What Is Proselytizing?

[Unveiled Artist]

As is evidenced by a recent thread on the forum where someone gives a narrative on an experience he had in church, there appears to be some confusion by our membership as to what proselytizing is.

Merriam-Webster defines "proselytize" as "to induce someone to convert to one's faith."

Definition of PROSELYTIZE

Yet, on the mere sight of a narrative of an Christian experience, with no apparent intent to convert anyone, more than one member cried "proselytizing."

Do you have a different definition than the one above for proselytizing? If so, where did you find it?

If it's your own definition, wouldn't using such a definition publicly with the expectation of others using the term the same way be a form of proselytizing itself?

Discuss.

Proselytizing is a loaded word, actually. It doesn't always have to be negative. I just find when it is negative it's usually from people who genuinely want to convert but have the idea that they are not doing so cause they can't "see" the harm they are doing by their nice words of concern for the other's salvation.

How to Lead Someone to Christ

What do I need to do to convert to Christianity?

It's called in many different ways and many definitions based on the context. From a simple "we just met-did you want to come to my church" to a "if you don't come to christ, you'll be dead forever" really varies from maybe I should go with my friend to church cause he asked or guilt, if I don't, I will die.

I don't think we have different definitions of the term. Just when it comes to conversion, some people just don't see their testimonies and sincere hope people come to christ as an act of conversion. I mean, if you really really want to pick hairs, praying that someone who is not christian to come to christ can be seen as in part conversion because it is Still not assuming the other person knows what's best for him or herself but that the will and intervention of their god should decide for him or her.

There's so many ways to look at it.

 

[Koldo]

Not by my interpretation, but by definition.

Are you stating this as a definitive fact?
I don't agree with you. Do you intend to convince me otherwise by saying this?

 

[stvdv]

If it's your own definition, wouldn't using such a definition publicly with the expectation of others using the term the same way be a form of proselytizing itself?

I would call this "expecting all to use the dictionary in the same way" or it can be called "education"

The Bible has the story of Babylon ... it's a good reminder "how not to communicate"

 

[SalixIncendium]

Are you stating this as a definitive fact?
I don't agree with you. Do you intend to convince me otherwise by saying this?

Nope. You can choose to accept what I tell you or not. I have no interest in convincing you of anything.

 

[SalixIncendium]

I would call this "expecting all to use the dictionary in the same way" or it can be called "education"

The Bible has the story of Babylon ... it's a good reminder "how not to communicate"

I'm not sure what you're saying here.

 

[Koldo]

Nope. You can choose to accept what I tell you or not. I have no interest in convincing you of anything.

As I see it, you were trying to convince me that it was not just your interpretation though.
And you can't convince me otherwise...

 

[Koldo]

. . . I pretty much agree with you. Especially your last point.

It seems absurd to say that someone who goes to great lengths to defend and prove their point of view is a proselytizer. I would say, with you, that an overt attempt to recruit someone into a clique, of any kind, is proselytizing, while any argument made to advance a belief, or prove a point, cannot be treated as proselytizing without creating terrible moral hazard.

In this sense there would be two errors that fall into the proselytization camp: overt recruiting for a clique or religion, and ad hominem attacks on other peoples' beliefs. It's one thing to argue your point powerfully, with passion, and unfailing belief in the veracity of one's beliefs, while it's another to attack, with ad hominem, the beliefs, or worse, person, on the other side of the dialogue.



John

Well said!

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

My OP was predicated on anyone assuming anything...period, other than face value. Assuming anything else without asking questions does little more than create drama.

This is why, when reading my posts, you see more questions than anything else. I tend not to comment unless I'm clear on one's intent.

Your OP jumped to the conclusion that the difference of opinion between you and the other posters was a matter of differing views on what constituted "proselytizing" and completely ignored the possibility that it could come down to a difference in inference about the intent behind the post in question.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

. . . If an atheist gives argumentation, or scientific tidbits, as proof that there's no God, is he proselytizing for atheism?

FWIW, I used to worry about this.

I've done volunteer work involving STEM education for children. At some points, I've worried that teaching children to be excited about science, use critical thinking skills, and test their assumptions to make sure that they're true could be construed as undermining the religious upbringing their parents might be trying to instill.

I've softened on this in more recent years, since I think some of my underlying assumptions were based on some poorly-founded stereotypes about religion and religious people.

 

[Terry Sampson]

If you're saying that the narrative is not fictional, I defer to your judgement. I thought it was disingenuous, but, I think you would know better than me.

It's not that I know better, but that I see the narrative differently. e.g. would either of us say that the narratives of a couple of mutual acquaintances here in RF, whom we both view with friendly consideration, are fictional or disingenous? Without naming names, I'd say "troubled", maybe, but neither fictional nor disingenuous.

 

[stvdv]

I'm not sure what you're saying here.

I understand, my mistake. I misinterpreted what you wrote in the OP.

I try to answer again. If "my own definition" can be seen as "my cause" (in below definition) then it seems indeed proselytizing I think
Definition of proselytize
1: to induce someone to convert to one's faith
2: to recruit someone to join one's party, institution, or cause

 

[SalixIncendium]

Your OP jumped to the conclusion that the difference of opinion between you and the other posters was a matter of differing views on what constituted "proselytizing" and completely ignored the possibility that it could come down to a difference in inference about the intent behind the post in question.

I used the dictionary definition of 'proselytizing,' not my interpretation of the meaning of the word.

Ignored the possibility that it could come down to a difference in the inference on intent? Inference of intent based on what? It was a narrative. There was nothing that I could see to infer.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

As is evidenced by a recent thread on the forum where someone gives a narrative on an experience he had in church, there appears to be some confusion by our membership as to what proselytizing is.

Merriam-Webster defines "proselytize" as "to induce someone to convert to one's faith."

Definition of PROSELYTIZE

Yet, on the mere sight of a narrative of an Christian experience, with no apparent intent to convert anyone, more than one member cried "proselytizing."

Do you have a different definition than the one above for proselytizing? If so, where did you find it?

If it's your own definition, wouldn't using such a definition publicly with the expectation of others using the term the same way be a form of proselytizing itself?

Discuss.

Well, I will state my view.

We all proselytize in some sense the moment we go to the effect of: I (or we) know how knowledge works and thereby how the world works. How? Because knowledge is normative - It implies how you should act when you explain the world or a part of it.
Indeed I am proselytizing, because you should join me and understand knowledge like I do, because you should do so and I really know. See?!!

Off course it gets weirder, because I am a subjectivist and moral, cultural and cognitive relativist, so I am trying to induce you to accept that everything is subjective as when it comes to knowledge and you should become like me, because the truth is that there is no truth.
Am I proselytizing? Well, yes and no. Because most debates and some discussion are like that, so in effect for the rules here at RF, there must be more to proselytizing.

Regards and Love
Mikkel

 

[Cooky]

I used the dictionary definition of 'proselytizing,' not my interpretation of the meaning of the word.

Ignored the possibility that it could come down to a difference in the inference on intent? Inference of intent based on what? It was a narrative. There was nothing that I could see to infer.

I wonder if it was a preconceived notion, like a stereotype that caused all the judgementalism.

And after that came the high-fives amongst a click.

I'm not saying it was, but maybe.

 

[Windwalker]

Well he is spreading his message:

I am a living witness

From that link, "for i am the messenger of god sent with his authority and what i say comes directly from god."

I think that says what this really is. It's not proselytizing. It's just another 2nd coming, or prophet sent from God poster. We have quite a few of those already.

 

[Vinayaka]

From that link, "for i am the messenger of god sent with his authority and what i say comes directly from god."

I think that says what this really is. It's not proselytizing. It's just another 2nd coming, or prophet sent from God poster. We have quite a few of those already.

Indeed we do.

And they do proselytise as a sideline. They want us to start following them, this new prophet. Not the same as established faith proselytizing, but still.

For me, it's a lot about having the ability to move awareness elsewhere, on their own, with no prodding.

 

[Windwalker]

Indeed we do.

And they do proselytise as a sideline. They want us to start following them, this new prophet. Not the same as established faith proselytizing, but still.

Yeah, fair enough. It's for reasons of delusion, rather than a simple overzealous, misguided faith.

For me, it's a lot about having the ability to move awareness elsewhere, on their own, with no prodding.

I think that generally happens when they can't garner a following. Those prophets who stand on soapboxes in the heart of a big city proclaiming the judgment of God on all those sinners who are walking past him, is not there for them. He's there for the other hanging-on-edge of society person to make a follower out of them. He picks up the vulnerable. They are predating upon them.

 

[Cooky]

. . . If an atheist gives argumentation, or scientific tidbits, as proof that there's no God, is he proselytizing for atheism? If a Christian and an atheist argue their particular points of view is that two profligate proselytizers going at it?



John

That's a very fair observation. I could even go further than that, but it would be undignified. Certain lows I won't exceed, and I appreciate the company of others who have the same mindfulness.

...Anyone who understands this is a friend of mine.

 

[John D. Brey]

FWIW, I used to worry about this.

I've done volunteer work involving STEM education for children. At some points, I've worried that teaching children to be excited about science, use critical thinking skills, and test their assumptions to make sure that they're true could be construed as undermining the religious upbringing their parents might be trying to instill.

I've softened on this in more recent years, since I think some of my underlying assumptions were based on some poorly-founded stereotypes about religion and religious people.

. . . I think your fear or worry is completely unfounded. A faith, or religion, that can't handle the scientific facts is problematic in my book. There's no true fact in the universe that can in any way harm the truth faith if it's true. A religion that needs protected from science, or fact, is going to fade away anyway.

The real problem is the relationship between "facts" and "truth." One is immutable and the other is ever-changing. One leads and the other had better follow, even if it means breaking the orthodox shell, removing the fore skene, the fact was comfortably housed in.


John

 

[Vinayaka]

Yeah, fair enough. It's for reasons of delusion, rather than a simple overzealous, misguided faith.


I think that generally happens when they can't garner a following. Those prophets who stand on soapboxes in the heart of a big city proclaiming the judgment of God on all those sinners who are walking past him, is not there for them. He's there for the other hanging-on-edge of society person to make a follower out of them. He picks up the vulnerable. They are predating upon them.

Proselytising, in general, picks up the vulnerable, don't you think? The folks who go after the recently widowed, the impoverished, the lonely, they know their target audience. Does the wolfpack go after the biggest bison in the herd?