Proselytizing

[Scott1]

The Forum Rules state:

19.) Proselytizing will not be tolerated. This forum is for sharing, discussing and understanding other religions and ideas, not converting others to your individual religion or beliefs.

For my own education.... do you agree it should be against the rules? (For the record: I do )

What type of behavior would you describe as proselytizing?

 

[Sunstone]

I think if we allowed proseltyzing, posts and threads might soon turn more proseltyzing than informative. That is, we might see an influx of people coming online to save us all, rather than to share their veiws and knowledge. So, I'd be very reluctant to change the rules on this.

 

[Scott1]

FYI... this thread is meant to learn about the subject... not to suggest a change of the rules... so I'd appreciate comments that deal with the subject and not about the potential effects of a rules change.

Thanks!

 

[Scott1]

Allowing Proselytizing is a sure fire way for a HUGE number of arguments along the line of "I'm right" "NO! I'm right" "No you are Satan!" type arguments to begin among newer (and less tolerant members).

Agreed.

.... but am more interested in what members believe is an example of proselytizing.... what are the key factors to determine (in your mind) what crosses the line between discussion and proselytizing?

 

[ChrisP]

(Deleted first Message to improve Thread flow)

I agree for this rule, but for a different reason.

Allowing Proselytizing is a sure fire way for a HUGE number of arguments along the line of "I'm right" "NO! I'm right" "No you are Satan!" type arguments to begin among newer (and less tolerant members).

It's more than a good thing, it's an essential tool for the moderating team to maintain a healthy environment.

Edit: Oh well that sucks Scott... just shoot me down

Proselytizing is defined fairly well in the dictionary, but basically means any "evangelising" in my opinion.

For instance, the Hare Krishna's stopping me in the street today were "Proselytizing". Anyone performing more or less the same "Buttonhole and salesmen" technique would qualify.

 

[dawny0826]

I guess technically, many of us in a weak form, proselytize when we debate. When we debate, are we not trying in a way to convert others to our opinion?

proselytize (also proselytise) >verb convert from one religion, belief, or opinion to another.
-DERIVATIVES proselytizer >noun.

(Taken from my trusty Corel WordPerfect 10 dictionary.)

If this is the case, I know I'm guilty as charged.

 

[Sunstone]

I see proselytizing very simply as an attempt to convert someone to your beliefs. As long as you're not trying to convert someone to your beliefs, you're not proselytizing. Of course, that definition raises more questions in practice than it answers, so it's only a start.

 

[Scott1]

I see proselytizing very simply as an attempt to convert someone to your beliefs. As long as you're not trying to convert someone to your beliefs, you're not proselytizing.

So without the phrase "Hey, you should convert to my faith".... it's kinda not p-tizing?

Of course, that definition raises more questions in practice than it answers, so it's only a start.

I know it's kinda a "I'll know it if I see it" kinda thing... I was just hoping for a few key factors.... because obviously, 90% of posters are not just here to "share" but believe they hold some form of "truth" or usefull information that they'd like to pass on to other members/share with the world....

Do p-tizing involve a complete dismissal of the other persons beliefs... is it normally an off-topic remark?

 

[ChrisP]

I see proselytizing very simply as an attempt to convert someone to your beliefs. As long as you're not trying to convert someone to your beliefs, you're not proselytizing. Of course, that definition raises more questions in practice than it answers, so it's only a start.

Hence my "buttonholing" comment. The dictionary definition would more or less prevent any kind of reasonable discussion or debate on many topics here.

The subject is already pretty well defined among the older members of the forum, but I find it difficult to put something like this into words. Attempting to "aggressively" convert someone into your own belief?

If that is the case where is the line drawn with regards to the point where behaviour ceases to become debate and is then aggressive proselytising. Using commone sense this answer should be obvious to anyone with said type of sense. To those without, I'm sure they're used to having things pointed out anyway

 

[Scott1]

Hehe... thanks Chris... I was having the same problem giving a definition I thought a thread might help.

 

[ChrisP]

Oh and what brought this sudden discussion on I'm sure if it didn't have some benefit for the "masses" it would have been kept in higher circles

What's the story then ay?

 

[!Fluffy!]

I guess technically, many of us in a weak form, proselytize when we debate. When we debate, are we not trying in a way to convert others to our opinion?



(Taken from my trusty Corel WordPerfect 10 dictionary.)

If this is the case, I know I'm guilty as charged.

As for the question (in blue), not me. There is a difference between 'apologetics' and conversion. I have no problem with the difference between defending a position and changing someone's mind. I guess it's a defense vs offense sort of thing.

For example what If I join a thread specifically addressing a question a Hindu has posed regarding one part of Christian doctrine or behavior. If I post with the express purpose of diverting the topic just enough so I can start piling on all kinds of laudatory praise for Jesus Christ and dissing Hinduism.... or discussing how great the Bible is in great detail with my Christian friends on that thread, in effect hijacking it to praise my religion, I would definitely call that proselytizing.

 

[Scott1]

What's the story then ay?

Hehe... if it had anything to do with the actual running of the forum, you can be sure it would not be discussed in a public thread.

It really is just for my own edification.

Really.

 

[Scott1]

discussing how great the Bible is in great detail with my Christian friends on that thread, in effect hijacking it to praise my religion, I would definitely call that proselytizing.

Ok cool... that's one key factor: hijacking a thread... off topic kinda deal.

Any more?

 

[Scott1]

Can non-theists p-tize?

 

[Comprehend]

The Forum Rules state:

For my own education.... do you agree it should be against the rules? (For the record: I do )

What type of behavior would you describe as proselytizing?

19.) Proselytizing will not be tolerated. This forum is for sharing, discussing and understanding other religions and ideas, not converting others to your individual religion or beliefs.

I have to admit that I was a little confused by this rule when I joined the forum because I thought sharing, and discussing my religion WAS proselytizing. From an LDS prospective I do not see a difference. This is how our missionaries proselytize. They go around sharing and discussing our religion. Maybe somebody would be kind enough to tell me what other people call proselytizing?

 

[ChrisP]

Can non-theists p-tize?

Without a doubt, but I'm sure we'll see disagreement there. To me, while discussion and debate are usually poly-sided proselytising has only 1. One-sided broomstick beating with a belief system, or other belief structure theistic, non-theistic or "bright"... I'm saving myself from "Star-Trek 21 - The Wrath of Bob"

 

[Scott1]

Maybe somebody would be kind enough to tell me what other people call proselytizing?

Thanks for responding (so I will as well ).

That's kinda what I'm trying to do... get a basic lists of "key factors" to help me define the behavior.

Only one so far is that the behavior will present itself by a comment that is usually off-topic.

 

[dawny0826]

As for the question (in blue), not me. There is a difference between 'apologetics' and conversion. I have no problem with the difference between defending a position and changing someone's mind. I guess it's a defense vs offense sort of thing.

For example what If I join a thread specifically addressing a question a Hindu has posed regarding one part of Christian doctrine or behavior. If I post with the express purpose of diverting the topic just enough so I can start piling on all kinds of laudatory praise for Jesus Christ and dissing Hinduism.... or discussing how great the Bible is in great detail with my Christian friends on that thread, in effect hijacking it to praise my religion, I would definitely call that proselytizing.

Honestly, I'm with you here.

I was looking at the dictionary definition of the word and thinking...well gee, if you want to get technical, I've probably been guilty of it. At times, I've hoped that someone would adopt my opinion but I've never intentionally gone out of my way to intentionally push my religious views upon someone in hopes that they would convert...I've always considered that proselytizing.

 

[Scott1]

Without a doubt, but I'm sure we'll see disagreement there. To me, while discussion and debate are usually poly-sided proselytising has only 1. One-sided broomstick beating with a belief system, or other belief structure theistic, non-theistic or "bright"... I'm saving myself from "Star-Trek 21 - The Wrath of Bob"

That's a suprise... didn't think it was only one-sided.