Proselytizing: What is it and is it a good or bad thing?

[loverofhumanity]

I’m very happy for anyone to tell me about their religion as I love religion and want to learn all I can about this great institution.

As I accept so many religions I find that in my library I have many more books about other Faiths than my own simply because I regard them as my own too.

I study all the Holy Books and view them all as truth. I’ve learned so much about my own misconceptions from people here and am very appreciative of them sharing their knowledge and wisdom with me.

By listening to others here share their beliefs I’ve come fo realise that I’m just a grain of sand in the universe and know very little.

I personally don’t feel threatened by anyone sharing their beliefs even trying to convert me instead I try and see what I can learn from them and often I find that I learn a lot from everyone who shares with me even criticism.

I learned some beautiful truths from some wonderful Hindus here and Amanaki shares so many wonderful things about Buddhism that I really love. Christians too I learn a lot from them and their enthusiasm is impressive.

And atheists too. They ask so many fine questions,

I wouldn’t call anything I come across here as proselytising but rather sharing and a wonderful learning experience.

If I say this is proselytism and that is proselytism I believe I am taking the risk of closing my mind to so many wonderful and insightful truths on this great forum and I would be the one who would lose if I did that.

 

[Marcion]

If proselytize means that you want someone to change their path or religion, then I see it as a negative thing. But if you offer someone the opportunity to learn yoga or practise some form of meditation without breaking with whatever type of faith they may hold at the time, then I see that as service and not as proselytization.

I associate the word proselytize with "non-believers" who are supposedly "lost" without adopting the "new" faith. It is something connected mostly to the Abrahamic faiths Christianity and Islam.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Just because some adherents of a religion X claim their faith to be the one true religion, doesn’t negate religion X still having some truth.

Ah! Some only. Not all truth. That is available in one's own religion. That is smart.

 

[Vinayaka]

The most clever way is to say things such as ‘how does world peace sound?’ when the ulterior motive is to try and appeal that to others that it can only be had by converting to the ‘Baha’i’ religion.

This is the subtle way. After awhile it's not so subtle.

 

[stvdv]

Beside that, I find it also rude and lacking Love, compassion and empathy.

Do the proselytizers care about that? For some it is their profession and livelihood. They have to.

If the proselytizer is a Christian I think this is very strange, because their "Highest Commandment" tells them "Love thy neighbor as thyself"
If they are rude and lacking Love, compassion and empathy, I can only come up with one conclusion

They do not love themselves. Failing the last part of their Highest commandment, they are unable to fulfill the first part of their Highest commandment

 

[CG Didymus]

This is the subtle way. After awhile it's not so subtle.

As you know, I was with Baha'i friends in the 70's that went to Indian Reservations and held meetings to "teach" people about the Faith. To get them there, they depended on the few local Baha'is, most were native people, to invite friends and family. But also, the visiting Baha'is were sent out to "invite" people to the meeting. Typically, it went like this... Knock, knock... Yes. Hi we are Baha'is and would like to invite you to a meeting tonight. Oh, what's the Baha'i Faith? So glad you asked....

Those that went to the meeting were shown a film of how great the Baha'i Faith is and how it is the fulfillment of every other major religion. Some would sign a card declaring their belief in Baha'u'llah. Most wouldn't. I've got to imagine there was some pressure on the people to join... kind of like peer pressure, since their relatives or friends belong to this new religion. Or, the pressure of seeing and hearing how wonderful this new religion is, and that it can bring all people and all nations together in peace? And then they are just going to walk out the door and not join and help?

Sure it sounds like the intent is to proselytize. But, what is a new religion to do? Their job is to "find" new Baha'is. But, it's the same with what Evangelical Christians do too. They "witness" to others or "preach" the truth about Jesus to others in order to "save" them from hell and to bring them into the Kingdom of God.

So it's strange that Loverofhumanity says this...

I’m very happy for anyone to tell me about their religion as I love religion and want to learn all I can about this great institution.

I wonder, how many Baha'is "love" that some Christians tell them that that they are dying in their sins and need to believe in the God of the Bible and his only Son Jesus to be "saved" from the wiles of Satan the devil? And, that the religion that they, the Baha'is believe in, is a false religion?

Of course they don't "love" that. And then Christians and Baha'is go back and forth "discussing" (or arguing) whose interpretation of the Bible is the truth. I know that Christians will usually say that they are trying to convert people, but why won't Baha'is? If they have the one and only truth from God for this day. And in those Sacred Writings is the answer to all the problems the world is facing, Then, shouldn't they proclaim it from the mountain tops? But no, they don't want to what? Offend anybody? Yet they do. When they say that now is the time for God's new Prophet and God's new message, and that all other messages from all the other religions no longer have the answers that can heal the world and bring people together in peace and love. Only the Baha'is have that message.

For me, though, subtle "proselytizing" is okay. It's what keeps things interesting here... the back and forth people go through to show that their beliefs are better or truer than someone else's. However, in the end, it is still proselytizing. The ones doing it just change the name to "teaching" or "sharing" things about their Faith. And, like I said, I don't mind it and hope it continues. But, I'm also glad that others, like yourself, point it out and call them out for doing it. That really makes things interesting here.

 

[stvdv]

Ironically, rejecting the idea that there's one correct religion implies dismissing as false every religion that claims to be the one correct religion.

But this dismissing comes very close to the truth. Because if there is 1 correct religion, then all claiming to be the correct religion are false ... except 1

 

[stvdv]

Another observation I have is the general nature of proselytising implies that the person thinks they are right ... not just about their faith, but also about other things ... like proselytising itself, for example. So they use their own definition of proselytising, and try to impose that on others, without sensing or understanding that others may have a differing view on it. There is a certain insensitivity that seems to go along with it.

Believing "My way is the highway for all" ... lacks respect, love, empathy, compassion ... killing the other emotional; even worse .. on soul level.
If a Christian would do this, then he does not follow Bible's Highest Commandment "Love thy neighbor as thyself"
If one can not love oneself, then of course one can not love their neighbor
So this insensitivity you mention I can very well understand

I can not understand that such a Christian uses other verses to justify their rudeness
They don't understand that "Highest Commandment" means use other verses only if not against "Highest Commandment"

 

[Dawnofhope]

Hi Adrian! What on earth happened to the All Blacks!

Waking up on Sunday morning the new realities of trans Tasman rugby is no easy thing. Good on the Wallaby’s for an outstanding performance!

 

[Dawnofhope]

It's available to anyone who has access to a computer. Most places do.

Many, not all, wanting to learn about the Baha’i Faith do so through personal contact with Baha’is and Baha’i communities. To reject pioneering would entail depriving those who seek a valuable opportunity if they choose. If there wasn’t a Baha’i community in my city I wouldn’t have become a Baha’i nearly 30 years ago. Besides, the internet wasn’t available back then.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Well its a document by the 'World Council of Churches' so that's to be expected, I guess.
Proselytization, I think, refers to mission, and mission actually is supposed to be directed to unbelievers, not with those already in a covenant relationship with God.

"I only ask that you encounter one another, the one who needs more. Am I going to convince another to become Catholic? NO, no no! You go to encounter the other person, he is your brother! That is enough! Jesus does the rest, the Holy Spirit does it".

I actually agree that God requires us to be in a Covenant relationship with Him. So how do we determine who is in a Covenant relationship and who isn’t? For example Muslims, are they already in a Covenant relationship with God? If so, why? If not, why not?

The phrase Holy Spirit has multiple meanings. What is it to you and how do you know you have it and someone else such as a Muslim does or doesn’t have it?

Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions should you choose.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Sure, but rejecting a religion as false doesn't mean rejecting every single thing that the religion says.

True

 

[Dawnofhope]

I have always found this as problematic. Everything that everyone says is a statement of their opinions, especially on this forum, including that statement itself. If someone says, "Evolution is a fact", that is also their opinion, and one which is well-supportable.

But to require stating, "In my opinion, evolution is real", is a bit disingenuous. It smacks of "softening" that belief in order not to offend those who have different ideas, that we should understand that everyone's opinions are of equal weight and value, and we must not offend by stating our strong beliefs without softening them with "In my opinion" as a qualifier in order to allow for their supposedly equally valid opinions which are opposite to our own.

Most of time qualifiers are not necessary as of course we are giving our personal perspectives. Sometimes our words do need to be softened for others to hear them. Some individuals appear totally unable to appreciate the relativity of their own beliefs. Conversations on online discussions can become very ugly very quickly if there’s a lack of respect, courtesy and fairness.

While I am very much postmodernist in my views of truth and reality, I see that as a distortion of what relativism teaches. It's a flawed, and potentially dangerous distortion that everyone's opinions are equal in value, that nothing can be believed as more credible than anything else.

I agree.

Of course, that last sentence is my opinion, and it does not need to be "softened" by saying "In my opinion." It's a given that is my opinion, but it also happens to be also well-informed and supportable and of greater truth value than "everyone is entitled to their opinions", as though that makes that equally valid.

That sentence didn’t need to be softened at all. That doesn’t mean you or I may not cross the line from time to time and speak in a manner that on reflection could have been gentler and wiser. It can of course be difficult to find that line. I can be quite thick skinned on some things and overly sensitive on others. We all have triggers of course.

While an individuals’ moderation can’t be discussed in an open forum the general process can be. Moderation decisions are made by consensus requiring the agreement of at least 3 moderators. So while a statement may quite subjectively trigger one individual, if three or more people are feeling the same way, chances are there’s a bit more to it.

Everything that everyone states anywhere, at any time, is a statement of their beliefs and opinions, including that unqualified statement.

True

 

[Vinayaka]

For me, though, subtle "proselytizing" is okay. It's what keeps things interesting here... the back and forth people go through to show that their beliefs are better or truer than someone else's. However, in the end, it is still proselytizing. The ones doing it just change the name to "teaching" or "sharing" things about their Faith. And, like I said, I don't mind it and hope it continues. But, I'm also glad that others, like yourself, point it out and call them out for doing it. That really makes things interesting here.

Good to hear from you. Many times I've considered leaving this forum due to the excessive amount that is allowed, in my view. But clearly I'm in the minority.

 

[Vinayaka]

Many, not all, wanting to learn about the Baha’i Faith do so through personal contact with Baha’is and Baha’i communities. To reject pioneering would entail depriving those who seek a valuable opportunity if they choose. If there wasn’t a Baha’i community in my city I wouldn’t have become a Baha’i nearly 30 years ago. Besides, the internet wasn’t available back then.

You're a Baha'i and you're entitled to your opinion on proselytising. Perhaps it's been good for a few people. But to put all the credit on the religion is folly. You may well have been a far better person than you are without Baha'i. Too many other factors at place. Of course it's impossible to live two lives simultaneously so we'll never know.

I do know that often when someone figures they've become a better person because of religion, their former friends think otherwise. So who do we believe?

 

[TransmutingSoul]

And, like I said, I don't mind it and hope it continues. But, I'm also glad that others, like yourself, point it out and call them out for doing it. That really makes things interesting here.

It is logically ludicrous to have a rule about proselytizing on an open religious debate section of any forum. Why it is logically ludicrous is already mentioned, there is no one specific defintion used in determining what post is a breach, it is mainly complaint based, which in turn is a way for a person to proselytize ones own view.

Going by the dictionary definition, in an open debate, almost all replies could be seen to be a breach of rule 8

I have chosen to leave this and all forums rather than to risk facing rule 8 breaches. Have a great life CG.

P/S and by the way, as a person that has chosen to pioneer, one knows they can not proselytize.

Regards Tony

 

[Dawnofhope]

A few gospel quotes against signs and proselytizing:

"When an impure spirit comes out of a person, it goes through arid places seeking rest and does not find it. Then it says, 'I will return to the house I left.' When it arrives, it finds the house unoccupied, swept clean and put in order. Then it goes and takes with it seven other spirits more wicked than itself, and they go in and live there. And the final condition of that person is worse than the first. That is how it will be with this wicked generation." (Mat 12:43-45 NIV)

The 'Impure spirit' appears driven out (by signs) but returns in a worse way. So this is spoken against all of those "Jesus statue bled" kinds of arguments and "I was healed by Jesus so believe in Jesus." These are all proselytizer methods. I also put creationism arguments in this category -- all the garbage that doesn't result in real spiritual fruit.

And he spake a parable unto them, Can the blind lead the blind? shall they not both fall into the ditch? The disciple is not above his master: but every one that is perfect shall be as his master. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but perceivest not the beam that is in thine own eye? (Luk 6:39-41 KJV)

That is part of a rant Jesus makes against discipleship methods. He, himself, tells his disciples that he doesn't use this method but will be sending them the spirit of truth to fill in the blanks. Jesus doesn't think that one person should disciple another or that there can be improvement by this means. He says disciples can only be as good as or worse than their masters. He reinforces this many times in the gospels, though you won't hear any backstabbing preachers comment on it. They're all pretty terrible in my experience, often not even knowing it; sometimes relishing it.

"I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. He will glorify me because it is from me that he will receive what he will make known to you." (Jhn 16:12-14 NIV)

For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed [the righteousness] of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven. (Mat 5:20 KJV)

This is part of Jesus denouncement of the master-disciple scheme. He doesn't trust it, and he overall says you have to do better than any human master can make you. To do that you can't train under a human. He defenestrates master-disciple for his disciples.

There is plenty more of this material in the NT. James is a book highly critical of those who put emphasis upon wealth and education and who would give preferential seating to wise people. It is a book packed with great quotes on this subject and only 5 chapters long. Paul, too, makes speeches about it in his letters.

My understanding is we all need to find the truth for ourselves through our personal encounter with the Gospels rather than blindly following others. In the regard the words that resonate for me are:

The truth shall set you free (John 8:32)

and

Seek and you shall find (Matthew 7:7)

 

[Dawnofhope]

I have chosen to leave this and all forums rather than to risk facing rule 8 breaches. Have a great life CG.

P/S and by the way, as a person that has chosen to pioneer, one knows they can not proselytize.

Sorry to hear that Tony.

I hadn’t seen you on the forum since the thread started by EBM criticising the Baha’i Faith nearly two weeks ago. I had no idea of anything that has happened after that.

Maybe this is a good thread to reflect in a constructive way (without specific references to any one individual) on proselytising, what it is and the merits of such behaviour.

 

[Milton Platt]

Proselytizing can mean different things to different people. Some people may feel a duty to proselytize as part of their faith. Others may use the word in a pejorative way to criticise others who 'teach' their faith to others while insisting on being above whatever they perceive the word to mean.

So what is proselytising? To me it means trying to convert people from one religion or worldview to another. Personally I wouldn't try to convert anyone to my religion, but if someone had questions about my faith or were interested to learn I would certainly help them. If someone wanted to join my religion, if I believed they were sincere and understood what my faith was about, I would certainly assist them in their journey to become part of the worldwide community of my faith. So none of this I would consider proselytizing. I would avoid any manipulation, coercion or deception which certainly runs contrary to the truthfulness and trsutworthiness that is at the foundation of any genuine religion.

Proselytizing on religious forum is against the rules btw. Some of you may be aware of rule 8:

8. Preaching/Proselytizing
Creating (or linking to) content intended to convert/recruit others to your religion, spirituality, sect/denomination, or lack thereof is not permitted. Similarly, attempting to convert others away from their religion, spiritual convictions, or sect/denomination will also be considered a form of preaching. Stating opinions as a definitive matter of fact (i.e., without "I believe/feel/think" language, and/or without references) may be moderated as preaching.

RF Rules

I've certainly experienced a great deal of proselytizing during my time on RF and have been accused of it myself.

So what is proselytizing to you and is it a good or bad thing.

It isn't inherently bad. It becomes bad when it becomes intrusive or abusive.

 

[Dawnofhope]

You're a Baha'i and you're entitled to your opinion on proselytising. Perhaps it's been good for a few people. But to put all the credit on the religion is folly. You may well have been a far better person than you are without Baha'i. Too many other factors at place. Of course it's impossible to live two lives simultaneously so we'll never know.

I do know that often when someone figures they've become a better person because of religion, their former friends think otherwise. So who do we believe?

Many of us try to make the best decisions we can and we are the only ones who can read the reality of our lives. I spent 5 years going through a process of searching for truth and that culminated in becoming a Baha’i. On reflection 30 years later was it the best decision? It still looks the right decision but I could be wrong. Choice of a religion has so many subjective aspects.

Hinduism was certainly a spiritual path I considered. I had little doubt there was a light within Hinduism similar to Christianity I had grown up with. Incredibly in a city of over 100,000 people there was no Hindu community at that time. A Tibetan Buddhist community with a Centre had been established nearly 5 years beforehand. I actually was living in the house with 12 others when it was purchased by the Buddhists.

The Hare Krishnas established a community centre about 5 years ago. Sai Baba have had a presence but have never had a community centre. They have now shrunk and merged into the mainstream Hindu community that currently uses the Baha’i Centre. I really hope they can establish a Centre/Temple which is their plan.

The. availability of an actual community (didn’t need to have a Centre) was hugely important for me. If I hadn’t become a Baha’i then I would probably have persisted with Christianity.