Proselytism, Conversion and Preaching Religion

[mrcrusty]

Now first off, I do not want to get into an argument over which religion (if any) is correct, so please do not spam the thread with posts amounting to "God doesn't exist", "Believe in Jesus or go to hell" or whatever, because those comments are completely irrelevant.

I merely want to discuss the idea of Proselytism.

Over the past few months that I've been active on these forums, particularly these past few weeks where I've often frequented the D&D and especially the EMM, I've wondered to myself what exactly is Proselytism in the minds of the people here?

What I want to know most are firstly, what is Proselytism to people here at TWC? Does merely speaking of your religion to others count as Proselytism? At what point is one no longer discussing religion in a positive light, and at what point are they engaging in the act of conversion?

Secondly, I would like to know what is your opinion on Proselytism? Is it a positive thing? Negative? Why is it good/bad?

Some Christians believe that Proselytism is their duty as followers of Christ, is this true, and where in the Bible does Jesus or anyone else explicitly state that it is our duty to Proselytize and actively engage in converting the gentiles as opposed to merely preaching or spreading the word of Jesus to them?

I ask because while I am against the idea of Proselytism (which I believe is a form of manipulation preying on the deep seated fears of people in order to illicit a certain reaction), I keep asking myself, at what point am I no longer speaking of my religion to others in a positive light to help promote my message and at what point am I trying to influence their opinion so as to convert them over to my religion?

Some definitions btw. If you use different definitions, I'd like to see them and ask why you use the particular definition.

Proselytism - Proselytism is the practice of attempting to convert people to another opinion and, particularly, another religion.

Convert - change religious beliefs, or adopt a religious belief; "She converted to Buddhism".

Spread - circulate: cause to become widely known; "spread information"; "circulate a rumor"; "broadcast the news".

Preach - Give a sermon; Advocate or support verbally in an insisting, urging, or inciting manner.

[Visna]

Gawd, attempts at converting annoy me to no end. I don't doubt they mean well, but damn it's gets annoying after a while.
Spreading, as your definition can be what this (and other) forums do well, knowledge about religions is fun to acquire and have, but please, stuff that "convert or you'll go to Hell" up where it rightfully belongs.

[Biggreenfellow]

Trying to force your beliefs on others is wrong. I don't care how well they mean, I don't like it. And that goes for all beliefs, from Christianity to Atheism. Believe what you want, just don't bloody well bother me with it.

A debate is different, though.

[Aldgarkalaughskel]

All major religions are proselytic by definition, as they preach the "true faith" in their own understanding. Therefore it would be very dumb to say that proselytism should be ruled out, or be against the idea, as it means being against all religions of the world. On the other hand, I think if someone is converted to another religion, it means that the original indoctrination and religious socialization was weak. The market of souls has been always a free market, and the market actors should be more and more convincing and agressive advertisers as the competition tightens up. That's why Islam is so successful nowadays, as it has the most aggressive propaganda, and Christian preachers dropped balls.

[Biggreenfellow]

Therefore it would be very dumb to say that proselytism should be ruled out, or be against the idea, as it means being against all religions of the world.

Disagree. It is perfectly possible to follow a religion without feeling the urge to convert those that don't want to be converted.

[Aldgarkalaughskel]

Disagree. It is perfectly possible to follow a religion without feeling the urge to convert those that don't want to be converted.

We have no disagreement in that. Being a follower and being a preacher are two completely different things though.

[Biggreenfellow]

We have no disagreement in that. Being a follower and being a preacher are two completely different things though.

Ah, okay, I didn't get that distinction from your previous post. My bad

[Djûn]

Personally, as a buddhist, I do not go about preaching my beliefs to those who do not want to hear it. Occasionally I will get a question regarding my faith and if I do I will be more than happy to explain it to them as clearly and accurately as possible. I suppose I cannot say that I am completely clean of this, though, particularly with regards to the killing of animals. An example of this arose yesterday where a friend and housemate was swatting flies out the air and killing them, an action which irritates me immensely, to the extent that I actually asked him to stop killing things. I do not know if this counts as proselytism, whether direct or indirect, or whether it was justified as simply something which annoys me, but to me I felt it a justified comment to ask him to stop killing the flies.

[Aldgarkalaughskel]

Personally, as a buddhist, I do not go about preaching my beliefs to those who do not want to hear it. Occasionally I will get a question regarding my faith and if I do I will be more than happy to explain it to them as clearly and accurately as possible. I suppose I cannot say that I am completely clean of this, though, particularly with regards to the killing of animals. An example of this arose yesterday where a friend and housemate was swatting flies out the air and killing them, an action which irritates me immensely, to the extent that I actually asked him to stop killing things. I do not know if this counts as proselytism, whether direct or indirect, or whether it was justified as simply something which annoys me, but to me I felt it a justified comment to ask him to stop killing the flies.

May I ask what do you eat?

[Djûn]

May I ask what do you eat?

I'm a vegetarian, if that's what you are asking. I'm sure you don't want a fully exhaustive list of the foods that I eat.

[Aldgarkalaughskel]

I'm a vegetarian, if that's what you are asking. I'm sure you don't want a fully exhaustive list of the foods that I eat.

So you are making religion out of a fashionable diet, and then say that "killing aninals is bad, mmkay, because my religions says so".

[Djûn]

So you are making religion out of a fashionable diet, and then say that "killing aninals is bad, mmkay, because my religions says so".

I can assure you that I, myself, am far from fashionable.

I became a vegetarian for both reasons of health and from the study of my religion to which I had converted over two years ago. It was not becoming a vegetarian which led me to Buddhism, but rather becoming a buddhist which led me to vegetarianism. I do not demand that my housemates refuse meat and eat in the same manner that I do, as that would be simple tyranny. If someone is engaging in an activity which deeply irritates me, then I will ask him to stop it and hope that, out of the kindness as a friend, he will do so in realising that it vexes me so.

Answering questions and preaching are not necessarily the same at all.
I can't imagine not being 'allowed' to kill things, though. Especially flies and mosquitos. Those annoying things should be killed on sight.
I blame Noah for that one.

It's much less 'not being allowed to' as realising that killing such things causes suffering to such creatures. This suffering which is directly attributable to oneself is what generate negative Karma. I will not go so far as to say that 'I will never kill a living being', because that would be sheer lunacy, I simply try my best to avoid or lessen the pain or killing which is attributable to me and realise that the actions which I perform do indeed cause suffering to some. Through this realisation I am able to empathise more easily with such suffering and thus help me to further lessen the suffering I cause on others.

[Fiyenyaa]

So you are making religion out of a fashionable diet, and then say that "killing aninals is bad, mmkay, because my religions says so".

You do realise that Vegetarianism (and other dietary restrictions; for example, you are not supposed to eat onions as a Buddhist, as they apparently increase anger and sexual appetite) has been a part of Buddhism since it has been a religion.

To be honest, being a vegetarian seems like a lot more of a sensible dietary restriction than other religion's dietary restrictions: the Abrahamic religion's restrictions essentially amount to "God said thou shall not eat ____" whilst the Buddhist view is based on ethical behavior.

[Manco]

I would say the line between a debate where you merely talk positive of your religion and proselytism is quite thin, and both can have the effect of convincing the other into converting.
The difference lies in the motivation I think. Someone proselytising actively engages in conversation with someone to convert that person, where as in for example a debate or normal conversation, conversion is merely a side effect.
Proselytising would of course be far more intrusive, the conversation would constantly be focused on that religion's positives, ignoring and avoiding all negatives.

Proselytising an sich isn't a bad thing, however proselytisers are quite common very obtrusive, confronting. If that is coupled with a complete inability (or worse lack of want) to accept criticism, it grows extremely tiresome very fast ( like that Ray Comfort from living waters)
And of course those manipulating people in order to convert them (taking advantage of certain weaknesses, for example a former addiction) are disgusting.

So you are making religion out of a fashionable diet, and then say that "killing aninals is bad, mmkay, because my religions says so".

That's a complete non sequitur from what Dune. said.

[Visna]

Personally, as a buddhist, I do not go about preaching my beliefs to those who do not want to hear it. Occasionally I will get a question regarding my faith and if I do I will be more than happy to explain it to them as clearly and accurately as possible. I suppose I cannot say that I am completely clean of this, though, particularly with regards to the killing of animals. An example of this arose yesterday where a friend and housemate was swatting flies out the air and killing them, an action which irritates me immensely, to the extent that I actually asked him to stop killing things. I do not know if this counts as proselytism, whether direct or indirect, or whether it was justified as simply something which annoys me, but to me I felt it a justified comment to ask him to stop killing the flies.

Answering questions and preaching are not necessarily the same at all.
I can't imagine not being 'allowed' to kill things, though. Especially flies and mosquitos. Those annoying things should be killed on sight.
I blame Noah for that one.

[Nūr]

I respect their right to try to convert people to their faith, but I also respect my right to say I think it is wrong to force your believes in anyone, even your own family.

[basics]

" Some Christians believe that Proselytism is their duty as followers of Christ, is this true, and where in the Bible does Jesus or anyone else explicitly state that it is our duty to Proselytize and actively engage in converting the gentiles as opposed to merely preaching or spreading the word of Jesus to them?"

mrcrusty86,

To go out into all the world and preach the goodnews is the primary function of any Christian. That does not mean that he or she applies any pressure to the listener in any way. Why, because we by the telling are explaining what Jesus Christ did for us and if we cannot account for that then we are not Christians. The other effect is that it is God who saves, God who justifies, so when we relate what Jesus did for us that is the power of God to save the listener in itself.

This is the Gospel. It is brought by them bearing goodnews, the very thing that Jesus Christ builds His church on. It comes not only in the word of wiitness but with power, the power of God behind it. Were that not so no man or woman could be saved and that is what makes the Gospel so wonderfully simple. It is what baffles religion because it is so simple.

Of course it is written that we do this for does it not say that He will build His church on the knowledge that He is the Christ the Son of the living God and if the disciples were given leave to repeat that it is so that others might be saved as well. Does it not say that what they tell can bind or loosen in heaven the results of that message?

This corrolates with the unforgiveable sin against the Holy Ghost in that the bearers of the message are indwelt and led by that Spirit and them that reject the message are bound in heaven to remain in their sins and those that accept the message with interest will be loosened from their sin. In other words it is not the church or the messenger that saves but the power of God within them that being in part the Holy Spirit.

This is important to understand. It is the message that is the power of God to save, that message delivered by them indwelt by God. So why not the church? Because they are to deliver the message. It is to God then to save for only God can justify. So when people reject the message they are in factual terms rejecting Him who dwells in the messenger and in consequence the Holy Ghost who is God.

[CtrlAltDe1337]

Secondly, I would like to know what is your opinion on Proselytism? Is it a positive thing? Negative? Why is it good/bad?

Its only a good thing if your religion is the truth. Otherwise, you are just spewing hot air. But I don't see why people have to get up in arms about it. Even if I think Mr. Muslim or Buddhist over there is wrong, I can still listen to him to either confirm my existing belief, or realize I was wrong and need to follow his teaching. So its not a bad thing. Spreading opinions are never a bad thing (as long as they aren't calling for murder or something).

Some Christians believe that Proselytism is their duty as followers of Christ, is this true, and where in the Bible does Jesus or anyone else explicitly state that it is our duty to Proselytize and actively engage in converting the gentiles as opposed to merely preaching or spreading the word of Jesus to them?

"...go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

I ask because while I am against the idea of Proselytism (which I believe is a form of manipulation preying on the deep seated fears of people in order to illicit a certain reaction), I keep asking myself, at what point am I no longer speaking of my religion to others in a positive light to help promote my message and at what point am I trying to influence their opinion so as to convert them over to my religion?

I don't really see the difference tbh. Unless I am just talking about religion in general terms, you are always influencing someone towards your religion, for good or ill. Any sort of promotion of your message is to get followers, is it not? And is that not what proselytizing is? Trying to make people see that your religion is the right one, and they should follow it?

[persianfan247]

Well prehaps people are getting confused over what forcing your beliefs on someone is, It is forcing if they don't want to hear anything about, or are ignorant about the matter and don't know the alternatives and you aren't allowing them to know. But surely it isn't forcing your beliefs when they are open to debate on the topic, are simply listen to your arguments and then convert.

I sure most people undestand the difference between forcing something oon someone, but some people who are anti-other beliefs see any attempt at converting someone as forcing their beliefs on someone.

If the bible says saving people(in a general way, not meaning converting in a specific way) is something Christians should do. Then from a Christians point of view it would be their duty, unless of course the Bilble dosn't say anything about saving people, which points to the fact the morales can exist outside of religion for all those people who argue otherwise. Note I haven't read the Bible, I intend so I can at least say Ive considered what it has to say, but I never have time to.

[pericles_plato]

Spreading is better than just forcing it out there. One has to know his own faith before doing so or he will look like a fool in front of others.