfulness ever used as a argument against it. It is usually admitted but accounted for in different ways.

I don't see it being 'obvious truthfullness', unless you are indoctrinated into the religion. Not even all Christians accept original sin. The Jewish religion, on whose writings Paul made a statement, and St Augustus ran with , does not accept original sin.

There are a number of bible passages that directly oppose the Christian concept of Original sin. For example, the son shall not bear the inequities of the father.. and even roman's 14:12 states everyone is responsible for their OWN actions.

So.. no, it's not so obvious after all.

Whether someone admits to a wrongful act or not has nothing to do with their being guilty or not.

So?? What DOES have bearing on their 'being guilty'?? Being born?? Hardly.

I don't remember whether I stated that my opinion on this is that no religion has a right to force anyone to accept it, or force a person to listen to a recruiting pitch (for lack of a better word) but to suggest that people should be prevented from making their faith available is illogical. If someone forces you to listen then I would condemn their actions with you but I don't think that is where your argument stops.

When people come on to my property, knock on my door, and annoy me, then it goes too far. When 'missonaries' go into other cultures and try to divide families to try to get people convert, then it's dead wrong, and is destroying another culture.

[Burninglight]

Get used to it. That is not going to end until the end of the world. If you don't want JWs or Mormons coming to your house, put a sign on your door saying "Mormons not welcome" Wherever there is life, people will be knocking; they are going to be selling, buying, asking, seeking and don't let me forget proselytizing. It will also be done by force.

If we don't get involved, Islam will be knocking on our front doors handing us a ONE WAY ticket back to the 7th century. All it takes for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing.

You don't like religion? Too bad, everyone has religion. Religion is what people do. Religion is what nailed Jesus to the cross. IMHO, the only one that can save us from religion is Jesus Christ. Everyone else are prisoners of religion especially atheists. We are all products of our past experiences, but we don't have to be prisoners of it. It is written: "Whom the son sets free is free indeed"

[Goat]

Get used to it. That is not going to end until the end of the world. If you don't want JWs or Mormons coming to your house, put a sign on your door saying "Mormons not welcome" Wherever there is life, people will be knocking; they are going to be selling, buying, asking, seeking and don't let me forget proselytizing. It will also be done by force.

If we don't get involved, Islam will be knocking on our front doors handing us a ONE WAY ticket back to the 7th century. All it takes for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing.

You don't like religion? Too bad, everyone has religion. Religion is what people do. Religion is what nailed Jesus to the cross. IMHO, the only one that can save us from religion is Jesus Christ. Everyone else are prisoners of religion especially atheists. We are all products of our past experiences, but we don't have to be prisoners of it. It is written: "Whom the son sets free is free indeed"

Between the 7th and 10th centuries, Islam was 10 times more enlightened that Christianity. It was the center of an intellectual golden age. It wasn't until the 1100, when a religious philosopher Iman Hamid Al-Ghazali brought the idea that mathematics is of the devil that intolerance and intellectualism came back into the religious culture, and it NEVER recovered. That's what the stylizing Christians are doing to us now.

[1robin]

Get used to it. That is not going to end until the end of the world. If you don't want JWs or Mormons coming to your house, put a sign on your door saying "Mormons not welcome" Wherever there is life, people will be knocking; they are going to be selling, buying, asking, seeking and don't let me forget proselytizing. It will also be done by force.

If we don't get involved, Islam will be knocking on our front doors handing us a ONE WAY ticket back to the 7th century. All it takes for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing.

You don't like religion? Too bad, everyone has religion. Religion is what people do. Religion is what nailed Jesus to the cross. IMHO, the only one that can save us from religion is Jesus Christ. Everyone else are prisoners of religion especially atheists. We are all products of our past experiences, but we don't have to be prisoners of it. It is written: "Whom the son sets free is free indeed"

Between the 7the and 10the centuries, Islam was 10 times more enlightened that Christianity. It was the center of an intellectual golden age. It wasn't until the 1100, when a religious philosopher Iman Hamid Al-Ghazali brought the idea that mathematics is of the devil that intolerance and intellectualism came back into the religious culture, and it NEVER recovered. That's what the stylizing Christians are doing to us now.

Is was a good point to make about religion being a seperate issue from an actual relationship. Religion is man made to a great extent a relationship is not.

There is more to Islam's temporary advances in the sciences back in the 8th-10th centuries. It had conquered it's way across the majority of the southern mediterranean world as well as the old eastern roman empire. It collected ancient Greek learning from all these places including alexandria which they to their credit preserved and built on. In the meantime Catholicism had plunged europe into the dark ages by denying everyone the ability to read the bible in their language and irrational fighting against the sciences, but this was overcome in the enlightenment which corresponded with protestant efforts to break the stranglehold of Rome and they soon surpassed the muslim scholars. Most of the things that are thought of as Islamic achievements are actually greek achievements repackaged and somewhat added to. Of course I am speaking generally there are isolated exceptions. When the catholic stranglehold was broken then the west soon surpassed the east in general. The obvious technological supremecy of the west verses the east being the end result. The supremecy of my spelling however is non existent.

[cnorman18]

Just for the record, Judaism does not proselytize. Quite the contrary; when you go to a rabbi with a request to convert, he will typically turn you away three times before deigning to talk to you; when he does, he will begin by trying to discourage you from converting. When you finally DO convince him of your sincerity, the process takes years of study and private consultation, and many drop out of the process before conversion is final.

This is all Jewish tradition. In our religion, one does not have to be Jewish to be "saved" -- and indeed, being "saved" is not among our concerns.

So you won't see any Jews knocking on your door to hand you literature, either. Just wanted to make that clear.

[1robin]

Just for the record, Judaism does not proselytize. Quite the contrary; when you go to a rabbi with a request to convert, he will typically turn you away three times before deigning to talk to you; when he does, he will begin by trying to discourage you from converting. When you finally DO convince him of your sincerity, the process takes years of study and private consultation, and many drop out of the process before conversion is final.

This is all Jewish tradition. In our religion, one does not have to be Jewish to be "saved" -- and indeed, being "saved" is not among our concerns.

So you won't see any Jews knocking on your door to hand you literature, either. Just wanted to make that clear.

I do not believe Judaism to be "the way". However if it was "the way" then to do anything which might hinder its transmission would seem immoral in my opinion.

[cnorman18]

Just for the record, Judaism does not proselytize. Quite the contrary; when you go to a rabbi with a request to convert, he will typically turn you away three times before deigning to talk to you; when he does, he will begin by trying to discourage you from converting. When you finally DO convince him of your sincerity, the process takes years of study and private consultation, and many drop out of the process before conversion is final.

This is all Jewish tradition. In our religion, one does not have to be Jewish to be "saved" -- and indeed, being "saved" is not among our concerns.

So you won't see any Jews knocking on your door to hand you literature, either. Just wanted to make that clear.

I do not believe Judaism to be "the way". However if it was "the way" then to do anything which might hinder its transmission would seem immoral in my opinion.

Nobody ever said Judaism was "the way."

It's "A way." And for more than a thousand years, conversion to Judaism was punishable by death at the stake everywhere in Europe, and all Jews who assisted in such a conversion were punished in the same manner.

That wasn't only a medieval practice; one of our great martyrs, Count Valentine Potocki, a Polish nobleman who converted to Judaism, is called a "martyr" because he was burned at the stake for it -- in 1748.

Traditions are born of such things, and they don't change quickly or easily.

Perhaps, even if it is "A way," the crime of "hindering its transmission" ought not be laid at the feet of the Jews, but of those who burned both those who made it available and those who chose that "way" as well.