Proselytizing

[Katzpur]

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?

Obviously, on a debate forum, the whole purpose to to prove your point, or convince others that your position is right and the other guy's is wrong. There have been some really excellent debates on RF in the past, where both sides presented convincing arguments that their interpretation of Biblical doctrine, for instance, is correct.

To me, debating crosses the line into proselytizing when one person tells another that he will be damned, punished or condemned if he continues on his present path.

Like Comprehend mentioned, this is a kind of a difficult thing for Latter-day Saints to avoid since we are taught to share our beliefs with others from the time we are little kids. But from my own perspective (and probably from the perspective of most of the LDS posters on RF) sharing becomes proselytizing when the person you're sharing with doesn't want what it is you're sharing and you continue to insist that he accept it.

 

[!Fluffy!]

Proselytism is the practice of attempting to convert people to another opinion, usually another religion. The word proselytism is derived ultimately from the Greek language prefix 'pros' (towards) and the verb 'erchomai' (to come). Historically in the New Testament, the word proselyte denoted a person who had converted to the Jewish religion. Though the word proselytism was originally tied to Christianity, it is also used to refer to other religions' attempts to convert people to their beliefs or even any attempt to convert people to another point of view, religious or not. Today, the connotations of the word proselytism are often negative but this article will use the word neutrally to refer to any attempts to convert a person or people to another faith...
​

a good read:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proselytism

 

[lunamoth]

Proselytism is the practice of attempting to convert people to another opinion, usually another religion. The word proselytism is derived ultimately from the Greek language prefix 'pros' (towards) and the verb 'erchomai' (to come). Historically in the New Testament, the word proselyte denoted a person who had converted to the Jewish religion. Though the word proselytism was originally tied to Christianity, it is also used to refer to other religions' attempts to convert people to their beliefs or even any attempt to convert people to another point of view, religious or not. Today, the connotations of the word proselytism are often negative but this article will use the word neutrally to refer to any attempts to convert a person or people to another faith...

​

a good read:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proselytism

That looks like a good definition to me. On a forum like this though I think additional rules of thumb are used because, as most everyone has pointed out, every time we debate we are attempting to convince others that our view has merit, perhaps the highest merit. I think in a religious debate forum it comes down to the level of intrusiveness, insistance or obnoxiousness before proselytizing becomes unacceptible.

2 c,
luna

 

[Random]

I think the rules againt proselytism are very good for RF. To put things in perspective, all of my friends follow me in (non-internet) real life, they consider me their "guru" and pretty much accept my views regarding mysticism, religion, science and morality as authoritative. I did not ask them to do so, it merely arose from an insular "groupthink" in conversations in which I was the main purveryor of intellectual and philosophical threads. They are very sane, reasonable people and we're a "clique" of sorts: we call ourselves "Emancipates", spiritual freethinkers. It works for us and results in active positivity and togetherness, enhancing the spirit of friendship and mutual understanding.

Now, imagine attempting the same thing on an internet forum amongst strangers with whom one never truly feels, face-to-face as it were. One word: disaster! The very opposite of the last line of the last paragraph above would result, almost certainly. This would make an educative forum like RF purposeless, a battleground in fact: no-one would benefit ultimately.

Nevertheless, if asked on here about my beliefs I will relate. If someone asserts a distorted truth (which is far more common than falsity or un-truth) I will attempt to correct them from a base of the enlightened knowlege I have: what would be the point of not being honest?

Prosletysing on the boards is rightly prohibited: but the PM messaging system is useful for those who feel the need to uncover the uniqueness of anothers "faith" or whatever you want to call it. There's no reason it can't since its private and stays that way.

Even the casual observer on RF cannot fail to notice that 99.9% of the posts by Atheists or nontheists directed @ theists on the forums are of the tone: "Your belief is irrational and there is no evidence for it. You're deluded. Atheism is therefore the default position to take". This is proslytising: and very efficiently too. As is evidently the case, many believers came to RF strong in their faith and either changed to atheism after taking batterings in debate on the boards or leaving agnostic and uncertain anymore. Does RF prohibit this? NO, because if an atheist can't be argumentative about religion and forcibly convert others to his/her way of thinking, then an atheist can have nothing of any note or significance left to say.

Lastly, I have noticed several spiritualizers on RF lately: Arielmessenger, whom I was dismayed to discover was a guy cover: ), wants to save the world from Abrahamic religion (an admirable desire) and set up shop in Jerusalem. Neosnoia has links to her Panentheistic paganism site and holds strong views: likewise Burchfam wants to promote her religion and make sure we all never EVER have sex, ever. eek: ). I personally don't have a problem with any of them and whether they are breaking the forum rules is not my concern.

I would merely note that they are contributing in their own way to everyone's learning: and in the end you have a choice to accept what you are told or reject.

Make up your own mind.

 

[arielmessenger]

Sorry for not being a girl, Godlike. I will consider a sex change operation next time God tells me to tell people things they never want to hear.

It baffles me why religious talkboards even try to stop religious or ideological proselytizing. It's like Prohibition, trying to stop people from intoxicating themselves one way or another. When people become convinced that they have something to say to help others it's going to be hard to shut them up and why try? When Godlike posts or Joe Blow whatever they say I assume its part and parcel of their belief system and I make up my own mind how I receive what they say. This is how the world is- it presents all kinds of choices for us every day and we have to choose--no one else can do it for us. Why shouldn't hearing other religious opinions be any different?

I have two religions that I talk about freely (so far) here but only one of them is a religion I would like everyone to join. That's the Religion of Peace which has no formal organization and never will, being more or less the universal sharing of all peoples of the Golden Rules found in almost all religions. My "Biomystical Christianity" is my personal gnostic Christian Solitary path and I only share it because God told me too. No one is asked to become a Biomystical Christian but my talking about it marks me in the eyes of talkboard monitors as "proselytizing". :sad4:

 

[Scott1]

Personally, I believe Proselytizing to be a form of "Look at me, I am holier than though..."

Ooooh... I like this.... yep... I think I see this a lot.... it's not even about converting the other person, but an attempt to make another person look/feel like an idiot for not believing as they do.

 

[Hope]

As a Christian, I am commanded to share the Good News. Not force it on others---not shove it down their throats---simply share. And be a good witness and representative of my faith. Do I wish everyone believed as I do? Of course, but I cannot make anyone do so. Arguing and debating hardly ever brings about conversions, anyway. Actions speak louder than words. So I think anyone who is trying to "prosyletise" on RF through debates is wasting their time. While faith certainly requires our intellects, it involves our hearts too. So I make no effort to "prosyletise"----I simply try to be Christ to others, and share what I believe about Him. If this is defined as wrong by some people, then so be it. I care more about what God thinks. :angel2:

 

[andyjamal]

I agree with Katzpur:

sharing becomes proselytizing when the person you're sharing with doesn't want what it is you're sharing and you continue to insist that he accept it.

Receptivity is the key. If your listener/reader has a genuine interest in learning about what you have to say, or a genuine interest in debating it, it is not proselytizing. Of course, receptivity can be hard to determine, so we need to consider relevance. Is the poster offering information that is relevant to the discussion/debate, and is it a genuine attempt to explain/prove/educate on the topic at hand? If not, it's probably proselytizing, esp. if it can be tranlated to: "Why can't you see that I'm right and you're wrong?"

 

[Booko]

It baffles me why religious talkboards even try to stop religious or ideological proselytizing.

Because all you end up with is people talking past each other, and dialogue disappears.

When people become convinced that they have something to say to help others it's going to be hard to shut them up and why try?

Yeah, we should just allow a nasty free for all, where people can spend time exchanging insults, and anyone who's just interested in talking politely with others will be encouraged to go elsewhere rather than swim in a pool of electronic sewage trying to look for that lone speck of diamond somewhere, maybe. :sarcastic

When Godlike posts or Joe Blow whatever they say I assume its part and parcel of their belief system and I make up my own mind how I receive what they say.

Hey -- leave the famous rennaisance English organist out of it. We shouldn't speak ill of the dead.

No one is asked to become a Biomystical Christian but my talking about it marks me in the eyes of talkboard monitors as "proselytizing". :sad4:

It does? I can't say I've noticed. But if a lot of people tell me the same thing, I figure it might actually be something I said. Or maybe just how I chose to say it.

 

[athanasius]

In the Catholic faith proselytizing is not allowed but evangelization definitely is.

 

[DeepShadow]

Proselytism is the practice of attempting to convert people to another opinion, usually another religion. The word proselytism is derived ultimately from the Greek language prefix 'pros' (towards) and the verb 'erchomai' (to come). Historically in the New Testament, the word proselyte denoted a person who had converted to the Jewish religion. Though the word proselytism was originally tied to Christianity, it is also used to refer to other religions' attempts to convert people to their beliefs or even any attempt to convert people to another point of view, religious or not. Today, the connotations of the word proselytism are often negative but this article will use the word neutrally to refer to any attempts to convert a person or people to another faith...



​

a good read:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proselytism

This is what I thought the forum was prohibiting. Not "bashing" or "forcing," merely trying to convert from one faith or another. To me, it's more about faith than mere belief system, because--as others have pointed out--the broader definition would prevent all but the most basic discussion. What distinguishes merely arguing a point convincingly from proselyting? I don't know about other faiths, but I can be a Mormon and think--for example--that Catholicism has a lot of good ideas. I can even study the writings of Catholics and use them to expand my own beliefs. But when someone on RF says, "You sound more like a Catholic than a Mormon--why don't you switch?" then that is proselyting IMNSHO.

I'm mostly concerned with making sure my own actions don't cross the line. Based on this criterion, I would NOT count the following as proselying on my part:

* Asking someone to read the Book of Mormon, or arranging to send them one. Victor could read the Book of Mormon every day and still be a Catholic; Booko could find plenty of inspiring things there and still be Baha'i.

* Inviting someone to visit an LDS worship service or fireside. These are merely more ways to learn what LDS believe; there's nothing there that demands that one join the church.

Naturally, I would never make either of the above invitations if the person didn't already seem interested, and I'd never press the issue if refused; IMO this doesn't break the forum rules against proselytizing, but it's a violation of other rules, to say nothing of being just plain rude. That being said, I would also consider the following to be proselying on my part:

* Inviting someone to be (re)baptised. This would require that they shed some or all of their previous covenants with God and change religious associations. No matter how well-intentioned, I would read this would be a violation of forum rules.

* Inviting someone to meet with LDS missionaries. Although they can be very informative, missionaries are called to proselyte; an invitation to meet with them would assume that the missionaries would behave accordingly.

I don't consider either of these last two actions to be bad; I've done exactly that on more than one occassion. Arguing a point convincingly is an attempt to open someone's mind; proselying is inviting them to close it. I just don't think this forum is the place for that.

Comments welcome.

 

[Green Gaia]

The no proselytizing rule was added to try and curb the possible influx of people who come here on a mission to convert the masses to their religion. That's not what this forum is about. Sharing, discussing, debating, learning... that's what we wanted to emphaize, not a "who and out yell who to get the most converts" contest.

We also wanted this to be a place where those who were searching and asking questions would not be bombared with converison attempts. So they could ask their questions openly without fear of that.

 

[Quiddity]

Good idea Scott.

I’ve found this one difficult to encapsulate without context. It would be nice to have a clear definition, but I haven’t found one that can be applied to every situation.

What one person considers legitimate, another may consider improper. Some people have a sissy fit if you throw one religious text to explain your position and yet they will push their own agenda to no end. For example, some people start the same ideological threads over and over again. To me that can be improper and even proselytism because intent becomes clearer with repetition. It’s driving the nail deeper in to cause harm to the opposition and sale their more advanced ideology. Just imagine a Christian doing the same thing? The intent is almost seen a mile away.

Let’s face it, proselytism tends to go to our religious databank a very high percent of the time and we can completely miss the repetitious non-religious ones.

The Catholic Church for example says “The Church strictly forbids forcing anyone to embrace the Faith, or alluring or enticing people by worrisome wiles.”

In essence, people measure their proselytism limit based on their own internal biases, presuppositions, experiences, psychological state, emotions, world view, etc.

As wiki notes:
Thus, Prof. Natan Lerner of Tel Aviv University observes that the issue is one of a clash of rights—the right of a person to express his or her views—versus the right of a person not to be exposed to views that he or she does not wish to hear.

I don’t know if there is a clear cut answer but I do know that you just can’t be too darn sensitive in RF. We just have to consider what others find improper and educate those who do it to be wary about it. That way, we can at least try to avoid proselytism coming from all angles, which I really do think the staff tries it’s best to do.

~Victor

 

[NoahideHiker]

Proselytizing is one of the few ugly things I find in organized religion.

 

[Storm Moon]

I'd like to respond to the question 'do non-theists proselytize?' I don't think they do and if they do, I haven't seen it here (yet), but I'd like to add that I don't think they would have a reason to since (I would assume) that they don't believe their path is true for others but only themselves. That's at least how I see it.

 

[DeepShadow]

I know plenty of proselytizing atheists. There are some (including an old friend of mine) who claim to be "evangelical atheists." I know some here consider that a misnomer, and I'm inclined to agree. What term do all of you prefer?

 

[MaddLlama]

Yes, atheists do also. I have no problem referring to them as "evangelical atheists". The term "evangelism" doesn't just apply to Christians so I don't see the problem with using it. I've met a few, even seen a few pass through here.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I do not actively proselytising.
When a question is put, I give my opinion.
When I disagree with a statement, I don't just say No, I give my alternative.
I have no wish to convert everyone into Heretical Anglicans like myself.
however if I think that a held belief is unjustified by any form of logic I would point that out and hope they would think further about it.
All Faiths hold to a logic, such that one stated belief melds with the next.
when that proves not to be the case, dissension creeps in and very soon you have subsets of that faith.

 

[Booko]

I'd like to respond to the question 'do non-theists proselytize?' I don't think they do and if they do, I haven't seen it here (yet), but I'd like to add that I don't think they would have a reason to since (I would assume) that they don't believe their path is true for others but only themselves. That's at least how I see it.

When I read posts that can be summed up as saying: "You must believe as I do, or you are a dysfunctional, dangerous, irrational being" yeah, I'd call that "proselytizing."

 

[Storm Moon]

When I read posts that can be summed up as saying: "You must believe as I do, or you are a dysfunctional, dangerous, irrational being" yeah, I'd call that "proselytizing."

Hm well my mistake then lol. I haven't visited this board enough to have seen that anyway