Is it possible to proselytize from a place of humility?

[Milton Platt]

This question has developed over time via a rather large array of attempts made at my conversion that have never once seemed humble in origin to me. And I thought to start this thread today after a particularly interesting attempt at proselytizing that happened just yesterday as I was walking my dogs. If you care to read about it, open the "spoiler" below.

Spoiler: How not to proselytize 101

A mildly unkempt man in modest attire and a backpack approached as a few girls stopped to admire the puppy I was walking. I was attempting to keep my larger dog (a lab-pit mix) away because she is a rescue dog and tends to be unpredictable around people when outside, due to who knows what from her past. My big dog ended up barking at one of the girls (no biting, mind you), and the man proceeded to inform me that I should carry around a rod to beat the dog with when it gets out of line. When I told him she was a rescue, and was in all other respects a complete sweetheart, he proceeded to let me in on the idea that carrying a rod to subdue animals has Biblical origins.

That's when we got into real discussion, and I was not the least bit shy to tell him that I don't believe that The Bible is a universally accepted authority, and used many of the arguments/questions/points I have honed over time here on this site to head him off at every (predictable) objection he felt compelled to make, and every piece of scripture he seemed to expect take up permanent roots in my psyche.

Ultimately, as tends to be the case very often when proselytizers have run out of steam, he turned to an ad hominem-type statement, saying that if I took his prescribed advice regarding belief and study of scripture to heart I "would realize how vile I actually am." Mind you, I had not once insulted him. The closest I may have gotten was when he made some remark about believing fantastical things and I remarked sarcastically that "Yes, and witches can do magic, and deserve to be burned at the stake." to which he immediately, and with all honestly replied "Yes, they can." Then proceeded to ask me how I could explain the claims of some woman a town or two away who claimed to have received a necklace from a demon. I told him she was very likely delusional. And THAT is the closest I ever got in the entire conversation to saying anything about this man personally... and it wasn't even about him. Otherwise I was nothing but civil the entire time, rational through and through, not even raising my voice at any moment.

Observing his mannerisms, and the way he wielded scripture, I pegged him for one of those types who believe themselves either the second coming of the messiah, or at the very least a contemporary prophet. He was outspoken against modern church organizations, and very much eschewed separated factions/sects/denominations of Christianity - basically also one of those types who claims that no one (except themselves obviously) is "doing Christianity right." My suspicions were confirmed when later my wife posted about the encounter online, and someone replied that they saw us talking to him, and that he frequently walked his way all over town spreading his message, and had only recently started wearing shoes on his treks - where before he wore none purposefully in order to "be more like Jesus."

TLDR: The guy turned to (mild) insult when confronted with the idea that I wasn't going stock-accept his preaching, and that I had ideas greatly alternative to his own that I was just as fervent about. This sort of thing has happened so often (in "real life" as well as online) that it is definitely not limited to just a one-time anecdote. I literally can't remember a single attempt at proselytization that didn't end in the proselytizer telling me, or at least strongly hinting at the idea that I was arrogant, debase, going to hell, or "vile." And it seems very likely that, in their minds, I HAVE TO be some of those things to deny God - which is a complete load of crap. Good luck selling your worldview with a mindset like that! "The customer is ALWAYS WRONG." Nice.

So what does anyone else think? Is it even possible to come off as humble (and therefore not in any way superior) to your chosen target when actively proselytizing your religious belief system? If so, what would that even look like?

Well, I've meet a lot of non-pushy people promoting their various religions, so yes, it is possible.
From another perspective, it seems arrogant to try and speak for a god. Can't he speak for himself?

 

[BilliardsBall]

First of all, I never said that the writers were “dolts.” That’s your term and it’s inflammatory. “Ignorant” and “dullard” are not synonymous. they simply didn’t know, and did the best with what they had at their disposal.

Second, I don’t believe for one second that “God wrote the Bible.” People wrote the Bible. Period. They may have been inspired, but people — fallible, biased people — wrote the Bible.

I suppose you didn’t know that our present telescopes get us back to within seconds of the Big Bang? And we can see far enough to let us know that “nothing is new in the universe.” There is nothing to lead us to believe that the universe suddenly changes at some point. There are no domes around the earth, around any of the other planets, around the sun, around the asteroids belt, around the solar system, or around any other system we’ve looked at — and there’s no reason to believe that suddenly changes somewhere. The universe is as it is.

Look, imagery is used in biblical writing, and that imagery is all very, very consistent: it’s imagery based on the writers’ concrete experiences. If they didn’t know how to hammer out bowls, they wouldn’t have used that imagery for the sky. And they sure wouldn’t have used that imagery if they thought the sky was something other than what was usually hammered out. There are too many other mythic references to a flat earth in ancient religions that contributed stories to the Bible for us to believe that, somehow, these particular people “got it right.” This isn’t magic, and its not miracle. It’s ancient myth. That’s what it is, and neither wishing nor faith will make it what it is not.

And, in fact, I DID reference your statement about stretching the heavens. So what? That doesn’t change the fact that the Genesis creation myth is scientifically untenable. AND it doesn’t change the fact that the two images of heaven contradict each other.

Multiple authors at different times wrote of stretching the heavens: BibleGateway - : stretched heavens

The issue I'm having is you are making serious assertions about the lack of inspiration for the Bible. It's not one verse that says God wrote the Bible. We have countless verses that it is the Word of the Lord to man, including several THOUSAND such statements in the Tanakh alone.

You have it as all those prophets and apostles were liars when they wrote statements like, "Hear now the Word of God." That is a contemptible stance, unjustified. Why should I listen to anything you have to say about the Bible, since it comes under your personal subjectivity? At will you can say X is binding on my life, Y is not binding. How convenient.

I'm always willing to discuss scripture with people, but calling every Bible author a flaming liar . . .

**I don’t believe for one second that “God wrote the Bible.” People wrote the Bible. Period. They may have been inspired, but people — fallible, biased people — wrote the Bible.**

So--when these fallible people write things like, "On this day, in this place, at such-and-such a time, God appeared to me and said, 'Write the following, carefully, and share it will the people,'"

Ugh!

 

[sojourner]

Multiple authors at different times wrote of stretching the heavens: BibleGateway - : stretched heavens

The issue I'm having is you are making serious assertions about the lack of inspiration for the Bible. It's not one verse that says God wrote the Bible. We have countless verses that it is the Word of the Lord to man, including several THOUSAND such statements in the Tanakh alone.

You have it as all those prophets and apostles were liars when they wrote statements like, "Hear now the Word of God." That is a contemptible stance, unjustified. Why should I listen to anything you have to say about the Bible, since it comes under your personal subjectivity? At will you can say X is binding on my life, Y is not binding. How convenient.

I'm always willing to discuss scripture with people, but calling every Bible author a flaming liar . . .

**I don’t believe for one second that “God wrote the Bible.” People wrote the Bible. Period. They may have been inspired, but people — fallible, biased people — wrote the Bible.**

So--when these fallible people write things like, "On this day, in this place, at such-and-such a time, God appeared to me and said, 'Write the following, carefully, and share it will the people,'"

Ugh!

I can’t help your sense of outrage at the Bible being what it is; you’re going to have to come to terms with that, yourself. And again with the hyperbole! I never said that the writers lied. I said that people wrote the Bible. They may have written what they sincerely believed God told them, but that doesn’t make them liars. Nor does it make God the author.

As for who is seeing the texts in terms of their personal subjectivity: I think you need to take a long, hard look in the mirror. You’re the one insisting that God wrote the Bible. And, no, I can’t say “at will” what is or is not binding. It takes intentional study in order to glean truth out of these ancient texts, and to determine what is weightier and what might be dismissed as construction.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I can’t help your sense of outrage at the Bible being what it is; you’re going to have to come to terms with that, yourself. And again with the hyperbole! I never said that the writers lied. I said that people wrote the Bible. They may have written what they sincerely believed God told them, but that doesn’t make them liars. Nor does it make God the author.

As for who is seeing the texts in terms of their personal subjectivity: I think you need to take a long, hard look in the mirror. You’re the one insisting that God wrote the Bible. And, no, I can’t say “at will” what is or is not binding. It takes intentional study in order to glean truth out of these ancient texts, and to determine what is weightier and what might be dismissed as construction.

Saying that people sincerely believed that God said to them SEVERAL THOUSAND times, "Hear and write the Word of the Lord", while also saying they did not, IS calling them liars, or is using subjectivity as a self-defeating, self-blinding club.

Stand behind what you say and mean. I relish the objective Word of God above your subjective "it means what I say it means and I can dismissed what I subjectively wish to dismiss."

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Saying that people sincerely believed that God said to them SEVERAL THOUSAND times, "Hear and write the Word of the Lord", while also saying they did not, IS calling them liars, or is using subjectivity as a self-defeating, self-blinding club.

Or that they were mistaken.

Or that they were characters invented by some set of authors, and it was those authors who lied.

 

[sojourner]

Saying that people sincerely believed that God said to them SEVERAL THOUSAND times, "Hear and write the Word of the Lord", while also saying they did not, IS calling them liars, or is using subjectivity as a self-defeating, self-blinding club.

Stand behind what you say and mean. I relish the objective Word of God above your subjective "it means what I say it means and I can dismissed what I subjectively wish to dismiss."

No, I’m saying that these are stories. There’s a difference between mythic storytelling or poetry, and a lie.

You relish what you believe you understand about the texts. The texts are what they are and they say what they say (which is what I said, BTW — not “what I wish them to say”). But what you believe them to say is not “objective.” You’re projecting.

 

[sojourner]

Or that they were mistaken.

Or that they were characters invented by some set of authors, and it was those authors who lied.

More likely that they were writing mythic story or poetry, and were speaking metaphorically.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

More likely that they were writing mythic story or poetry, and were speaking metaphorically.

This is fine as an approach as long as the reason for it is that you have good reason to think the passages were intended this way and you aren't just choosing to interpret them non-literally just because a literal interpretation would be inconvenient or unpleasant, or because our modern understanding tells us that a literal interpretation would be factually wrong.

It's also worth remembering that even if the author intended a passage non-literally, they were still trying to express something meaningful.

Not only that, it implies that every detail is meaningful. If the author is just recounting events that literally happened, then it's possible for some details to be unimportant coincidences. OTOH, if it's a metaphor, every element is deliberate.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Or that they were mistaken.

Or that they were characters invented by some set of authors, and it was those authors who lied.

And this "set of authors" felt it would be helpful to dash off mega-long volumes every few hundred years, all playing on the same themes? Who's the conspiracy nut here?

 

[BilliardsBall]

No, I’m saying that these are stories. There’s a difference between mythic storytelling or poetry, and a lie.

You relish what you believe you understand about the texts. The texts are what they are and they say what they say (which is what I said, BTW — not “what I wish them to say”). But what you believe them to say is not “objective.” You’re projecting.

Is it "projecting" to have read the Bible multiple times and while doing so, become aware of the SEVERAL THOUSAND TIMES WITHIN that God says, "THIS is my communication to man, and EXACTLY what I say herein will come to pass, so that you may know the Lord has spoken"?

Give me a break, if you will subjectively choose to do so.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

And this "set of authors" felt it would be helpful to dash off mega-long volumes every few hundred years, all playing on the same themes? Who's the conspiracy nut here?

Not just every few hundred years; there are always people trying to push what they think is God's next message to the world.

It only seems sporadic because:

- not everything written or preached by the many Jewish splinter groups survived.

- various church councils and synods picked and chose bits and pieces of all the available narratives to try to build a coherent whole.

 

[sojourner]

Is it "projecting" to have read the Bible multiple times and while doing so, become aware of the SEVERAL THOUSAND TIMES WITHIN that God says, "THIS is my communication to man, and EXACTLY what I say herein will come to pass, so that you may know the Lord has spoken"?

Give me a break, if you will subjectively choose to do so.

No, God doesn’t say that. The writers said that God said that.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Not just every few hundred years; there are always people trying to push what they think is God's next message to the world.

It only seems sporadic because:

- not everything written or preached by the many Jewish splinter groups survived.

- various church councils and synods picked and chose bits and pieces of all the available narratives to try to build a coherent whole.

Huh? The OT was written hundreds to over a thousand years before there was a church! And of course, you'd have to show the "non-surviving pieces" rather than make an argument from silence.

Neither of which addresses my point--these people said thousands of times they heard from God in your "giant conspiracy".

 

[BilliardsBall]

No, God doesn’t say that. The writers said that God said that.

If so, the writers are liars or truth tellers. To say they were "sort of not quite liars" is a symptom of the disease of subjectivity in this matter.

"Your honor, the 66 witnesses who told us 5,000 times they saw X, well, they kind of sort of believe it but it kind of sort of happened differently."

Give me (and you!) a break!

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Huh? The OT was written hundreds to over a thousand years before there was a church!

Yes... and then various councils and synods codified what the church should and shouldn't believe.

And of course, you'd have to show the "non-surviving pieces" rather than make an argument from silence.

The Dead Sea Scrolls have material in them that was apparently collected by the Essenes but didn't end up incorporated into the material today. There are other examples where we don't have the original document, but we know it existed because we have surviving documents that spoke about it.

... and only a fool would assume that the only writings that didn't survive are the ones that we have clear evidence of.

For the stuff slightly newer than the Old Testament, have a look at Early Christian Writings: New Testament, Apocrypha, Gnostics, Church Fathers and see all of the Gospels that didn't make it into the current Bible... and do some Googling yourself to familiarize yourself with some of the uncountably many groups that say they received revelation from God since the Bible was written that your particular denomination of Christianity doesn't accept.

Neither of which addresses my point--these people said thousands of times they heard from God in your "giant conspiracy".

History is filled with groups whose testimony you don't accept saying that they heard consistent messages from gods that you reject.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Yes... and then various councils and synods codified what the church should and shouldn't believe.


The Dead Sea Scrolls have material in them that was apparently collected by the Essenes but didn't end up incorporated into the material today. There are other examples where we don't have the original document, but we know it existed because we have surviving documents that spoke about it.

... and only a fool would assume that the only writings that didn't survive are the ones that we have clear evidence of.

For the stuff slightly newer than the Old Testament, have a look at Early Christian Writings: New Testament, Apocrypha, Gnostics, Church Fathers and see all of the Gospels that didn't make it into the current Bible... and do some Googling yourself to familiarize yourself with some of the uncountably many groups that say they received revelation from God since the Bible was written that your particular denomination of Christianity doesn't accept.


History is filled with groups whose testimony you don't accept saying that they heard consistent messages from gods that you reject.

I believe I understand you to have two lines of argument here: 1) There are extra-biblical books one must consider as possibly authoritative and 2) history reflects other fanatics with testimonies to consider.

I took both challenges seriously enough to change my major after converting in college, to Religion. I studied Bible prophecy fulfillment as well as apocrypha/pseudopigrapha and other religious traditions, modern and ancient.

Having read the Bible carefully, however, I have come to understand that rather than one writer, like the Qur'an of Islam, the Bible represents many individual writers and teams of writers, all of whom, across the centuries that they wrote, stated over and again endlessly that they were hearing from God and representing God, further posting prophecies we can test to see if they're utter liars or truth tellers.

In addition to examining Bible prophecy for yourself, or reading the Bible to consider whether the self-sacrificing writers were honest eyewitnesses of varied events, and in addition to seeing how many thousands of Bible verses are verifiable through archaeology and history (since over 99% of the Bible contains no miracle reporting), you can simply ask God to prove Himself by sending evidence for Christ.

I can tell you the evidence I've personally received, and I can tell you I've personally seen Jesus come through for me literally thousands of times (after all, I've interacted with God and God's people thousands of times since I've been a Christian for nearly 10,000 days of my life), but the issue there is you can ask me to give you my evidence and then tell me (rightly so) "I haven't seen that and don't want to take your word for it."

So we're back to IMHO you meeting God for fearful, awesome judgment and either you have trusted in Jesus for salvation or else you are soundly reproved for simply making excuses for asking for proof.

I think one of the typical refutations to Pascal's wager--the sheer number of religious beliefs--is pure horse poop, by the way, since I know from religious studies that only about 12 major religions use received texts, having read much of them and seeing for myself the wisdom and logic underlying the Bible. "God, if you exist, most religions say I can't see you due to sin, show yourself to me!" would work in most of those faiths!