Is it possible to proselytize from a place of humility?

[BilliardsBall]

To me, a "gospel presentation" is a life lived full of joy, not one where you make arguments for why you believe the things you do. That Light that shines from that Joy, is the presentation. Words get in the way of that.


I think a lot of people both in religions and out of them dwell in deep darkness. I've known many atheists who are not in darkness, and in some cases they shine more brightly than a great many Christians do. So I'm not so willing to stick entire groups into a category of 'lostness'. I've known too many Christians who proclaim with the mouth their faith in God, yet their minds are in darkness and deep self-deceptions.

I see the Light wherever it shines, from the Muslim, to the Hindu, to the Christian, to the Buddhist, to the Atheist, to the Agnostic, to Tax Collector, to the Prostitute, to the sorts of folks Jesus saw the Light in, regardless of their designations, or beliefs. This is how Love sees, and what Love does.


I think by being a Light in your being, it speaks far more of God than whatever words or thoughts or ideas or arguments, or points of view we may express. Those are reflections of our minds and our egos. They are far duller and confusing than those that come from the light in one's eyes when they have be touched by God. That's what matters. That helps the whole world, believers and unbelievers alike.

Can you give me some examples of where Jesus taught (using words) how words "get in the way" of light? I'm trying to think of some now, but all I can remember is statements like "Make disciples from among the nations, teaching them all I've taught you..."

 

[SomeRandom]

It may not be humble, although it should be couched in humility, but is it true? If Jesus is the true light of the world, who am I to NOT proselytize?

How does one couch that in humility though?

 

[sojourner]

It may not be humble, although it should be couched in humility, but is it true? If Jesus is the true light of the world, who am I to NOT proselytize?

Francis said, “Preach the gospel. Use words if necessary.” Talking at people isn’t evangelism. Living out of the tenets of love, acceptance, honor of the other, mercy and forebearance is.

 

[sojourner]

Can you give me some examples of where Jesus taught (using words) how words "get in the way" of light? I'm trying to think of some now, but all I can remember is statements like "Make disciples from among the nations, teaching them all I've taught you..."

Sure! Jesus said that “They honor me with lips, but their hearts are far from me.”

If you really understood the Great Commission,” you’d understand that it doesn’t mean “go out and proselytize,” it means, “go out and treat outsiders as if they were part of the family.”

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Francis said, “Preach the gospel. Use words if necessary.” Talking at people isn’t evangelism. Living out of the tenets of love, acceptance, honor of the other, mercy and forebearance is.

But that approach doesn't come from a place of humility either, since it assumes that love, acceptance, honour, mercy, and forebearance necessarily flow from Christian faith.

If we see a whole spectrum of people behaving decently to others and only some of them are Christians, then the implied message is something like "anyone can be a decent person regardless of what they believe," but this is more of an anti-proselytizing message than anything.

It seems the idea of "if I act from love and people find out that my love is rooted in my faith in Christ, maybe they'll follow my example and have faith in Christ too" assumes that the only people acting from love will be Christians... or that only Christians will be especially loving. I don't see this as humble.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

And . . . when your wonderful life and my wonderful life has come to an end . . .

Predictable.

Please tell me you're aware that you have no better idea than I do.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Q1. Are you aware that God remembered/recompensed the slaughter of the firstborn Jewish males when he judged Egypt? Are you aware of how often people thrust the Egyptian judgment "problem" at me without once ever mentioning why it was that God "did nothing" when the Egyptians slew every male child of Israel they could?

So if someone kills your child, it is okay to take your frustration out on them by killing their child also? That's basically what you are saying here.

Q2. Are you aware that God is not only love, but embodies other moral maxims within Himself, like justice? Should love push aside justice? And since all die/all are judged, have you considered how God can choose/is sovereign over WHEN a person dies (since all die now) or that God, when He takes a life you think was a bad choice, might have just taken the life of a Hitler or Stalin from us?

Then why are there ever Hitlers or Stalins? This isn't going too well so far...

Q3. Are you aware that after three days of sorrow/contemplation, Abraham "got" that God would be able to resurrect Issac, and that this three days "lost son" who was "revived" is a perfect foreshadowing of the the gospel resurrection of Christ?

And when his son was resurrected with the memory of his father having murdered him? There is no "good" way out of this one, honestly. There are only insufficient excuses.

Q4. Are you aware that the Bible explains how not every natural disaster like a hurricane is the result of human sin? Are you aware that hurricanes, for example, provide many benefits to the ecosystem?

I am, yes. But you didn't even answer the actual question on this one. Reward and punishments that are not tied to the "sin" do not do anyone any good. This cannot be argued rationally.

Q5. Are you aware that God interacts directly with all of His children, and only sometimes indirectly also?

Then I am obviously not one of his children... nor do I need to be. Never a moment of any direct contact, I'm absolutely positive. "Feelings" are never going to count. I'd be the first to wonder if I was going nuts if I saw something no one else could see, or God appeared before me, or I had some weird feeling come over me and felt "a presence." If God knows me at all, he'd know this. There would have to be inter-subjectively verifiable proof. That is the only way that I could accept "direct" interaction from God. And again... He is aware of this, if He exists and is as brilliant as you claim. And so He will never "directly" interact with me unless He does what I could actually put my trust in. And no... I've never even come close to having any of a moment like I described above. Not one feeling, not one inkling. If anything, what i had were feelings of awkwardness and embarrassment by proxy when watching anyone else go through what they felt were such experiences.

 

[sojourner]

But that approach doesn't come from a place of humility either, since it assumes that love, acceptance, honour, mercy, and forebearance necessarily flow from Christian faith.

If we see a whole spectrum of people behaving decently to others and only some of them are Christians, then the implied message is something like "anyone can be a decent person regardless of what they believe," but this is more of an anti-proselytizing message than anything.

It seems the idea of "if I act from love and people find out that my love is rooted in my faith in Christ, maybe they'll follow my example and have faith in Christ too" assumes that the only people acting from love will be Christians... or that only Christians will be especially loving. I don't see this as humble.

That’s an assumption not in evidence, though. Jesus didn’t call people to a particular belief; he called them to action. True evangelism doesn’t seek to convert others to a particular system of belief; it calls people to recognize their own worth and the intrinsic worth of others, despite what may appear to be obvious on the surface. The Great Commission has been misappropriated to “convert more Christians to the Church.” It was intended as a great act of acceptance to draw diverse people living in inequity to the reality that all are loved and all deserve to be treated fairly. Xy doesn’t have a corner on the market of what’s loving, merciful and equitable. Proselytizing calls people to become more than they now are, despite what popular cultural messages tell them. IMO anyway.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That’s an assumption not in evidence, though. Jesus didn’t call people to a particular belief; he called them to action. True evangelism doesn’t seek to convert others to a particular system of belief; it calls people to recognize their own worth and the intrinsic worth of others, despite what may appear to be obvious on the surface. The Great Commission has been misappropriated to “convert more Christians to the Church.” It was intended as a great act of acceptance to draw diverse people living in inequity to the reality that all are loved and all deserve to be treated fairly. Xy doesn’t have a corner on the market of what’s loving, merciful and equitable. Proselytizing calls people to become more than they now are, despite what popular cultural messages tell them. IMO anyway.

Okay - so you aren't using the word "proselytizing" in the sense that's reflected in its dictionary definition ("attempting to convert someone from one religion to another").

 

[sojourner]

Okay - so you aren't using the word "proselytizing" in the sense that's reflected in its dictionary definition ("attempting to convert someone from one religion to another").

I think the dictionary definition reflects the misappropriated understanding of what Jesus meant by conversion. It’s a conversion of perspective and attitude, not one of belief. At least from a theological perspective, based upon a critical exegesis of the Great Commission.

 

[Windwalker]

Can you give me some examples of where Jesus taught (using words) how words "get in the way" of light?

When Jesus says to let your light so shine before men, do you think he's talking about standing on the corner and proclaiming your beliefs and righteousness loudly before men? Doesn't he teach you should not blast the trumpet to declare your piousness so others can see, but rather to go into your closet which is in secret where you build your relationship to God? (Matthew 6:5 ff). How consistent is that with the story of Elijah, where he was looking for the Lord and saw a great wind pass by, then a great earthquake, and then a great fire, but God was not in any of those, but rather in a "still small voice"?

I'd say the principle is very much there in these couple quick examples, and rightly so, even though the words are not explicitly stated as I put them. The truth of it is there regardless, both in a general understanding, and in actual lived experience by countless other saints and sages throughout the ages, both within the Christian tradition and other world religions. Not every truth must be spelled out in those exact words in the highly limited words of Jesus that managed to be added to the bibles we have today. The truth of it is there nonetheless.

Ever try to hear a sparrow's song in the middle of a blaring rock concert? Another example, "Don't tell me that you love me. Show me." More often than not, not saying any words speaks a million times lounder that complete volumes of texts of ideas and thoughts and teachings. When I feel God move through my soul, it's not because of some mental concept I'm holding in mind, not some idea, not some teaching. While those may inspire, they are not the Source. They are expressions of the Source, and it is the Source I hear, not the words themselves.

I'm trying to think of some now, but all I can remember is statements like "Make disciples from among the nations, teaching them all I've taught you..."

And how exactly do you think people are drawn to the Truth? Because you've put together a nifty little "case for Christ"? Hardly. That's not at all how these things work. People may hear words, but they respond to Love. Love doesn't need words. You can say nothing, and just your presence alone, if filled with God, is the communication itself, louder than any words can ever hope to accomplish. It is effortless.

"The heavens declare the Glory of God, the sky proclaims his handiwork. Day unto day, utters speech. Night unto night proclaims Knowledge. There is no speech nor language where their voice is not heard. Their line is gone out into all the earth." (Psalms 19) "The invisible things of him through Creation are clearly seen and made known, even his eternal power and Godhead" (Romans 1:20)

Where are the words and ideas of man in this, pointing the way to God? Yet, before there was even language, God is manifest and "clearly seen and made known". How? Can you communicate Truth without words? God can. If you can't, then it's not God you are communicating, but rather reflections of your personal thoughts and ideas about God. While interesting, they aren't Truth. They are reflections of you as another person trying to find God. On the other hand, when we are silent, then God can speak.

 

[Trailblazer]

Then I am obviously not one of his children... nor do I need to be. Never a moment of any direct contact, I'm absolutely positive. "Feelings" are never going to count. I'd be the first to wonder if I was going nuts if I saw something no one else could see, or God appeared before me, or I had some weird feeling come over me and felt "a presence." If God knows me at all, he'd know this. There would have to be inter-subjectively verifiable proof. That is the only way that I could accept "direct" interaction from God. And again... He is aware of this, if He exists and is as brilliant as you claim. And so He will never "directly" interact with me unless He does what I could actually put my trust in. And no... I've never even come close to having any of a moment like I described above. Not one feeling, not one inkling. If anything, what i had were feelings of awkwardness and embarrassment by proxy when watching anyone else go through what they felt were such experiences.

God does not have children. God is not a human. God transcends all human limitations and forms, and is obviously beyond any human comprehension. God is unknowable, transcendent and inaccessible directly.

God does not communicate directly with anyone, let alone ordinary human beings. How do you think anyone who believes this could ever know it was God communicating with them? The answer is that they could not know. God does know you would never understand which is one reason why God does not communicate to you directly.

God communicates only to His chosen messengers and they are able to know it is God. How they know that is not something we ordinary humans can comprehend. God does not communicate directly to messengers, God communicates to them through the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit does not communicate to anyone except messengers.

A believer can "feel" inspired by God but that is not the same thing as getting actual communication from God. God is far too great to come down to the human level and communicate with humans and we could never comprehend what God would reveal; only the messengers can comprehend that and present it in a way that we can understand it.

 

[Windwalker]

God does not have children. God is not a human. God transcends all human limitations and forms, and is obviously beyond any human comprehension. God is unknowable, transcendent and inaccessible directly.

I'm going to have to shoot a rocket launcher into your post and blow it all up. Sorry about this, but you'll see why in a couple minutes.

First, the easiest part. When some says we are God's children, that is of course a metaphor for the reality that all of creation comes forth from God as his "offspring". So, I think it's very few who imagine baby gods or something comic-bookish like that when that term is used. Most understand it metaphorically, like saying I'm a child of the daytime, or something. Now unto the fun stuff.

God does not communicate directly with anyone, let alone ordinary human beings.

And when some prophet comes along and says they are speaking for God, how would they know that is true if you are incapable of hearing God at all? Your argument against direct communication being invalid, invalidates prophets as well. How do you know you aren't listening to a confidence man, if you have no means to weigh their words against what God actually is?

How do you think anyone who believes this could ever know it was God communicating with them?

The real question is how could they not know?? When one experiences the Presence of God, or the Mind of God, there is no room for doubt, or fear, or questions, or anything else. Brighter and more obvious than the noon-day sun is a pale comparison to the utter obviousness of the Presence of God, more undeniable than if you were to smash you own toes with a sledgehammer and every fiber of your being screamed out in pain.

How do you know that was real? Because you can feel it in excruciating detail, one which engages every aspect of you at once. When it comes to the experience of God, it is infinitely more obvious than that, and the only one questioning it would be the cynic, who for whatever reason of their own does not want to accept what others are saying.

The answer is that they could not know. God does know you would never understand which is one reason why God does not communicate to you directly.

You seem to understand a lot of the workings of God, for someone who claims God is unknowable, or that God does not communicate to the hearts and minds of man directly. Where do you get your confidence about what is true about God, if you claim we cannot know anything about God directly? You indirectly just accept the words of others with no personal validation? Is this not a disastrous recipe for self-deception, one which flies into the face of the experiences of others, such as myself?

God communicates only to His chosen messengers and they are able to know it is God.

But if you did not received this knowledge from God, then why do you believe it is the truth of God? Again, for someone who claims we cannot know God directly, or receive Truth from God directly, you certainly seem to have no problem telling us what God does and doesn't do from this position of admitted ignorance. That seems rather suspicious, to say the least.

How they know that is not something we ordinary humans can comprehend.

Since we can't comprehend it, why should we accept what they say as true then? How do you know they aren't just speaking errors with confidence and smile? I on the other hand, have personal experience to draw from and compare to. When I hear statements like this, I know it is untrue, or a best just misguided thinking.

God does not communicate directly to messengers, God communicates to them through the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit does not communicate to anyone except messengers.

You have a great deal of confidence about how God works, for someone claiming we have no way of knowing Truth from God directly? I speak with confidence, because I speak from a position of having had direct personal experience, like saying I know I just got back from a trip to Colorado. What I love about God, is that God has this habit of destroying what we assume about God. One simple pulling back of that veil, and everything we thought we knew, is gone in an instant, like a vapor cloud of our imaginations dissipating into nothingness.

A believer can "feel" inspired by God but that is not the same thing as getting actual communication from God.

You know this how? Because someone who claims to be an authority on God told you to trust them? When I, or any other saint, sage, or mystic of the ages speak of experiencing the Presence, or the Mind of God, this cannot be implied as just a "feeling", like a "sense" or an intuition, or a nudge, or a hint, or a whisper, or a glimmer, or a hope, or a tickle or a fancy, or any such woefully inadequate description. It's more like looking up and having a freight train slam into your body at 75 mph. If you manage to survive, there is no part of you that is unaware of the reality of its impacting you.

I'm imaging the cynic in the ER saying, "That's not possible. He only "felt" he was hit by a train," ignoring the fact his entire body is smashed as he lays on the table in front of him. For the past 40 years solid of my life, there has not been one moment where that first "impact" that Train slamming into me has not irrevocably affected every aspect of my being every day, like someone whose bones have been smashed never walks the same again. To describe that as a "feeling" sounds completely ridiculous to me.

God is far too great to come down to the human level and communicate with humans and we could never comprehend what God would reveal;

All this talk of too great to "come down to the human level", is simply your mind projecting God as outside of you. Yet the experience of countless saints and sages throughout the ages affirm again and again that God is closer to us than our own breath, and that separation is only that which our minds create. All the rest of what you say is a projection of that perception of your own mind in the place of perceived separation. Others experiences however, reveals something quite different than this, indeed. You speak an untruth from that perception from your own mind.

In what I just said, it allows for you to "not see" God, since it sees this sense of "above" or "separate" or "external" from us as a perception of the mind that can in fact be overcome. In your conceptions of this, coming from that perception of separation, you cannot answer the claims of countless others experiences of the Divine in themselves and the world as, well, a lie, or something. That lacks integrity and veracity. The only way you can reconcile the data with your beliefs, is to deny the data, like the misguided Creationist denies the evidence of science about evolution in order to preserve their personal beliefs. This to me lacks integrity and truth.

So we have the saints and sages and mystics of the ages all saying the same thing with virtually a single voice, that the not seeing is due to the illusions of the mind. Then we have those who lack experience of the Divine in themselves and the world like them, who in turn then deny the experiences of the saints, sages, and mystics of the ages because it doesn't square with their adopted beliefs. The former has a better answer than the latter which have no choice but to deny the reality of the experiences of others a valid, that is if they are unwilling to let go of their assumptions of truth and reality.

only the messengers can comprehend that and present it in a way that we can understand it.

For someone who claims you cannot know the truth of God for yourself, you certainly speak from that position of ignorance with much certitude. This is like telling me Colorado can only be driven in by people who live in the State itself, after I just drove back from there a few days ago. Obviously to me, you have some misguided ideas.

 

[Trailblazer]

And when some prophet comes along and says they are speaking for God, how would they know that is true if you are incapable of hearing God at all? Your argument against direct communication being invalid, invalidates prophets as well. How do you know you aren't listening to a confidence man, if you have no means to weigh their words against what God actually is?

I do not need to hear God myself in order to know that the prophets heard God. I can check out their claim by checking out their character, their mission, their writings, and the religion they established. Jesus said by their fruits you shall know them. I do not need to know what God actually is myself in order weigh their words. If that was the case, prophets would not serve any purpose for anyone but people who had themselves heard from God directly, so they would not be universal.

The real question is how could they not know?? When one experiences the Presence of God, or the Mind of God, there is no room for doubt, or fear, or questions, or anything else. Brighter and more obvious than the noon-day sun is a pale comparison to the utter obviousness of the Presence of God, more undeniable than if you were to smash you own toes with a sledgehammer and every fiber of your being screamed out in pain.

That is what the messengers experienced. That is how Baha’u’llah described the experience.

“And whenever I chose to hold my peace and be still, lo, the voice of the Holy Ghost, standing on my right hand, aroused me, and the Supreme Spirit appeared before my face, and Gabriel overshadowed me, and the Spirit of Glory stirred within my bosom, bidding me arise and break my silence. If your hearing be purged and your ears be attentive, ye will assuredly perceive that every limb of my body, nay all the atoms of my being, proclaim and bear witness to this call: “God, besides Whom is none other God, and He, Whose beauty is now manifest, is the reflection of His glory unto all that are in heaven and on earth.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 103-104

How do you know that was real? Because you can feel it in excruciating detail, one which engages every aspect of you at once. When it comes to the experience of God, it is infinitely more obvious than that, and the only one questioning it would be the cynic, who for whatever reason of their own does not want to accept what others are saying.

It is real to you because it was your experience. But why should other people take your word for it? Of course that should not be necessary unless you are trying to convince others, since it was real to you.

You seem to understand a lot of the workings of God, for someone who claims God is unknowable, or that God does not communicate to the hearts and minds of man directly. Where do you get your confidence about what is true about God, if you claim we cannot know anything about God directly? You indirectly just accept the words of others with no personal validation? Is this not a disastrous recipe for self-deception, one which flies into the face of the experiences of others, such as myself?

I see absolutely no need to know God directly and I do not believe that is possible or even desirable. It makes complete sense to me that God cannot be known directly but rather only through His mediators (messengers) who come in every age.

But if you did not received this knowledge from God, then why do you believe it is the truth of God? Again, for someone who claims we cannot know God directly, or receive Truth from God directly, you certainly seem to have no problem telling us what God does and doesn't do from this position of admitted ignorance. That seems rather suspicious, to say the least.

I am well aware that it is suspicious to almost everyone, especially to nonbelievers who do not like the “idea” of messengers because they want direct communication from God. But it does not matter to me because it is logical to me and logic trumps emotion. I am not ignorant because I know what God revealed to Baha’u’llah. I do not need to get it direct to me, nor do I want to. It makes perfect sense to me that God is a mystery no mind can ever fathom. That means we cannot know God directly.

Since we can't comprehend it, why should we accept what they say as true then? How do you know they aren't just speaking errors with confidence and smile? I on the other hand, have personal experience to draw from and compare to. When I hear statements like this, I know it is untrue, or a best just misguided thinking.

I am not saying that you or anyone should accept the claim. Baha’u’llah also said that nobody should accept His claim without thorough investigation.

“Bahá’u’lláh asked no one to accept His statements and His tokens blindly. On the contrary, He put in the very forefront of His teachings emphatic warnings against blind acceptance of authority, and urged all to open their eyes and ears, and use their own judgement, independently and fearlessly, in order to ascertain the truth. He enjoined the fullest investigation and never concealed Himself, offering, as the supreme proofs of His Prophethood, His words and works and their effects in transforming the lives and characters of men.”
Bahá’u’lláh and the New Era, p. 8

Once a Christian told me He knew that Baha’u’llah was a false prophet because God spoke to him through the Holy Spirit and told him that. What he said was verification that God was not speaking to him. It was just a delusion on his part. Whatever your personal experience is, if it contradicts what Baha’u’llah revealed, I cannot believe it came from God. You can believe that if you want to because you do not believe in Baha’u’llah.

You have a great deal of confidence about how God works, for someone claiming we have no way of knowing Truth from God directly? I speak with confidence, because I speak from a position of having had direct personal experience, like saying I know I just got back from a trip to Colorado. What I love about God, is that God has this habit of destroying what we assume about God. One simple pulling back of that veil, and everything we thought we knew, is gone in an instant, like a vapor cloud of our imaginations dissipating into nothingness.

Many people say they have had a personal experience with God. What reason do I have to believe them? After all, most of them report completely different experiences. God cannot be x and y if x contradicts y. But that does not happen with the messengers. They all say the same things about God’s attributes so they validate each other.

You know this how? Because someone who claims to be an authority on God told you to trust them? When I, or any other saint, sage, or mystic of the ages speak of experiencing the Presence, or the Mind of God, this cannot be implied as just a "feeling", like a "sense" or an intuition, or a nudge, or a hint, or a whisper, or a glimmer, or a hope, or a tickle or a fancy, or any such woefully inadequate description. It's more like looking up and having a freight train slam into your body at 75 mph. If you manage to survive, there is no part of you that is unaware of the reality of its impacting you.

When I say “communication” I mean that they cannot receive a revelation from God through the Holy Spirit and write 15,000 Tablets that are going to lead humanity into the Golden Age.

I'm imaging the cynic in the ER saying, "That's not possible. He only "felt" he was hit by a train," ignoring the fact his entire body is smashed as he lays on the table in front of him. For the past 40 years solid of my life, there has not been one moment where that first "impact" that Train slamming into me has not irrevocably affected every aspect of my being every day, like someone whose bones have been smashed never walks the same again. To describe that as a "feeling" sounds completely ridiculous to me.

Only YOU know what you experienced. It is kind of like an NDE; to that person it was real and life changing, but to others it is just a nice story. I do not question other peoples’ spiritual experiences, so why do so many people question the experiences of the messengers of God and ask them for evidence to “prove” they got a revelation from God. I can understand questioning Baha’u’llah because He is new but Jesus and Muhammad have changed the face of the earth. There is no need to prove that they were more than human.

So we have the saints and sages and mystics of the ages all saying the same thing with virtually a single voice, that the not seeing is due to the illusions of the mind. Then we have those who lack experience of the Divine in themselves and the world like them, who in turn then deny the experiences of the saints, sages, and mystics of the ages because it doesn't square with their adopted beliefs. The former has a better answer than the latter which have no choice but to deny the reality of the experiences of others a valid, that is if they are unwilling to let go of their assumptions of truth and reality.

I think we are talking about apples and oranges. Being close to God and experiencing God’s presence or God within you is not the same thing as getting communication from God in the form of a revelation that is for all of humanity and knowing God the way the prophets did. I believe that they are a different order of creation and they have been assigned a twofold nature; the physical, pertaining to the world of matter, and the spiritual, which is born of the substance of God Himself. Their body is human but their Soul was not conceived at conception like ours, but was rather pre-existent in the spiritual world. In that pre-existence His Soul was given the capacity to receive direct revelations from God and translate that Revelation into a form we can understand.

If we have the saints and sages and mystics of the ages all saying that the not seeing is due to the illusions of the mind is a judgment on other people. I would not consider these people spiritual but rather haughty. Not even everyone believes in God, let alone feeling God’s presence. I do not ever tell nonbelievers that they “should” believe in God just because it is obvious to me that God exists. That is not compassionate.

For someone who claims you cannot know the truth of God for yourself, you certainly speak from that position of ignorance with much certitude. This is like telling me Colorado can only be driven in by people who live in the State itself, after I just drove back from there a few days ago. Obviously to me, you have some misguided ideas.

Again, I do not need to know the truth of God directly. I am perfectly satisfied to get it from a Protected Source I trust, a messenger whom God has entrusted with His Message, because that way I know it is coming from God.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think the dictionary definition reflects the misappropriated understanding of what Jesus meant by conversion. It’s a conversion of perspective and attitude, not one of belief. At least from a theological perspective, based upon a critical exegesis of the Great Commission.

But you just said (in your post to @BilliardsBall) that the Great Commission isn’t a call to proselytize, so I don’t see how it’s relevant to this discussion about proselytizing.

You jumped into a discussion about proselytizing with that Francis of Assisi quote in a way that suggested to me that you were telling @BilliardsBall to use kindness as a proselytizing tactic. However, based on your explanation since then, it seems like you’re actually telling him not to proselytize at all and instead just be kind to people, despite the fact that this isn’t likely to win converts to Christianity.

Do I understand you properly?

 

[sojourner]

But you just said (in your post to @BilliardsBall) that the Great Commission isn’t a call to proselytize, so I don’t see how it’s relevant to this discussion about proselytizing.

You jumped into a discussion about proselytizing with that Francis of Assisi quote in a way that suggested to me that you were telling @BilliardsBall to use kindness as a proselytizing tactic. However, based on your explanation since then, it seems like you’re actually telling him not to proselytize at all and instead just be kind to people, despite the fact that this isn’t likely to win converts to Christianity.

Do I understand you properly?

I don’t think proselytization is about “winning converts,” biblically-speaking. I think it’s about inclusiveness. That was my point. Therefore, proselytization is, by nature, humble. This stuff that the evangelicals do has nothing to do with going out and spreading good news. “Gospel” And “sales pitch” are not compatible.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don’t think proselytization is about “winning converts,” biblically-speaking.

Proselytizing is about winning converts. If the Bible calls you to do something else, then it's not calling you to proselytize.

I think it’s about inclusiveness. That was my point. Therefore, proselytization is, by nature, humble. This stuff that the evangelicals do has nothing to do with going out and spreading good news. “Gospel” And “sales pitch” are not compatible.

But proselytizing involves selling: convincing and persuading. If what you consider "speading the good news" doesn't include persuading people to convert, then why are you calling it proselytizing?

 

[Vinayaka]

No matter how you cut it, proselytizing is saying, "I have something you need," and is therefore passing judgement on another human being without due thought. It reflects an immature human quality ... that of a lack of understanding of diversity, and the human right to think for ourselves.

I'd be quite pleased if the UN called out proselytizing, and encouraged all nations to make laws against it.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Money isn’t the only “prize” on the list of prosperity. And I thought we were discussing enlightenment, not abundance. See? You’re conflating the two. You appear, from this post, to believe that “enlightenment” and “abundance” are the same thing. Seems like your bulb may not be so bright as you imagine.

My actual quote, "Where have I mentioned money here? What is your interpretation of "an abundant life"?"

I did NOT mention money, you did. Jesus gives an abundant life, which may not coincide with an abundant paycheck.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Francis said, “Preach the gospel. Use words if necessary.” Talking at people isn’t evangelism. Living out of the tenets of love, acceptance, honor of the other, mercy and forebearance is.

Do you have any Bible verses or statements from Christ that we are to not preach the gospel using words?