• 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!

All's fair in love and proselytizing

siti

Well-Known Member
That isn’t how it looks to me, in formal debating or in Internet discussions. In formal debating, the object is to win the debate. Nobody cares if anyone changes their mind about anything. In Internet discussions, I think that it’s mostly recreational and for social interaction, like an mmorpg, and nobody cares if anyone changes their mind about anything. That’s how it all looks to me. One difference I see between formal debating and debating in Internet discussions is that in formal debating the debaters don’t make their own rules and are not their own judges of who is winning the debate.
But how does one "win" a debate except by convincing someone that one has made the most compelling argument? So the "winning" may not be based on substance as much as style and force of delivery - but how is that not in precise alignment to the process of proselytizing? Except that to win a debate, its not necessarily the direct audience that has to be convinced. I'm not sure that people do very often change their minds anyway (although I do - and sometimes in the middle of a discussion - which is a but frustrating for others) but usually, If we're convinced that an argument is sound, I think we either garner confirmation of our existing opinion because the argument reinforces what we already believe or switch off. That's why I don't fear the proselytizer - s/he can't change my mind - only I can do that.
 

Jim

Nets of Wonder
... a discussion that I do intend to take further and deeper - into the realms of "interfaith" and "syncretism". ... I firmly believe that there is wisdom in many religious traditions and that taking the best bits of them and stitching them together into a "new" one is a perfectly sensible and laudable thing to do. Whether or not I have the right grasp of the Baha'i faith ...
Baha'i Faiths. Plural. You might have the right grasp of some of them, but certainly not the one I'm following, unless you consider all the religions syncretic.
 
Last edited:

Jim

Nets of Wonder
My motive then is neither to accuse or find fault, but to learn - not the tenets of another faith (that's important but incidental at this point in my 'search') - but how to discuss and evaluate them (for myself).
One thing that I would like and that I’m hoping for, in any conversation between us, is to learn as much as I can from it. Another is for you to find encouragement and support in our conversation, for whatever good you might be doing, trying to do or hoping to do, online and offline.

It might help me get a clearer understanding of what you’re hoping for, if you could remember or make up an example or two of the kind of discussion that you have in mind, including an example of what you mean by common ground and how it might help make the discussion more fruitful and beneficial. Also, maybe I could describe to you some wonderful learning experiences that I’ve had in discussions across religious lines, and see if that’s the kind of conversation that you have in mind.
 

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
Baha'i Faiths. Plural. You might have the right grasp of some of them, but certainly not the one I'm following, unless you consider all the religions syncretic.

This. of course, goes directly against what other Baha'is often remind us of. So in your view, are they purposefully being deceptive? Or maybe in their view, you are.

It doesn't matter to me personally, as I decide for myself what I consider deceptive or not, am mostly just 'watcher' in hopes if understanding the mind better.

I don't really like deception, as it's not a world of joy, or one I would personally want to be in. And it's in a lower consciousness. I just prefer up-front honesty. I'd make a horrible used car salesman, or real estate agent, as I'd be saying 'Don't buy this car, don't buy this house" far too often to have any success.
 

syo

Well-Known Member
OK - so you have a strong religious faith that you wholeheartedly believe would benefit everyone to know about...
I thought my siblings and parents would benefit from my religious views but they are all atheists and they don't want to talk about religion at all. They think I waste their time. I asked them to proselytise them and they laugh. oh well...
 

Jim

Nets of Wonder
Baha'i Faiths. Plural. You might have the right grasp of some of them ...
This. of course, goes directly against what other Baha'is often remind us of. So in your view, are they purposefully being deceptive?
I don’t see any reason for me to think that they’re saying things that they don’t think are true.
 

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
I don’t see any reason for me to think that they’re saying things that they don’t think are true.
Indeed. They certainly think that there is only one version of Baha'i. They also think that there is a town in Saskatchewan Canada that has a Baha'i presence, that is actually a ghost town. I guess the bottom line here is that you trust what your NSA s or the UHJ tells you. And that's fine. It's entirely up to the individual.
 

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
Maybe some of the ghosts in that town are Baha'is. Can you prove otherwise? :smile:

It was a vague reference to a discussion we had before you discovered this forum. It was about the controversy about Baha'i exaggerating the number of adherents, and extend of influence. So I did some local research on my own, checking out the lists of the NSA of Canada, since I live in Canada. They listed some 50 towns in Saskatchewan, and I looked at a couple I've never heard of. One was indeed a place that no longer exists, and several places were small villages of less than a hundred people. I concluded it was exaggeration, but who knows? Maybe some fencepost in the middle of the wide open Canadian prairies once converted.

But yes, it may well be the ghosts of some Pioneer who died trying to convert others.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jim

Jim

Nets of Wonder
I see now that what we're discussing here might be where to draw a line between foma and nocima. I might be an afomaist, but I'm not sure. I might feel the same way about foma as I do about the FSM, but I can't make up my mind about that. Does that make me a foma-agnostic or ignostic, or am I just trying to camouflage my apathy? I won't be able to sleep until I find the one and only true label for how I think and feel about foma, to know which identity faction owns me I belong to.
 
Last edited:

Jim

Nets of Wonder
... but I don't think that proselytizing is necessarily a bad thing.
And so where to begin a religious discussion/debate/discourse if not on "common ground"? And if there is no genuinely common ground, then perhaps there is no discourse possible - no possible meeting of minds - but if there is something that is - at least as a temporary "stop gap" bridge across the chasm between two opposing sets of beliefs - "close enough" to common ground...like, for example, we use the same terms (even if what we mean by them are quite different things)...then why not use that to open up a dialogue?
My point in this thread was really to prompt a discussion about the process of finding (or inventing if necessary) "common ground" for religious discourse.
I firmly believe that there is wisdom in many religious traditions and that taking the best bits of them and stitching them together into a "new" one is a perfectly sensible and laudable thing to do. ... But I do - as I have suggested above - see very real dangers in the process - and since I intend to engage in a bit of syncretism - I feel the need to draw out the discussion of those dangers using the best examples I can think of.
My motive then is ... to learn - not the tenets of another faith (that's important but incidental at this point in my 'search') - but how to discuss and evaluate them (for myself).
I have some ideas that I've been practicing, about how to learn all I can from every discussion I'm in, and some wonderful stories to tell about that. I don't see any need for any common ground, for me to learn from other people, in fact the less common ground the better for my purposes, but maybe learning is not your only motive in this discussion. Are there other interests for you in this discussion, besides learning?

! :eek: ,,, ?:dizzy: ,,,

Wait a minute, wait a minute! :smile: Is what you're saying about your motive a foma for you? And I walked right into it, fell for it hook, line and sinker! Shameless click bait, hidden in plain sight, like The Purloined Letter! If it is, then I will have not only an inalienable right but an inescapable responsibility to spend the rest of my life maligning, hounding and scolding you in any forum where I see you, all day long every day, to show my love for all of humanity.

:hugehug: I love you just as you are: sinner, Impostor and violator.

(I hate to have to do this, but to avoid a Poe, I will say that the last part of that was intended as parody.)
 

Jim

Nets of Wonder
@siti It looks to me like you might be saying that your interest in this discussion is to learn what you can from different religions, and that for that purpose it might be useful sometimes to think of something as common ground even if it really isn’t. That’s because you think that sometimes there isn’t any real common ground, and artificial common ground might be better than nothing at all. Am I following you?

I don’t know what to think about that, but I’ve learned ways to have all the common ground I need, to learn whatever I can from people, without any need for us to believe the same way, or to pretend to believe the same way, about anything.
 

InChrist

Free4ever
As someone smarter than myself has pointed out in the past - why would God ever be straightforward and clear about the command "do not eat shellfish" or "do not wear garments of mixed fabrics", and yet be so unclear about the wrongs involved in owning other people as property? Why couldn't God declare "do not own other people as property" as easily as He told people not to eat shellfish? You honestly cannot have a reasonable justification for this.

"God's word" literally contains prescriptions for the conditions under which it is allowable to own other people. And now we realize it is never allowable to own other people. And so... even if Christians were instrumental in abolishing slavery (HIGHLY debatable - as it was also Christians who utilized these very passages from The Bible as justification to keep slavery in place), they are going against the prescriptions for slavery laid out in The Bible in order to do so. A Christian protesting against slavery in every form is literally protesting against prescriptions present in their precious Bible. No question.

I believe there is a reasonable answer. To start with the God of the Bible never sanctioned or justified "owning" another person, treating people harshly, or like property. The scriptures indicate that God created human beings in His image. So every person is valuable and responsible to God for their behavior and treatment toward others. He gave the commands to ...
love your neighbor as yourself
(Lev. 19:18) and

...the stranger who dwells among you shall be to you as one born among you, and you shall love him as yourself; for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God (Lev. 19:34).

Commandments as these leave no room for the slavery you are talking about and are unacceptable by biblical standards.

I think you need to realize that what you are calling conditions for "slavery" in the Bible is not a reference to the kind of slavery we think of which took place here in the U.S. or elsewhere when one race was stolen and enslaved by another. The term slave in the Bible means more accurately bondservant or indentured servant. It was economic-based slavery (servanthood). These were people who chose to sell themselves as slaves when they could not pay their debts and they were paid something and/or provided for. This was a common practice in ancient cultures. God's rules on how these slaves (servants) were to be treated show that He cared and regulated the practice so that those in these servant positions were treated fairly and as equals. This is consistent in the OT and NT. God's rules do not in anyway endorse the practice of wicked slavery you are referring to and is in fact a violation of God's command to "love your neighbor". Slave traders and/or man-stealers are in opposition to God (1 Timothy 1:10). As would be any "Christians" who twist scriptures for their own greed, control. unloving treatment of others.

All the detailed commandments, such as the one about shellfish were given to set the nation of Israel apart from the surrounding nations which were immersed in sinful practices, very likely including abusive slavery and much worse. God's command to love your neighbor as yourself and to treat others with respect and dignity was unique and meant to be a light and a testimony to Israel and the other nations that God placed value on every life, unlike the human thinking of the day.

I think it is also important to note that the purpose of the Bible is not to reform society, but to point the way to salvation. God could have made more and more rules, but unless a person's heart and attitude is changed from the inside by grace and love, rules never accomplish real change. Just like the scriptures point the way to find freedom from the slavery of sin, so freedom from sin results in a changes throughout a society where love for others replaces abuse.
 

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
I believe there is a reasonable answer. To start with the God of the Bible never sanctioned or justified "owning" another person, treating people harshly, or like property.
Even if we accept this, He didn't explicitly forbid it. But He DID forbid eating shellfish. Please note that you still didn't answer for this relative importance apparently placed on shellfish. You dodged that point entirely. Here is the simple question you should answer: WHY DOES GOD PRIORITIZE INFORMING US OF THE "WRONG" OF EATING SHELLFISH AND WEARING MIXED FABRICS OVER INFORMING US OF THE WRONG OF OWNING SLAVES?

I think you need to realize that what you are calling conditions for "slavery" in the Bible is not a reference to the kind of slavery we think of which took place here in the U.S. or elsewhere when one race was stolen and enslaved by another. The term slave in the Bible means more accurately bondservant or indentured servant.
This is so very dishonest it is pitiful. You do realize that The Bible describes when it is permissible to BEAT YOUR SLAVE TO DEATH, right? Do you need me to point you to the verse? (Hint: see Exodus 21:20–21) Where is your "happy happy fun time" indentured servitude in that prescription, eh?
 

McBell

Resident Sourpuss
I think you need to realize that what you are calling conditions for "slavery" in the Bible is not a reference to the kind of slavery we think of which took place here in the U.S. or elsewhere when one race was stolen and enslaved by another. The term slave in the Bible means more accurately bondservant or indentured servant. It was economic-based slavery (servanthood). These were people who chose to sell themselves as slaves when they could not pay their debts and they were paid something and/or provided for. This was a common practice in ancient cultures. God's rules on how these slaves (servants) were to be treated show that He cared and regulated the practice so that those in these servant positions were treated fairly and as equals. This is consistent in the OT and NT. God's rules do not in anyway endorse the practice of wicked slavery you are referring to and is in fact a violation of God's command to "love your neighbor". Slave traders and/or man-stealers are in opposition to God (1 Timothy 1:10). As would be any "Christians" who twist scriptures for their own greed, control. unloving treatment of others.
Deuteronomy 15:17 suggests otherwise.

Why the distinction if only the one you like existed?
 

InChrist

Free4ever
Deuteronomy 15:17 suggests otherwise.

Why the distinction if only the one you like existed?


Taking that verse Deuteronomy 15:17 in context explains the situation. As verse 16 shows, the bondservant only becomes a servant forever because they chose to remain, rather than be set free. They loved and were loved by those they served.

If your brother, a Hebrew man, or a Hebrew woman, is sold to you and serves you six years, then in the seventh year you shall let him go free from you. 13 And when you send him away free from you, you shall not let him go away empty-handed; 14 you shall supply him liberally from your flock, from your threshing floor, and from your winepress. From what the Lord your God has blessed you with, you shall give to him. 15 You shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the Lord your God redeemed you; therefore I command you this thing today. 16 And if it happens that he says to you, ‘I will not go away from you,’ because he loves you and your house, since he prospers with you, 17 then you shall take an awl and thrust it through his ear to the door, and he shall be your servant forever. Also to your female servant you shall do likewise. 18 It shall not seem hard to you when you send him away free from you; for he has been worth a double hired servant in serving you six years. Then the Lord your God will bless you in all that you do. Deuteronomy 15:12-18
 
Last edited:

InChrist

Free4ever
Even if we accept this, He didn't explicitly forbid it. But He DID forbid eating shellfish. Please note that you still didn't answer for this relative importance apparently placed on shellfish. You dodged that point entirely. Here is the simple question you should answer: WHY DOES GOD PRIORITIZE INFORMING US OF THE "WRONG" OF EATING SHELLFISH AND WEARING MIXED FABRICS OVER INFORMING US OF THE WRONG OF OWNING SLAVES?


This is so very dishonest it is pitiful. You do realize that The Bible describes when it is permissible to BEAT YOUR SLAVE TO DEATH, right? Do you need me to point you to the verse? (Hint: see Exodus 21:20–21) Where is your "happy happy fun time" indentured servitude in that prescription, eh?

Exodus 21:20-21 does not say it is permissible to beat a slave to death at all, but clearly states that if someone does they are to BE SURELY PUNISHED.

As I said before, the dietary and other laws were for the nation of ISRAEL, not US. Yet, the command to love our neighbor as ourselves is for, not only Israel, but informs US how to treat others. What is it about this command to "love your neighbor as yourself" that causes you to think God would consider slavery is acceptable or loving others as yourself?
 
Last edited:

InChrist

Free4ever
I think that you may be conflating corrections of your false beliefs, which are based on your personal religion, with atheist attacks. For example teaching evolution is not attacking the concept of God. Nor is pointing out that the Noah's Ark story is a myth. Not even the Big Bang theory is an attack on God by atheists. Do you have specific examples?
No, I'm not referring to disagreements about specific topics. I mean the general attitude of hateful, abrasive ridicule atheists express about God or toward Christians, as Richard Dawkins comment at a Reason Rally encouraged..."Mock them. Ridicule them! In public". I don't have time now, but there are many examples of these kinds of comments, by Dawkins and other prominent atheists.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
No, I'm not referring to disagreements about specific topics. I mean the general attitude of hateful, abrasive ridicule atheists express about God or toward Christians, as Richard Dawkins comment at a Reason Rally encouraged..."Mock them. Ridicule them! In public". I don't have time now, but there are many examples of these kinds of comments, by Dawkins and other prominent atheists.
To be of any value your quote must be in context. That means a link to the original unedited quote must be given, otherwise it is roughly the same as disproving the existence of God by the fact that the Bible says "there is no God" at least twelve different times.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
OK - so you have a strong religious faith that you wholeheartedly believe would benefit everyone to know about...like Peter and John in the Book of Acts you simply "cannot stop speaking about the things we have seen and heard" (Acts of the Apostles 4:20). You sincerely believe that "necessity is laid upon me" and "woe is unto me if I preach not the Gospel" (1 Corinthians 9:16,17)...

So you have a life-enhancing message that you feel obligated to share. Only one problem - most people don't want to hear it. But surely that's because they don't know how precious a gift you have to share with them. So how to get a "foot in the door" as it were? Well if you have been taught to evangelize, you probably know that "finding common ground" is a key to opening up a conversation. But what if there isn't any? Is it OK to pretend?

Maybe Paul thought so - he did, after all, say that he was "made all things to all men" in order that he might "save some". (He never actually said he was "a Greek to the Greeks" as far as I know but that's the idea). (1 Corinthians 9:20-22).

Anyway, the question is - if common ground (in terms of beliefs) is not there, is it OK either to pretend it is or even to invent common ground - "become a Greek to the Greeks" as it were - in order to achieve the overriding goal of "saving" (at least some of) your audience?

E.g. when a JW is confronted with the question "are you saved?" by an evangelical Christian, should they just say "yes" when they know very well that what the evangelical means by "saved" is very different from what they believe. When a Baha'i is confronted with a question about whether they believe in Jesus as the Son of God, is it OK to just say "yes" when they know very well that what the questioner means by "Son of God" is very different from their own interpretation of that phrase...I suppose there are very many examples...

There's an old saying "all's fair in love and sales" (its also the title of a fairly recent book about successful selling) - but finding common ground is very definitely a tried and tested sales technique. Is that what it is when it is done in a religious discussion? Is the motivation for presenting "less than completely candid" information about one's religious beliefs the good of the hearer - or sales? Is it to "snatch a log from the fire" and "gain a brother" - as it were - or is it just to count another convert? And, either way, is it honest? Is it acceptable to be dishonest in presenting our religious beliefs? Is it "love" or merely another proselytizing technique?
No, I never pretend. IF there is common ground, I might point it out, but if the ground is very different, I will tell it like it is. It is never acceptable to be dishonest, not according to Abdu'l-Baha:

“Consider that the worst of qualities and most odious of attributes, which is the foundation of all evil, is lying. No worse or more blameworthy quality than this can be imagined to exist; it is the destroyer of all human perfections, and the cause of innumerable vices. There is no worse characteristic than this; it is the foundation of all evils.” Bahá’í World Faith, p. 321

But sometimes in a social setting it is okay to not say anything, and that is not lying. For example, I know my Christian coworker believes that Jesus is going to return and I don't believe that, so if she mentions it I just do not say anything and I try to change the subject.

As a Baha'i, I would tell Christians I agree that Jesus is the Son of God but I would explain that I believe that in a different sense than they do; i.e., Jesus is as a son would be to a father, but He is not God's biological son, because God has no offspring since God is not a human.
 
Top