Proselytizing: What is it and is it a good or bad thing?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

IMHO humanity needs to urgently move beyond this idea there is only one correct religion and learn to have constructive conversations to enable better appreciation of religious diversity and the truth that lies in most of the world religious traditions

Ironically, rejecting the idea that there's one correct religion implies dismissing as false every religion that claims to be the one correct religion.

 

[Dawnofhope]

If someone shares enthusiastically about his faith, I am fine with it
If someone belittles other's faith in the process, I rather avoid the person
In a way they stopped the communication already themselves

Whenever someone believes "My way is the Highway ... for all"
Proselytizing will almost always end up in belittling the faith of the other

I believe that everyone's (non) belief choice can lead to the highest goal
No need to convert to a specific religion for that

I’m pleased to hear you are happy to listen to the religious experiences and beliefs of others yet remain secure in your own beliefs. One concern I see is religion has become such a divisive and misunderstood phenomenon that many people can not or do not want to discuss it anymore. Without those personal conversations it becomes harder to appreciate something that remains vitally important for so many of us.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Mentioning your faith doesn't necessarily mean you're trying to convince others of your faith.

True, but if I were to begin a statement with, "Advaita says..." or "Shankara said..." in an attempt to sway opinion to someone who does not identify as Advaitin, I would be proselytizing unless I was being asked directly about my position or worldview.

 

[Vinayaka]

You’ve certainly thought a lot of proselytising and have a clear idea of what it does or doesn’t mean to you. I think we have different ideas about where that line is and that’s fine by me. The analogy of gratuitous violence or sex in a movie is a useful one. I see no reason to be specifically mentioning my faith or singling out another faith for criticism with the OP of this thread. As you recognise this thread is about proselytising and related ideas. It will be interesting to hear what unfolds.

Another observation I have is the general nature of proselytising implies that the person thinks they are right ... not just about their faith, but also about other things ... like proselytising itself, for example. So they use their own definition of proselytising, and try to impose that on others, without sensing or understanding that others may have a differing view on it. There is a certain insensitivity that seems to go along with it.

As for the bad/good idea, I don't see proselytising as inherently bad, just representative of where an individual is in consciousness.

 

[Dawnofhope]

I'd agree with that definition. I'd also say that the Baha'i practice of "pioneering" is a form of proselytizing.

I can see why you would think that about pioneering. I don’t think of it in the same way. Pioneering is simply making available the Teachings and community of a faith for those who are interested.

Generally bad, I think.

Part of this is because I think that proselytizers - if they're approaching what they do ethically - take on an extra burden to make sure their beliefs are true.

When someone's religion is just a matter of their own personal faith, they're pretty free to adopt whatever standard for their beliefs they feel is appropriate. However, when they start asking other people to rely on the truth of their beliefs, they now have a duty to those other people to make sure that those beliefs are demonstrably reliable.

This duty includes not just soul-searching by the proselytizer to confirm that their beliefs are sincere; it also includes exploring their justification for those beliefs, including considering whether the justification really does justify the beliefs. IOW, an ethical proselytizer would have a decent grounding in both epistemology in general and the justification for their religion in particular.

IMO, any proselytizer who can't give a detailed, rational explanation for why the beliefs they're peddling are reliably true is acting unethically.

... and in my experience, proselytizers who can do that are few and far between.

On top of this, I think that any proselytizer who isn't open to being convinced of the other person's beliefs is acting in bad faith, IMO. If someone were to have an honest conversation about which beliefs are true, the proselytizer would be just as open to conversion as he hopes his mark would be. It would be hubris on the part of the proselytizer to assume that their religion is better justified than someone else's belief system until they heard that person explain the justification for their beliefs.

I agree that if someone is going to take the time to share their faith with another, they need to be open and reciprocate being prepared to listen as well. Communication is always a two way street.

There will always be varying degrees of capacity to explain one’s beliefs and experiences with another. You seem to have very high expectations of others in this regard.

If someone was proselytising to me I’d take a different approach.

 

[Vinayaka]

I am truly eager to hear one specific member's perspective on this topic. I won't mention the member's name, but I'm certain a few know who I'm talking about.

It is clear to me that in life, some folks do not get certain concepts. If people haven't figured something out after 50 years of exposure to it, I wouldn't have high expectations of that changing.

"Don't expect much," is a valuable mantra.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Mentioning your faith doesn't necessarily mean you're trying to convince others of your faith.

True, and not mentioning my faith doesn’t mean I’m not proselytising!

 

[Dawnofhope]

Ironically, rejecting the idea that there's one correct religion implies dismissing as false every religion that claims to be the one correct religion.

Just because some adherents of a religion X claim their faith to be the one true religion, doesn’t negate religion X still having some truth.

 

[Vinayaka]

I can see why you would think that about pioneering. I don’t think of it in the same way. Pioneering is simply making available the Teachings and community of a faith for those who are interested.

It's available to anyone who has access to a computer. Most places do.

 

[pearl]

2/ It doesn’t address Interfaith relationships at all and clearly places Christianity as the one true religion above others including Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism and Judaism.

Well its a document by the 'World Council of Churches' so that's to be expected, I guess.
Proselytization, I think, refers to mission, and mission actually is supposed to be directed to unbelievers, not with those already in a covenant relationship with God.

"I only ask that you encounter one another, the one who needs more. Am I going to convince another to become Catholic? NO, no no! You go to encounter the other person, he is your brother! That is enough! Jesus does the rest, the Holy Spirit does it".

 

[Road Less Traveled]

I'd agree with that definition. I'd also say that the Baha'i practice of "pioneering" is a form of proselytizing.

The most clever way is to say things such as ‘how does world peace sound?’ when the ulterior motive is to try and appeal that to others that it can only be had by converting to the ‘Baha’i’ religion.

I know that my own interior world is at peace and is very serene, without needing any religion or laws as described by all of them.

If I were to do to any ‘proselytizing’ myself, it would be to tell others to be alone, and go into solitude, and get to know themselves better only if they’re willing.

 

[sun rise]

It's just advocacy of a cause with the intention of bringing others around to your way of thinking. It's an inescapable part of the human condition and we all do this to some extent.

As with all such things, it's more about the when, where, why and how, and understanding the fact that people may be less willing to hear you advocacy than you are to give it.

Yes. How many of us have said to someone "You have GOT to try this new restaurant, go to this great movie, look at this new cellphone, adopt my religion" because we are excited about it.

I've learned that the vast majority of people are 1,000 more likely to want to tell me about something wonderful they believe than they are to hear from me about what I love.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Just because some adherents of a religion X claim their faith to be the one true religion, doesn’t negate religion X still having some truth.

Sure, but rejecting a religion as false doesn't mean rejecting every single thing that the religion says.

 

[sun rise]

Of course this is not true of the online universe, but the wisest thing I know in this area is that how people live is the best advertisement for their beliefs.

I'll give a real-world, non-religious example. When I was in college studying chemistry, I took a genetics course. The genetics professor was so enthusiastic and excited about his career that I almost switched majors. His enthusiasm was contagious.

He did not have to advertise that his area of study was wonderful, his behavior conveyed it.

 

[Windwalker]

Stating opinions as a definitive matter of fact (i.e., without "I believe/feel/think" language, and/or without references) may be moderated as preaching.

I have always found this as problematic. Everything that everyone says is a statement of their opinions, especially on this forum, including that statement itself. If someone says, "Evolution is a fact", that is also their opinion, and one which is well-supportable.

But to require stating, "In my opinion, evolution is real", is a bit disingenuous. It smacks of "softening" that belief in order not to offend those who have different ideas, that we should understand that everyone's opinions are of equal weight and value, and we must not offend by stating our strong beliefs without softening them with "In my opinion" as a qualifier in order to allow for their supposedly equally valid opinions which are opposite to our own.

While I am very much postmodernist in my views of truth and reality, I see that as a distortion of what relativism teaches. It's a flawed, and potentially dangerous distortion that everyone's opinions are equal in value, that nothing can be believed as more credible than anything else.

Of course, that last sentence is my opinion, and it does not need to be "softened" by saying "In my opinion." It's a given that is my opinion, but it also happens to be also well-informed and supportable and of greater truth value than "everyone is entitled to their opinions", as though that makes that equally valid.

Everything that everyone states anywhere, at any time, is a statement of their beliefs and opinions, including that unqualified statement.

 

[Brickjectivity]

A few gospel quotes against signs and proselytizing:

"When an impure spirit comes out of a person, it goes through arid places seeking rest and does not find it. Then it says, 'I will return to the house I left.' When it arrives, it finds the house unoccupied, swept clean and put in order. Then it goes and takes with it seven other spirits more wicked than itself, and they go in and live there. And the final condition of that person is worse than the first. That is how it will be with this wicked generation." (Mat 12:43-45 NIV)

The 'Impure spirit' appears driven out (by signs) but returns in a worse way. So this is spoken against all of those "Jesus statue bled" kinds of arguments and "I was healed by Jesus so believe in Jesus." These are all proselytizer methods. I also put creationism arguments in this category -- all the garbage that doesn't result in real spiritual fruit.

And he spake a parable unto them, Can the blind lead the blind? shall they not both fall into the ditch? The disciple is not above his master: but every one that is perfect shall be as his master. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but perceivest not the beam that is in thine own eye? (Luk 6:39-41 KJV)

That is part of a rant Jesus makes against discipleship methods. He, himself, tells his disciples that he doesn't use this method but will be sending them the spirit of truth to fill in the blanks. Jesus doesn't think that one person should disciple another or that there can be improvement by this means. He says disciples can only be as good as or worse than their masters. He reinforces this many times in the gospels, though you won't hear any backstabbing preachers comment on it. They're all pretty terrible in my experience, often not even knowing it; sometimes relishing it.

"I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. He will glorify me because it is from me that he will receive what he will make known to you." (Jhn 16:12-14 NIV)

For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed [the righteousness] of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven. (Mat 5:20 KJV)

This is part of Jesus denouncement of the master-disciple scheme. He doesn't trust it, and he overall says you have to do better than any human master can make you. To do that you can't train under a human. He defenestrates master-disciple for his disciples.

There is plenty more of this material in the NT. James is a book highly critical of those who put emphasis upon wealth and education and who would give preferential seating to wise people. It is a book packed with great quotes on this subject and only 5 chapters long. Paul, too, makes speeches about it in his letters.

 

[Sand Dancer]

I've certainly experienced a great deal of proselytizing during my time on RF and have been accused of it myself.

So what is proselytizing to you and is it a good or bad thing.

It assumes that your religion is the "only right one" and is superior to others. We need to live and let live. If someone cares about your religion, they will ask.

 

[osgart]

Somewhere along the line everyone is going to feel they are right or justified in something they perceive, and/or act on.

I dont see very many people who remain neutral all their lives.

Somewhere along the line everyone is going to desire others who agree on particular things.

Somewhere along the line everyone is going to desire to win certain people over.

Even Christians know that all one does is plant seeds, and see what happens elsewise on whether the seeds grow or not.

Everyone is a seed planter. Seed planting is anything but forceful.

So when does it all become proselytizing?

I think attempting to convert by force is what everyone is trying to avoid.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Proselytizing can mean different things to different people. Some people may feel a duty to proselytize as part of their faith. Others may use the word in a pejorative way to criticise others who 'teach' their faith to others while insisting on being above whatever they perceive the word to mean.

So what is proselytising? To me it means trying to convert people from one religion or worldview to another. Personally I wouldn't try to convert anyone to my religion, but if someone had questions about my faith or were interested to learn I would certainly help them. If someone wanted to join my religion, if I believed they were sincere and understood what my faith was about, I would certainly assist them in their journey to become part of the worldwide community of my faith. So none of this I would consider proselytizing. I would avoid any manipulation, coercion or deception which certainly runs contrary to the truthfulness and trsutworthiness that is at the foundation of any genuine religion.

Proselytizing on religious forum is against the rules btw. Some of you may be aware of rule 8:

8. Preaching/Proselytizing
Creating (or linking to) content intended to convert/recruit others to your religion, spirituality, sect/denomination, or lack thereof is not permitted. Similarly, attempting to convert others away from their religion, spiritual convictions, or sect/denomination will also be considered a form of preaching. Stating opinions as a definitive matter of fact (i.e., without "I believe/feel/think" language, and/or without references) may be moderated as preaching.

RF Rules

I've certainly experienced a great deal of proselytizing during my time on RF and have been accused of it myself.

So what is proselytizing to you and is it a good or bad thing.

Hi Adrian! What on earth happened to the All Blacks!

 

[Aupmanyav]

IMHO humanity needs to urgently move beyond this idea there is only one correct religion and learn to have constructive conversations to enable better appreciation of religious diversity and the truth that lies in most of the world religious traditions.

Naw but. God keeps on sending prophets/sons/messengers/manifestations/mahdis with the latest instructions. So yes, there is only one true religion, all the rest are dated like Windows XP. The latest in Abrahamic religions is Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, and he was the Mahdi. However, I have discarded Windows and I am very happy with Linux.