• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

In this day and age does proselytizing still work?

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member
There is a difference between believing in marriage as an institution, and couples having committed relationships. I've been with the same woman for the past 20 years, unmarried. But to say that is "getting the milk for free" is a completely bogus thing to say. There is nothing 'free' about it. Commitment to another, is a commitment regardless.

But the 'get the milk for free' thing, that is about sex. Couples don't live together just for sex! That's maybe what a teenager might think, that people get married to have sex, but they clearly are not adults and understand adult relationships. Teenager's center of the universe originates in their groin areas. ;)

Besides, if we're going to make it all about sex, then the best quote I've heard anahiliates this 'milk for free' idea. "The difference between sex for money and sex for free, is that sex for free costs a lot more!". And that is the truth of it. Committed relationships are not "free milk" by any stretch of the imagination. You have to work on them.
Yes, I was talking about sex.

Sorry, I didn’t mean to offend anyone.

You should be commended for your commitment to your mate!
But unfortunately, that’s not very common nowadays,
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
There is a difference between believing in marriage as an institution, and couples having committed relationships. I've been with the same woman for the past 20 years, unmarried. But to say that is "getting the milk for free" is a completely bogus thing to say. There is nothing 'free' about it. Commitment to another, is a commitment regardless.

But the 'get the milk for free' thing, that is about sex. Couples don't live together just for sex! That's maybe what a teenager might think, that people get married to have sex, but they clearly are not adults and understand adult relationships. Teenager's center of the universe originates in their groin areas. ;)

Besides, if we're going to make it all about sex, then the best quote I've heard anahiliates this 'milk for free' idea. "The difference between sex for money and sex for free, is that sex for free costs a lot more!". And that is the truth of it. Committed relationships are not "free milk" by any stretch of the imagination. You have to work on them.

WEll. I must say I really respect that. The way I was brought up, there is nothing to respect a committed man or a woman because that is the standard. Do you understand? I mean, when OS X is standard and everyone has it almost everywhere, when I get OS X, its nothing special. Thats the standard.

But then once I grew up and saw the world I realised true commitment is to be respected because strangely or funnily enough I was told wrong. It is not standard. It is special.

Good on you Windwalker. neighbours like you would help my Childs development I think. :)
 

robocop (actually)

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
So what do you figure (and I'm sure it varies by country) is the percentage of Mormons who are inactive but still counted? In many modern churches it's on a continuum, where there are the incredibly active down to the once a year, or only weddings and funerals crowd. It strikes me that in Mormonism most are all in.
Research has shown that most inactive members still believe.
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
WEll. I must say I really respect that. The way I was brought up, there is nothing to respect a committed man or a woman because that is the standard. Do you understand? I mean, when OS X is standard and everyone has it almost everywhere, when I get OS X, its nothing special. Thats the standard.

But then once I grew up and saw the world I realised true commitment is to be respected because strangely or funnily enough I was told wrong. It is not standard. It is special.

Good on you Windwalker. neighbours like you would help my Childs development I think. :)
My mother and father were married for 67 years before his passing about five years ago. She passed a couple years ago now. They were best friends for life. He had a really cute way of talking about their marriage. Every year on their anniversary. he asked her if she wanted to renew their marriage contract again for another year (he was a businessman and liked to use things from that world as metaphors). Every year for 67 years, they agreed to another year together. :)

That was a really wonderful way to talk about their marriage. It was a mutual, renewed agreement. Nobody was forced contractually to be with each other. While they were wholly committed to each other, it was a partnership between them. Having a freewill choice to leave, but choosing to stay because you want to, is considerably more meaningful than because you have to.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
My mother and father were married for 67 years before his passing about five years ago. She passed a couple years ago now. They were best friends for life. He had a really cute way of talking about their marriage. Every year on their anniversary. he asked her if she wanted to renew their marriage contract again for another year (he was a businessman and liked to use things from that world as metaphors). Every year for 67 years, they agreed to another year together. :)

That was a really wonderful way to talk about their marriage. It was a mutual, renewed agreement. Nobody was forced contractually to be with each other. While they were wholly committed to each other, it was a partnership between them. Having a freewill choice to leave, but choosing to stay because you want to, is considerably more meaningful than because you have to.

You are blessed. Truly.
 

74x12

Well-Known Member
This wasn't due to proselytising, but due to peoples own volitions, and more or less deconversion, or going back to roots.
Considering the persecution and discrimination against Christians in Kerala; I'm not surprised. Those who are weak in the faith will easily convert over to Hinduism to avoid it.

I don't think you are giving a good example of the failure of "proselytization" rather an example of effectiveness of persecution.
 

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
Considering the persecution and discrimination against Christians in Kerala; I'm not surprised. Those who are weak in the faith will easily convert over to Hinduism to avoid it.

I don't think you are giving a good example of the failure of "proselytization" rather an example of effectiveness of persecution.

Did you read the article? (post 63) In a state with a population of 34 million, there was a total of around 500 (official) conversions in all directions amongst the 3 main groups. In my view, it's truly insignificant. What the headline did for me was raise the idea of discussing the effectiveness of proselytising in this day and age, hence this thread. Personally, beside the fact that I see little need for conversions at all, I think there are better methods than direct proselytising. Certainly a far bigger impact in India was from building schools and hospitals that from going door to door.
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
No I said probably 80% of 'people 'who claim to be a Christian are probably not saved . This is Jesus ,s example of the wheat and the tares .
Indeed you did! But more than that......
When asked to explain your post No22, which read:-
You'd have to differentiate between Joining a church and receiving Jesus .
....you offered explanation thus:-
That probably 80% of so called professing 'Christians- ' are not saved .

......... I can read what you meant, John.

And that's the danger...... Some extremist Christians point to many other Churches, Creeds and Congregations and accuse 'They are not Christians!'

And so they can progress in that concept by declaring 'most other Christians and ALL people outside of their own group' to be 'Evil, Wicked, Satanic or bound for Hellfire'. What a perfect way of convincing oneself that 'all other humans' don't actually count.

And 'No', that wasn't the true meaning of Jesus's speech about wheat and tares, but that's for another thread.
 

John1.12

Free gift
Indeed you did! But more than that......
When asked to explain your post No22, which read:-
You'd have to differentiate between Joining a church and receiving Jesus .
....you offered explanation thus:-
That probably 80% of so called professing 'Christians- ' are not saved .

......... I can read what you meant, John.

And that's the danger...... Some extremist Christians point to many other Churches, Creeds and Congregations and accuse 'They are not Christians!'

And so they can progress in that concept by declaring 'most other Christians and ALL people outside of their own group' to be 'Evil, Wicked, Satanic or bound for Hellfire'. What a perfect way of convincing oneself that 'all other humans' don't actually count.

And 'No', that wasn't the true meaning of Jesus's speech about wheat and tares, but that's for another thread.
Thats not what I meant . Jesus gives the parable of the wheat and the tares . The idea is that you can't tell the difference barely, they grow side by side .I can't say who s saved or not saved . I can't see inside them to see if they have been born again. I m putting a estimation on it thats all . And I reckon its probably around 80% ,possibly. Thats it . I don't act upon that . I just Suspect that's the case .
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
Thats not what I meant .
I just read what you wrote, John.

Jesus gives the parable of the wheat and the tares .
Which I interpret a different way entirely. Another thread......

I can't say who s saved or not saved .
Nor can you tell us whether Druids, Deists, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Pagans, Agnostics or Atheists are saved, John.

I can't see inside them to see if they have been born again. I m putting a estimation on it thats all . And I reckon its probably around 80% ,possibly. Thats it . I don't act upon that . I just Suspect that's the case .
Maybe it's better to acknowledge everybody's and anybody's beliefs?
When any folks start pretending that they know (or can guess) who is or is not saved, that can get dangerous.

Go around the extremist Christian forums and discover for yourself..........
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Thats not what I meant . Jesus gives the parable of the wheat and the tares . The idea is that you can't tell the difference barely, they grow side by side .I can't say who s saved or not saved . I can't see inside them to see if they have been born again.
Of course you can tell the difference. Jesus said, "You shall know them by their fruits". In other words, don't go by the words they profess, look at what comes out of them instead. Jesus clearly taught others to be able to discern true faith, versus lip service.
 

John1.12

Free gift
I just read what you wrote, John.


Which I interpret a different way entirely. Another thread......


Nor can you tell us whether Druids, Deists, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Pagans, Agnostics or Atheists are saved, John.


Maybe it's better to acknowledge everybody's and anybody's beliefs?
When any folks start pretending that they know (or can guess) who is or is not saved, that can get dangerous.

Go around the extremist Christian forums and discover for yourself..........
I estimate based on what the bible says . No one be saved in any other religion ,because of that religion . But they could be saved inspite of it .
 

John1.12

Free gift
Of course you can tell the difference. Jesus said, "You shall know them by their fruits". In other words, don't go by the words they profess, look at what comes out of them instead. Jesus clearly taught others to be able to discern true faith, versus lip service.
Matthew 7 is about ' false prophet s ' the fruits are not what they are ' doing ' ," Lord ,Lord , didnt we do ...." No its what they taught .
 

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
In some kind of most likely useless attempt to bring this back on the OP 's topic, I'd like to thank those who gave feedback on that topic. I think it's fair to say that the consensus would be that proselytizing still works, in some degree to get some new converts, but at the same time it repels others. With that, I'll be out of my own thread, lol. Have at it, folks.

BTW, for those that didn't catch the irony, it was seeing so much proselytizing in a thread that was supposed to discuss the success of it. Perhaps the word served as an invitation.
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
In some kind of most likely useless attempt to bring this back on the OP 's topic, I'd like to thank those who gave feedback on that topic. I think it's fair to say that the consensus would be that proselytizing still works, in some degree to get some new converts, but at the same time it repels others. With that, I'll be out of my own thread, lol. Have at it, folks.

BTW, for those that didn't catch the irony, it was seeing so much proselytizing in a thread that was supposed to discuss the success of it. Perhaps the word served as an invitation.
I think proselytizing 'works' only to those receptive and share something in common with the pitch being made.

A bit like infomercials where an appealing scenario is set out like a lure and those who bite are the ones who essentially feel they have nothing to lose.

It's essentially a fishing trip. A way of snagging a catch.
 

Marcion

gopa of humanity's controversial Taraka Brahma
Spiritual ideology and practice is not a hobby or merely a pleasant passtime for the elderly. Therefore freedom of spreading information on this subject should be guaranteed and never be discouraged, attacked, surpressed or feared.
 
Top