sharing vs. proselytising

[1213]

Is it possible to passively make your religious beliefs public without engaging in proselytising?...

It seems to me that the difference between sharing and proselytizing is that, if you are too convincing with ideas that the receiver doesn't like, then it is proselytizing, otherwise it is just sharing.

 

[firedragon]

Is it possible to passively make your religious beliefs public without engaging in proselytising?

Because I no longer want to proselytise

It is enough for me that I myself hold my beliefs

I no longer have any desire to spread them

But I do want to be able to share and express my beliefs if people are interested

Because they are a part of who I am

Come to think of it, I share and express my beliefs here on RF without proselytising...

So it must be possible!

But would I do so if these forums weren't devoted to the debate and discussion of religion?

No, I wouldn't

Although I may mention them in passing, were the discussion to turn towards religion. In such an instance I think it would be legitimate to share and express my religious beliefs

And if I was talking about myself then I think it would be legitimate to mention them, as they are a part of who I am

When people preach. As in make statements of faith and say things like "if you follow my faith, you will definitely win a million dollars" or when someone speaks of a calculous equation and a particular set of people from a faith keeps trying their levels best to drag the conversation into their own faith and worship of their leader, that is proselytising.

So Im sure one could avoid that kind of thing and share their beliefs nicely.

 

[idea]

If someone uses "I" statements instead of "you" statements, and listens with the intent to learn and change given new info it is friendly productive 2-way communication. Do unto others - if you are listening to others as you would have them listen to you, it is good

 

[DNB]

Is it possible to passively make your religious beliefs public without engaging in proselytising?

Because I no longer want to proselytise

It is enough for me that I myself hold my beliefs

I no longer have any desire to spread them

But I do want to be able to share and express my beliefs if people are interested

Because they are a part of who I am

Come to think of it, I share and express my beliefs here on RF without proselytising...

So it must be possible!

But would I do so if these forums weren't devoted to the debate and discussion of religion?

No, I wouldn't

Although I may mention them in passing, were the discussion to turn towards religion. In such an instance I think it would be legitimate to share and express my religious beliefs

And if I was talking about myself then I think it would be legitimate to mention them, as they are a part of who I am

Well, if you hold religious beliefs, that is, beliefs about absolute truths, life and death, and possibly an after-life, and again, are truly convicted of them, then why in the world would you not want to impose your views on others? In other words, you are either selfish, not 100% convinced of your views, or you do not hold to views that are that serious?
I'm a Christian, and by implication, I consider all other beliefs and religions to be incorrect and detrimental (otherwise I wouldn't have selected just one faith). Thus, I feel an imminent obligation to be as overt about my faith as possible. If I believe that I am holding the Golden Egg, then how in the world can I conscience-free keep it to myself?

You make your faith sound like a hobby or a casual interest, not a life and death situation? All fallacies are consequential on one level or another.

 

[Ashoka]

Well, if you hold religious beliefs, that is, beliefs about absolute truths, life and death, and possibly an after-life, and again, are truly convicted of them, then why in the world would you not want to impose your views on others? In other words, you are either selfish, not 100% convinced of your views, or you do not hold to views that are that serious?
I'm a Christian, and by implication, I consider all other beliefs and religions to be incorrect and detrimental (otherwise I wouldn't have selected just one faith). Thus, I feel an imminent obligation to be as overt about my faith as possible. If I believe that I am holding the Golden Egg, then how in the world can I conscience-free keep it to myself?

You make your faith sound like a hobby or a casual interest, not a life and death situation? All fallacies are consequential on one level or another.

Life or death? Your faith is the cause of wars, genocide, and colonialism, all in the name of your God. You see the world as bad, so you make it bad with your bloodshed and missionary work. Christianity has caused a lot of damage in the world, and quite frankly, I am sick of it. You destroy cultures and families because you believe in eternal damnation for people who don't believe the same way you do. Golden egg? You were holding a booby prize the entire time.

"When the missionaries came to Africa they had the Bible and we had the land. They said 'Let us pray.' We closed our eyes. When we opened them we had the Bible and they had the land." - Desmond Tutu

 

[KWED]

Is it possible to passively make your religious beliefs public without engaging in proselytising?

Because I no longer want to proselytise

It is enough for me that I myself hold my beliefs

I no longer have any desire to spread them

But I do want to be able to share and express my beliefs if people are interested

Because they are a part of who I am

Come to think of it, I share and express my beliefs here on RF without proselytising...

So it must be possible!

But would I do so if these forums weren't devoted to the debate and discussion of religion?

No, I wouldn't

Although I may mention them in passing, were the discussion to turn towards religion. In such an instance I think it would be legitimate to share and express my religious beliefs

And if I was talking about myself then I think it would be legitimate to mention them, as they are a part of who I am

Of course - as long as there is no attempt to convert or imply that there is an actual consequence of a person's beliefs.

Apologetics and proselytism are not the same thing.

 

[DNB]

Life or death? Your faith is the cause of wars, genocide, and colonialism, all in the name of your God. You see the world as bad, so you make it bad with your bloodshed and missionary work. Christianity has caused a lot of damage in the world, and quite frankly, I am sick of it. You destroy cultures and families because you believe in eternal damnation for people who don't believe the same way you do. Golden egg? You were holding a booby prize the entire time.

"When the missionaries came to Africa they had the Bible and we had the land. They said 'Let us pray.' We closed our eyes. When we opened them we had the Bible and they had the land." - Desmond Tutu

Ashoka, how long are you going to be spewing out misinformation, or ignorant facts?
There is not one act of corruption, extortion, genocide, imperialism, exploitation, colonialism, or avarice, that Jesus Christ ever endorsed, or requested any of his Church to practice. Never, ever, ever, not in any Bible translation or version, not in any ratified Christian literature, not in any mainstream Church.
So to exactly whom you are directing your accusations towards, is an entire mystery to me, and should be to anyone who had the displeasure of reading your post.

 

[Ashoka]

Ashoka, how long are you going to be spewing out misinformation, or ignorant facts?
There is not one act of corruption, extortion, genocide, imperialism, exploitation, colonialism, or avarice, that Jesus Christ ever endorsed, or requested any of his Church to practice. Never, ever, ever, not in any Bible translation or version, not in any ratified Christian literature, not in any mainstream Church.
So to exactly whom you are directing your accusations towards, is an entire mystery to me, and should be to anyone who had the displeasure of reading your post.

Hey, kudos to getting my name right this time! I knew you could do it.


And do you really not know about the crusades, the inquisition, the countless wars fought in the name of your God? What about the stolen land, the stolen culture? The slavery? Maybe Jesus never endorsed it, but your church sure does. My accusations? They are towards your religion! Who strayed so far from Jesus' original message it's not even funny. Maybe it's time to go back and read what he actually taught. Jesus was a rebel and a revolutionary, not this white watered down Jesus that's so popular with evangelicals and fundies nowadays. It's actually really sad. He had a great message and a lot of people could benefit from it. But it's lost in a history of bloody holy wars.

 

[DNB]

Hey, kudos to getting my name right this time! I knew you could do it.


And do you really not know about the crusades, the inquisition, the countless wars fought in the name of your God? What about the stolen land, the stolen culture? The slavery? Maybe Jesus never endorsed it, but your church sure does. My accusations? They are towards your religion! Who strayed so far from Jesus' original message it's not even funny. Maybe it's time to go back and read what he actually taught. Jesus was a rebel and a revolutionary, not this white watered down Jesus that's so popular with evangelicals and fundies nowadays. It's actually really sad. He had a great message and a lot of people could benefit from it. But it's lost in a history of bloody holy wars.

So who the flippin' heck are you directing your accusation at? The flippin' charlatans, or pseudo-Christians, or hypocrites, or wolves in sheep's clothing? Congratulations Einstein, we agree.
A Christian believes that Jesus Christ is their Lord and Saviour (not God), who absolved them from their incessant and perpetual sins (like myself). So, yes, we have our faults, that's by definition. But whomever you are casting your aspersions at has nothing to do with Christ, nor Christians. Not every Christian approves of all the denominations out there, or whatever a 'Church' did in the name of Christ. Without mentioning any names, I consider some of the Churches to be the anti-Christ.

So, you need to make your arguments more pertinent and accurate.

 

[Ashoka]

So who the flippin' heck are you directing your accusation at? The flippin' charlatans, or pseudo-Christians, or hypocrites, or wolves in sheep's clothing? Congratulations Einstein, we agree.
A Christian believes that Jesus Christ is their Lord and Saviour (not God), who absolved them from their incessant and perpetual sins (like myself). So, yes, we have our faults, that's by definition. But whomever you are casting your aspersions at has nothing to do with Christ, nor Christians. Not every Christian approves of all the denominations out there, or whatever a 'Church' did in the name of Christ. Without mentioning any names, I consider some of the Churches to be the anti-Christ.

So, you need to make your arguments more pertinent and accurate.

Sigh. Okay. Hang on, I was going to bed, but.

Again, loving the Christian love you are hurling at me through your insults. Really drives that point home.

I'm directing them at you and your church, and the damage it has done over the last 2000 years. You can say "oh they weren't real Christians" until you're blue in the face but the fact of the matter is, they professed the faith. Some of them were even big theologians, like Aquinas, Augustine, Calvin, tons of popes, reformed Christians, and even today, especially in India, Christians violently convert others to their faith. "But they weren't real Christians!" Isn't that a little too convienent? Whenever an atrocity is committed in the name of your God, suddenly they weren't real Christians?

 

[DNB]

Sigh. Okay. Hang on, I was going to bed, but.

Again, loving the Christian love you are hurling at me through your insults. Really drives that point home.

I'm directing them at you and your church, and the damage it has done over the last 2000 years. You can say "oh they weren't real Christians" until you're blue in the face but the fact of the matter is, they professed the faith. Some of them were even big theologians, like Aquinas, Augustine, Calvin, tons of popes, reformed Christians, and even today, especially in India, Christians violently convert others to their faith. "But they weren't real Christians!" Isn't that a little too convienent? Whenever an atrocity is committed in the name of your God, suddenly they weren't real Christians?

If a policeman is corrupt, who are you going to blame, the office (to serve and protect), or the individual?
Who can account for all the motives that compel a person to become one thing, or another?

 

[Ashoka]

If a policeman is corrupt, who are you going to blame, the office (to serve and protect), or the individual?
Who can account for all the motives that compel a person to become one thing, or another?

Both. I blame both because the system is corrupt, and the officer is corrupt as well.

 

[DNB]

Both. I blame both because the system is corrupt, and the officer is corrupt as well.

The system is not corrupt, the creed is to 'Serve & Protect'

 

[Ashoka]

The system is not corrupt, the creed is to 'Serve & Protect'

lol. And you believe that?

 

[DNB]

lol. And you believe that?

Don't you?

 

[Ashoka]

Don't you?

Of course not. The criminal justice system is incredibly corrupt in my country, especially the police force. But that's for another thread.

 

[oldbadger]

1. Sharing....... 'Deists believe that everything is a part of a God so vast that God is unaware of us, just as a cell in your left kidney is part of you but you are unaware of it.'

2. Proselytizing........... 'Deists are cool and pick up dates easily'

N.B. Number 2 is probably in violation of the 'Religious Descriptions Laws' (of the World) as well as busting RF rules. It's also a friggin' fib.

 

[DNB]

Of course not. The criminal justice system is incredibly corrupt in my country, especially the police force. But that's for another thread.

Ashoka, the police system is not corrupt, no where in its constitution will you read corrupt regulations or precepts. It is the people that deviate from the morally sound ordinances that subvert the institution. ...Let's not get technical and discuss which laws that you think are unjust, overall, the declarations of the police force are meant to serve and protect.

 

[Ashoka]

Ashoka, the police system is not corrupt, no where in its constitution will you read corrupt regulations or precepts. It is the people that deviate from the morally sound ordinances that subvert the institution. ...Let's not get technical and discuss which laws that you think are unjust, overall, the declarations of the police force are meant to serve and protect.

I could go on about this, but I don't want to stray from the topic at hand.