All's fair in love and proselytizing

[siti]

"Lying for Jesus", as it were?

Well I suppose that's one way of putting it. On the other hand, I do have some sympathy for "the other side" (maybe because in an earlier life I was "the other side") - if you really felt you had a "life saving" message wouldn't you want to try everything you could to get it across in a way that people would accept - even if it meant leaving some important details out at the beginning?

 

[Milton Platt]

Well I suppose that's one way of putting it. On the other hand, I do have some sympathy for "the other side" (maybe because in an earlier life I was "the other side") - if you really felt you had a "life saving" message wouldn't you want to try everything you could to get it across in a way that people would accept - even if it meant leaving some important details out at the beginning?

I would hope that you would have verifiable evidence to support the assertions that my life was in danger, and not just assertions. It would not require lying if the evidence was solid.

 

[siti]

I would hope that you would have verifiable evidence to support the assertions that my life was in danger, and not just assertions. It would not require lying if the evidence was solid.

Of course you would. I'm really talking about convictions than hard evidence - hard evidence is hard to come by in religious discourse - you may have noticed.

 

[ManSinha]

Maybe the real question is “Why are Baha’is dishonest sometimes?” Again, I don’t think we’ll see any answers in this thread from people who actually think that they’re being dishonest. I’ll break that down into two questions. One is, why are people dishonest sometimes? Another is, why are some people who are dishonest sometimes, members of the Baha’i Faith? My answer is that being dishonest sometimes doesn’t always keep a person from applying for membership and being accepted, and we don’t police what our members do everywhere all the time. We don’t check to make sure a person is never dishonest, before we accept their application for membership.

As with other things - Baha'i's do not have the corner on "some dishonest people being in the faith / group" - it goes without saying they exist in every faith - show me someone who claims they do not in his / her faith and I shall show you a bald faced liar

 

[InChrist]

That is a rarity. There are some that proselytize, but they are a rather small minority. I have had Jehovah's Witnesses knock on my door, but never atheists.

I think there are many ways to proselytize besides knocking on doors.

 

[InChrist]

Lying or pretending is not only wrong, but unnecessary, as Christians are to speak the truth in love.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think there are many ways to proselytize besides knocking on doors.

There may be. So what?

 

[Jim]

@siti I'm not sure that what I want to say is on topic here, but I'm not sure it isn't. I'm wondering what's so fascinating about what Baha'is do wrong in Internet discussions. It seems natural to me for members, former members, and people who have been hurt or offended by them to be interested in that topic and want to talk about it, but it looks to me like there are other people who are more interested in what Baha'is do wrong than they are in what other people do wrong. It might be different for different people. For some people it might be because they fell for one or another of the sales pitches when they first saw it, and then felt betrayed. For others it might be because of a feeling that there's something uniquely Baha'i about some of the sales pitches, and it's like solving a puzzle to try to figure out what it is. That might be what it is for me, besides me being a member myself.

Part of the explanation for me is that some or all of the sales pitches were popular in some Baha'i communities, in and around the 80s. For example, I remember a meeting where "metooing" was taught explicitly.

Some of what they do that people call "proselytizing" looks devious or otherwise wrong to me, but I don't see any reason to think that there's any insincerity in Baha'is denying that it's proselytizing. Most of what I see people calling "proselytizing" doesn't look to me like it qualifies as proselytizing according the Merriam-Webster online dictionary, and I don't think the moderators consider it proselytizing either, so I don't see any reason to think that Bahai's are being dishonest or insincere when they say that they aren't proselytizing. Sometimes what they say and do does look dishonest and insincere to me, but not that. However that may be, no matter if it's proselytizing or not, what matters to me is why it annoys us so much and what if anything to do about it, besides reporting it if we think it's against forum rules.

I've been trying to understand my feelings about this. The biggest reason it annoys me is because it makes the Baha'i Faith look bad. If I were not a member, and I hadn't already seen all this dozens of time before, then another reason for me might be being drawn repeatedly into discussions that look interesting to me, and finding out that they really aren't, that once again I've fallen for another Baha'i sales pitch. Another reason might that seeing those threads popping up, again and again, feels insulting and disrespectful in a way that's hard to explain. It feels invasive and intrusive, like ... like ... proselytizing! More than that, they don't seem to care how anyone feels about it, as long as they can justify it to themselves. There couldn't possibly be anything wrong with what they're doing, so if we don't like it, it must be something wrong with us. Maybe that's what makes it feel insulting and disrespectful. Now I'm remembering that I've been that way myself a lot in Internet discussions, especially with other Baha'is.

What to do about it? Maybe report if you think it's a violation of forum rules? Otherwise, try to ignore it? Try to discuss it with them? I don't have any better ideas.

 

[blü 2]

And what is the agenda of the atheists who haunt the religion forums of the world, who speak so enthusiastically on behalf of their cause, which is to win a believer over to the godless and hopeless belief that they espouse.​

Well, I'm not technically an atheist, but I have a viewpoint and since this is a forum for viewpoints I feel free to express it. If it raises questions about religious claims, what's wrong with that?

I find it extraordinary, for example, that no religion appears to have even the concept of a god with objective existence, which leaves only the concept of imaginary gods. On the other hand, if I'm mistaken and there's a satisfactory definition of a real god so that if we found a real god we could tell it was just that, I'll happily accept it.

 

[Jim]

I've been thinking some more about my feelings about this. I still disagree with calling what Baha'is do in Internet discussions "proselytizing," but it feels like proselytizing to me, because it feels invasive and intrusive, like they're using the forums as a Baha'i blog, or like adware on a computer. Then I wonder, why doesn't it feel that way to me when Pope-a-Dope floods the forums with his click-bait clowning threads? It's hard to explain. It just doesn't feel the same, I don't know why. I said before that it's because they don't seem to care how it affects anyone else, as long as they can find a way to justify it to themselves, but that's nothing special about Baha'is. That might intensify the feeling, but for me what's different about it is how invasive and intrusive it feels.

I've done the same thing myself a few times. I don't know if anything that I've done here felt like that, but I definitely did that in an atheist forum, flooding the forum with new threads, promoting some of my ideas. How did I think that was okay? I don't know. It seemed like a good idea at the time. I honestly thought that there might possibly be some people in the forum that would be interested in what I was thinking, and would like discussing it with me.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

...but atheists definitely do try to inflict their lack of belief upon others.

Some atheists main goal is to get more people not to believe, sure. But mostly what I see, and I include myself in this camp, are atheists who try and point out the complete and utter failings of the religious to provide good, rational, compelling reasons to believe what they believe.

It is an attempt to get people to look critically at the things they believe that are not supported by good evidence - or that even fly in the face of evidence.

For example, Christian assertions that The Bible is an ultimate source of human morality when it contains references to how one may own slaves and in what situations a slave dying from a beating should not result in the slave's master being punished. It becomes terribly obvious that The Bible is a mish-mash of some good stuff, some okay stuff, and some really horrible stuff - and yet claims are made otherwise - and those should be dealt with, and dealt with harshly in my opinion. It is simply not okay to make assertions against blatantly obvious/factual evidence.

 

[Twilight Hue]

According to RF rules, the forum should not be used for proselytizing. But that does not mean, it can be used to teach and learn Religions. If that was the case, what would be the use of it?!
How do you distinguish between teaching and proselytizing? Suppose, I ask you about your Religion view of Karma. Then you explain it, and possibly try to justify it. Would this be proselytizing?

I tend to think teaching is more akin with a documentary.

Proselytizing is more akin with a sales pitch.

 

[Twilight Hue]

And what is the agenda of the atheists who haunt the religion forums of the world, who speak so enthusiastically on behalf of their cause, which is to win a believer over to the godless and hopeless belief that they espouse.​

Well, if one comes up with extraordinary claims, expect an extraordinary argument.
It's quite simple really.

 

[InChrist]

Some atheists main goal is to get more people not to believe, sure. But mostly what I see, and I include myself in this camp, are atheists who try and point out the complete and utter failings of the religious to provide good, rational, compelling reasons to believe what they believe.

It is an attempt to get people to look critically at the things they believe that are not supported by good evidence - or that even fly in the face of evidence.

For example, Christian assertions that The Bible is an ultimate source of human morality when it contains references to how one may own slaves and in what situations a slave dying from a beating should not result in the slave's master being punished. It becomes terribly obvious that The Bible is a mish-mash of some good stuff, some okay stuff, and some really horrible stuff - and yet claims are made otherwise - and those should be dealt with, and dealt with harshly in my opinion. It is simply not okay to make assertions against blatantly obvious/factual evidence.

Nothing wrong with having good discussions so that people think, consider, and reach compelling reasons for what they believe. But I don't think it is a one way street. Atheists are people first and just as prone as theists to think critically or non-critically in any given situation. Many atheists today seem to prefer the attack God, Bible, believers, mode rather than critical thinking...but not all.

I do think your view that the Bible is a "mish-mash" or that falls short as a source of human morality, is mistaken. For one thing, I don't think you are reading or understanding the Bible as a whole or it's purpose. From the start, the Bible lays out the fallen condition of human morality, due to the fall into sin. The Bible has all that really horrible stuff included for a reason. Many of the accounts in the scriptures are transparent examples of this and the way sin plays out in human interactions and societies. Slavery is an example. It is a (sinful) practice instituted by humans, not God. If you read and understand the scriptures and see God's perspective on the matter you would understand that slavery is contrary to God's design. This is the reason that it was Christians who first opposed slavery and were the ones who created movements to abolish it.

"The regulation of slavery should therefore be seen as a practical step to deal with the realities of the day resulting from human fall. The aberrations that lead to alienation among individuals, races, and nations are the result of a fundamental broken relationship between humankind and God. Within this tragic scenario, Scripture comes as a breath of fresh air as it seeks to redeem the situation and sets us on a path of ever-increasing amelioration of our predicament. While the Bible does not reject slavery outright, the conclusion that it actually favours slavery is patently wrong. Scripture does reveal that slavery is not ideal, both in Old Testament laws forbidding the enslavement of fellow Israelites, the law of jubilee, and in New Testament applications of Christ. In fact, the Bible teaches that the feeling of superiority in general is sin (Philippians 2:1-8)! The abolition of slavery is thus not only permissible by biblical standards, but demanded by biblical principles. The pre-fall statement that should guide and ultimately abolish such (and any) practices of superiority is the declaration that all humans—men and women—are made in the image of God."
Does the Bible Condone Slavery? | Zacharias Trust | RZIM Europe

"Although many Enlightenment philosophers opposed slavery, it was Christian activists, attracted by strong religious elements, who initiated and organized an abolitionist movement. [1] Throughout Europe and the United States, Christians, usually from 'un-institutional' Christian faith movements, not directly connected with traditional state churches, or "non-conformist" believers within established churches, were to be found at the forefront of the abolitionist movements.[1][2]"
Christian Abolitionism - Wikipedia

 

[InChrist]

There may be. So what?

So there are ways which have a much greater impact now: books, lectures, universities, schools, and various medias. Many of the atheists who are using these avenues to express and influence others are dogmatic and combative towards any concept of God or belief and I think this can be just as much of a threat to freedom in a society as any other vocal, extreme, controlling religion or group.

It is with this enmity, this furious certainty, that our ideological atheists lapse most fully into illiberalism. Politically speaking, liberalism takes no position on theological questions. One can be a liberal and a believer (as were Martin Luther King Jr., Reinhold Niebuhr, and countless others in the American past and present) or a liberal and an unbeliever (as were Hook, Richard Rorty, and a significantly smaller number of Americans over the years). This is in part because liberalism is a philosophy of government, not a philosophy of man--or God. But it is also because modern liberalism derives, at its deepest level, from ancient liberalism--from the classical virtue of liberality, which meant generosity and openness. To be liberal in the classical sense is to accept intellectual variety--and the social complexity that goes with it--as the ineradicable condition of a free society.

It is to accept, in other words, that, although I may settle the question of God to my personal satisfaction, it is highly unlikely that all of my fellow citizens will settle it in the same way--that differences in life experience, social class, intelligence, and the capacity for introspection will invariably prevent a free community from reaching unanimity about the fundamental mysteries of human existence, including God. Liberal atheists accept this situation; ideological atheists do not. That, in the end, is what separates the atheism of Socrates from the atheism of the French Revolution.
Atheism's Wrong Turn

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I do think your view that the Bible is a "mish-mash" or that falls short as a source of human morality, is mistaken. For one thing, I don't think you are reading or understanding the Bible as a whole or it's purpose. From the start, the Bible lays out the fallen condition of human morality, due to the fall into sin. The Bible has all that really horrible stuff included for a reason. Many of the accounts in the scriptures are transparent examples of this and the way sin plays out in human interactions and societies. Slavery is an example. It is a (sinful) practice instituted by humans, not God. If you read and understand the scriptures and see God's perspective on the matter you would understand that slavery is contrary to God's design. This is the reason that it was Christians who first opposed slavery and were the ones who created movements to abolish it.

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.

 

[siti]

I'm wondering what's so fascinating about what Baha'is do wrong in Internet discussions.

Thanks @Jim - just to clarify my intent in this thread...

First, I did not intend to focus specifically on Baha'is - although I did use an example from recent discussions posted by a Baha'i member. Others - evangelical Christians and JWs have responded (negatively in some cases) so I presume they felt that it was - at least partly - directed at them too - but that wasn't the case either. In fact, I have even given an example in a later post, of how an atheist might use the same tactics to "win over" the unwary believer to their way of thinking. So I really don't want to limit the discussion to "either side" or any one group/way of thinking.

Second, whilst the terms I used (dishonest, less than candid...etc...) appear to be negative and possibly accusatory, that was not my intent either. In fact, I am still not sure that it is necessarily wrong to be less than completely honest about one's beliefs in certain circumstances. People have died for being perfectly candid about their religious beliefs - many people. If one's life depending on disavowing one's faith momentarily in a courtroom, which is the greater sin - being dishonest for a moment or knowingly giving up the gift of life? That's not the topic here, but what I am saying is that I certainly believe there are circumstances in which it is entirely permissible and absolutely the right choice to lie about one's religious beliefs if there is a demonstrably greater good at stake.

So my question is more about where the line might be drawn. I know that proselytizing is against the rules on RF and I perfectly well understand why that is the case, but I don't think that proselytizing is necessarily a bad thing. And in a religious debate forum, isn't the object of the exercise to persuade the observers (if not the "other side") of the veracity of one's beliefs? Why do formal debates in the real world often begin with the statement "this house believes..." and then proceed to present evidence in favour of that belief whilst the opposing "house" presents evidence against?

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?

The danger in this, and I suspect that might be partly what you were alluding to earlier, is that we might then end up believing in the "stop gap" rather than the real belief we set out with at the start. We might fool ourselves into believing that when a Baha'i (for example only) says "Son of God" it really does mean the same thing as a fundamentalist Christian would mean by it - not because we have actually adopted their version of what that means, but because we have watered down bothe versions (our own and theirs) in our own mind. We start to think there is fundamentally no difference when in fact there are absolutely vital differences. In our mind we start to substitute glib sameness for rich diversity and imagine that our differences are merely superficial when they are actually profound.

I have now taken my own thread a few steps further than my original intent - partly as a result of your insightful probing. 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 deliberately made it a bit provocative to incite comments rather than to insult because I doubt there can be any serious religious discourse if one is either unconvinced of the life-enhancing (if not life-saving) value of the message or one's need/obligation to share it. That was my "common ground" for opening a discussion that I do intend to take further and deeper - into the realms of "interfaith" and "syncretism". The second one is not an accusation either - 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, it is from that angle that I am most interested in it. 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 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). RF members are a brilliant (but by no means perfect) mirror for reflecting on such things.

 

[Jim]

@siti, that’s another post I would have rated higher than “Winner” if I could have.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So there are ways which have a much greater impact now: books, lectures, universities, schools, and various medias. Many of the atheists who are using these avenues to express and influence others are dogmatic and combative towards any concept of God or belief and I think this can be just as much of a threat to freedom in a society as any other vocal, extreme, controlling religion or group.

It is with this enmity, this furious certainty, that our ideological atheists lapse most fully into illiberalism. Politically speaking, liberalism takes no position on theological questions. One can be a liberal and a believer (as were Martin Luther King Jr., Reinhold Niebuhr, and countless others in the American past and present) or a liberal and an unbeliever (as were Hook, Richard Rorty, and a significantly smaller number of Americans over the years). This is in part because liberalism is a philosophy of government, not a philosophy of man--or God. But it is also because modern liberalism derives, at its deepest level, from ancient liberalism--from the classical virtue of liberality, which meant generosity and openness. To be liberal in the classical sense is to accept intellectual variety--and the social complexity that goes with it--as the ineradicable condition of a free society.

It is to accept, in other words, that, although I may settle the question of God to my personal satisfaction, it is highly unlikely that all of my fellow citizens will settle it in the same way--that differences in life experience, social class, intelligence, and the capacity for introspection will invariably prevent a free community from reaching unanimity about the fundamental mysteries of human existence, including God. Liberal atheists accept this situation; ideological atheists do not. That, in the end, is what separates the atheism of Socrates from the atheism of the French Revolution.
Atheism's Wrong Turn

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?

 

[Jim]

And in a religious debate forum, isn't the object of the exercise to persuade the observers (if not the "other side") of the veracity of one's beliefs?

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.

I’ll respond to your other points after I finish studying your post.