Proselytizing

[Sunstone]

Do p-tizing involve a complete dismissal of the other persons beliefs

I think you're onto something there, Scott. The proselytizing I've seen very much tends to include a dismissal of other's beliefs and points of view.

Also, in response to the question you raised in another post in this thread, whether a non theist can proselytize, I think that's a definitate "yes".

 

[Comprehend]

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

I would say that it becomes proselytizing when one pesters another to investigate/read up on/think about/etc ones religion. Such as, hey I really think you should read the Book of Mormon, you would really like it, also Joseph Smith was a really great guy, you should think about going to an LDS service......

That to me, would be very obnoxious. It seems from some of the other posts that it is considered to be proselytizing when a person will insist that their belief is right and the other is wrong. Call me crazy but while this would come across as rude, I do not see how it would ever get anybody to consider switching religions. I would just call that bashing not proselytyizing.

 

[ChrisP]

What I mean by 1 sided is someone else getting out the Preachy-stick and whupping someone with it... the other person may be arguing or listening but the stick-whupper is not.

 

[Pah]

Can non-theists p-tize?

Yes, of course. But I've rarely seen it.

 

[Fluffy]

Any attempt to assert one's faith over another's is proselytising in my opinion. This could take the form of preaching scripture, referring to the one true God to a person who does not believe in that god or telling someone that they are going to hell.

There are various ways of stating your position so that it is not proselytising. For example, if hell is the logical result of doing X then you might say "Since you have done X, I believe that you will go to hell since that is a part of my belief system".That is very different, and shows much more respect than simply saying "You are going to hell" since it is a statement about belief rather than reality.

I don't agree that conversion is a necessary motive and, even if it is, motivation is obviously a near impossible aspect to decide upon for online moderating. There is not necessarily going to be any difference between 2 statements, X and Y, where X has this motivation and Y does not. Therefore any judgement that the mod team makes must be based almost entirely on the content and how that content is perceived regardless of the potential intent behind it.

Edit: I disagree strongly that proselytising involves dismissing another person's beliefs. This is indeed a component found amongst those who proselytise but it is equally found in anybody who decides to take one position over another. I am dismissive of theist positions because I have decided to become an atheist and therefore, clearly, I view the latter position to be more correct. That does not mean at all that I will try and assert my beliefs over anybody elses (although I might try and argue them in a debate).

 

[cardero]

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?

I don’t think it matters if people proselytize or not. Many of the major religions are fairly represented on RF and their rewards and rules basically boil down to a matter of faith. I do not think that there is a concern of mass conversion or any breakthroughs in validated TRUTH. Some members come very close to infringing these rules and you have to admire their dedication but in the process it is very difficult to discern ones belief without displaying such tactics but the real lessons come not only from what a certain religion believes but one also receives insight to why a person of a particular religion believes that way. I find that just as important to the discussion and debating process as well.

 

[Radio Frequency X]

To me proselytizing is a one way discussion. It says, "Listen to me, I will not listen to you". That is not what RF is for. RF is for discussion and debate, which means that it goes both ways.

I would say that it becomes proselytizing when one pesters another to investigate/read up on/think about/etc ones religion. Such as, hey I really think you should read the Book of Mormon, you would really like it, also Joseph Smith was a really great guy, you should think about going to an LDS service......

I don't see this as the case at all. There is nothing wrong with painting your religion in a positive light.

 

[doppelganger]

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.

Every discussion and debate has that element to it to some extent. To me proseletyzing is a state of mind more than a particular method. It occurs when someone believes that they have the only right answers and combines that belief with a refusal to engage in the give and take of a productive dialogue, i.e. doesn't take the time to really read, consider and respond to a particular thread or post. The classic example is the standard issue Evangelical zealot who feels compelled to tell everyone we are sinners and need to repent and be saved by "believing in Jesus", and work it into most of their posts including those threads where it isn't topical. Other than that, you can pretty easily spot when someone isn't bothering to following the flow of a conversation and is just waiting to interject some motto or creed solely for their own purposes rather than furthering the dialogue.

 

[Gentoo]

What type of behavior would you describe as proselytizing?

Behavior like: "I'm right and you're of the Devil. But don't worry, if you repent and accept Christ, you'll probably get into Heaven."

or: "I don't care what your religion states. Mine says...."

or: "Don't question the word of the Lord, since I'm of the Lord, and you're opposing me in this debate, then you must not be of the Lord."

Stuff like that. In general, I have no problem with someone suggesting that I read a certain book (be it a Holy Book or just one on the subject) or that I even give a service a try. What I have a problem with is being mean about it. Putting themselves on a high pedestal simply because we have different beliefs and then damning me to their version of an evil place. I don't much like it, and am starting to really get annoyed with that...

 

[Scuba Pete]

This is an interesting discussion.

Many of us, theist and non-theist alike, hold our beliefs with an evangelistic fervor. Thinking that we will check this passion at the door is completely unrealistic and would make our discussions incredibly boring. We are constantly trying to get others to understand and possibly even accept our point of view.

Where do I draw my personal line? When I am asked to JOIN another church. When someone tells me that I am stupid/short sighted/arrogant for believing what I believe, insinuating that their beliefs are somehow superior. I do find some of the threads such as "Jesus is not God" to be obvious evangelism as well as a troll. I avoid those.

Much of it boils down to intent. Sometimes you can devine a poster's true intent and quite often you can not. Kudos to the staff of RF for at least trying to do this consistently. BTW, it's great to see Scott back on that staff.

 

[MaddLlama]

I agree with what Gentoo said. Yes, in a debate we're all trying to agree with our own point of view, but I don't think that's the type of behavior that the rules are prohibiting. At least in a debate you are contributing something. When you are trying to convert someone to your religion you contribute nothing.
Saying "I believe this because of this this and this, and for those reasons it is correct" is far different from saying "I am right, and you are wrong because I say my religion is the right one, and you're an evil and wrong person if you don't agree with me". Which one is contributing something worthwhile? Which one can you actually learn something from? Which one of those promotes further discussion or debate, and which one breeds negativity and anger?

 

[Scott1]

OK all... thanks for helping me try to understand this.

Besides what we all do here at RF (discuss in one way or another our personal beliefs) it is possible to cross that line from discussion and debate to p-tizing.

I'm happy to see many believe non-theists can p-tize... I'm tired of seeing this scenario play out in my make believe example:
THREAD: The Bible and Genesis
Member 1: There are two creation stories in Genesis? Why?
Non-theist: You can't scientificly prove there even is a "god".

THAT is p-tizing. When the subject of the thread is changed- the question in the thread title is ignored- and the offending member seems only concerned with his/her belief system-and offers up their way of thinking to the other member... that is P-tizing is my way of thinking. I see this a lot more than I see any other form of p-tizing.... unless the subject of the thread is "Do you believe in God/why?" it should not be changed.... and debates in a Biblical thread should not be changed to a debate about the "sanity of those people who insisit on believing fairy tails".... etc.etc.

Thanks again for all your help... I think I can explain this subject much better now.

Peace,
S

 

[Feathers in Hair]

That's true, MaddLlama. (Why do I keep wanting to add an extra 'm' on the 'llama' part? *smacks typing hand*) For me, that's the main reason why I dislike proselytizing. While I recognize and respect that some people's faiths call upon them to attempt to convert others, that attempt seems to turn a thread 'negative' more quickly than anything else.

Perhaps the main factor in what makes a post 'proselytizing' to me is the way in which it is said. I can get hung up on the way things are phrased, but it seems like there's a world of difference between "It is my personal belief that those who don't believe in what the book I percieve as holy states is the moral way of life for people are going to be doomed to an eternity of listening to songs they hate" and " "There's a Monster at the End of this Book", by Grover, says that you're going to hell for blowing bubbles in your chocolate milk, so you'd better not do it."

 

[Revasser]

THREAD: The Bible and Genesis
Member 1: There are two creation stories in Genesis? Why?
Non-theist: You can't scientificly prove there even is a "god".

THAT is p-tizing.

Doubtful.

It's off-topic, certainly, and probably irritating to those already discussing the specified topic, but it's a real stretch to call it proselytism. Maybe if he'd said "You can't even scientifically prove there is a "god", so you should all drop all of this Bible and God foolishness and become atheists right now," then THAT would be proselytism.

 

[Scott1]

Doubtful.

It's off-topic, certainly, and probably irritating to those already discussing the specified topic, but it's a real stretch to call it proselytism. Maybe if he'd said "You can't even scientifically prove there is a "god", so you should all drop all of this Bible and God foolishness and become atheists right now," then THAT would be proselytism.

I get your point... but I don't see it as anything but p-tizing.... there are many examples of these "one-liners" meant to attack the belief system of the poster on RF.... it need not be "give Christ a try!" or something so obvious to be p-tizing in my opinion.

 

[Booko]

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?

Not necessarily. Someone might enter a debate as a "devil's advocate" or for the mental challenge, or to clarify their own views on a topic.

The topic of "what is proselytizing" comes up a fair bit in Baha'i circles, just because we have a religious commandment not to proselytize.

The thing is, what is considered proselytizing changes from one place and culture to the next. We do some door-to-door teaching in the U.S. in some places, but if someone expresses a non-interest in hearing anything, we just thank them and move on (and make a note on the address list NOT to bother them again, because it's really quite annoying to do so). In other places, door-to-door anything is the very definition of proselyting. In many places in the world, people think going door -to-door is just a normal thing people do, and they like visitors. And in some places, just answering questions is either unlawful or might even get you killed or imprisoned.

So, you have to be aware of where you live and what the community standards are.

My own cultural standards are these: No discussion of my religion to any "captive audience" or any place it would be considered unprofessional or interrupt the purpose for some meeting I was attending.

Otherwise, in public people converse randomly all the time. Grocery lines, waiting at the post office, whatever. If I strike up a conversation with someone and the topic of religion happens to come up, I don't think I'm proselytizing to mention my beliefs -- unless the other person in some way (verbally or otherwise) indicates they don't want to hear it, in which case shutting up or changing the subject would really be good manners anyway.

On a place like RF, I work under the assumption that people sign on here having some idea that they might actually hear someone else's religious views so I feel freer to bring up the subject where it's relevant, and would not think it proselytizing on someone else's part to explain their views, post apologetics, or, in debate areas, argue strongly for their beliefs.

Proselytizing I think of as an attempt to convert someone, especially if they've already said, "Thanks, but no thanks."

I don't think expressing one's religious views in the spirit of offering the other person something to consider is proselytizing.

And for the record, Dawny, that's what you do. :hug:

 

[Revasser]

I get your point... but I don't see it as anything but p-tizing.... there are many examples of these "one-liners" meant to attack the belief system of the poster on RF.... it need not be "give Christ a try!" or something so obvious to be p-tizing in my opinion.

The difference is in how it is worded. "Give Christ a try!" is a direct suggestion, whereas "You can't prove god" is not. A better comparison would be "You can't prove god" in that discussion and an interjection of "In the Bible, it says "Blessed are those who have not seen yet believe." in a discussion between non-theists about Russell's writings or something. Both are off-topic and largely pointless, but neither would count as proselytism, at least IMO.

The intent may well be the same (though one must wonder about strength of intent if the person can only manage a one-liner), but if we all counted every comment with an attached intent to swing around to one's way of thinking as proselytising, we could probably just dispense with the entire Religious Debates forum.

 

[Booko]

Can non-theists p-tize?

Sure, I've seen atheists proselytize for atheism plenty of times.

Also, many Buddhists are nontheists.

 

[michel]

[Part quote=Scott1]

..........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?[/quote]

The first part of the partial quote above interests me, because I see Proselytizing (in it's strongest manifestations) as being a) a form of 'being seen to pray in public' (which is something mentioned (among others) in Mark 12:28-40 "As he taught, Jesus said, "Watch out for the teachers of the law. They like to walk around in flowing robes and be greeted in the marketplaces, and have the most important seats in the synagogues and the places of honor at banquets. They devour widows' houses and for a show make lengthy prayers. Such men will be punished most severely."

I believe that Jesus was not only outlining the 'pomposity' of loud and public prayer, but was also warning us about thinking that we are 'special enough' to know what to tell others what to do.

Personally, I believe Proselytizing to be a form of "Look at me, I am holier than though..." and yet I am aware that I wish to share what I feel with others...it is a hard call, in my opinion. This is something I often think of, but, alas, have never quite been able to feel that I have reached a solution which deals with all of the above without 'breaking rules'.

 

[Popeyesays]

I think most people confuse 'proselytizing' and 'apologia'. One attempts to change the other's beliefs, the other simply explains why something they have said about another faith is mistaken or miscomprehended.

For example (and only an example)

Someone looking to change another's mind: How can you be a Mormon, Mormons believe in polygamy!

Someone practicing apologia counters with: The modern church does not allow polygamy and those divisive sects of LDS that do countenance it are not speaking for the mainstream LDS.

Regards,
Scott