To Those Whose Ears and Eyes and Hearts are Open

[Kemosloby]

Don't blaspheme the word of God.

While you are prophecying, ask the Lord, How long must I suffer the wise crackin' of the heathen.

 

[Father Heathen]

While you are prophecying, ask the Lord, How long must I suffer the wise crackin' of the heathen.

I'm not wise cracking, I'm making a very valid point. Anyone can pull anything out of their *** and then claim that it was inspired and/or mandated by god. That's all religion essentially is; self-appointed and self-serving middlemen who use god as their sock puppet, putting their words in 'his' mouth.

 

[Kemosloby]

I'm not wise cracking, I'm making a very valid point. Anyone can pull anything out of their *** and then claim that it was inspired and/or mandated by god. That's all religion essentially is; self-appointed and self-serving middlemen who use god as their sock puppet, putting their words in 'his' mouth.

But you ignore the possibility that it actually was from God.

 

[1robin]

So I'm noticing a trend in proselytizing religions. It goes something like this:

If you listen/read/pray with a pure heart and open eyes/ears/heart, then you will come to believe in the same thing I have come to believe.
​

I've heard this from Christians, Muslims and Baha'i here. If I've heard you saying it, presumably you've all heard each other saying it as well. So here's the thing:

At what point do you say to yourself, "We're all making the exact same claim as the way to find faith in the religion we already believe in. Maybe all having a pure heart and opened orifices does is reinforce a belief or intensify a leaning that we already had."​

I mean think about it. There's a good chance that in the over one billion people in the religion you are not a part of, at least one or two of its more mild adherents was feeling terribly distraught and truly opened their hearts to whatever was out there. And came away with even deeper faith in their religion just like you did.

Maybe it just really doesn't work unless you're already inclined to believe in the religion you're a part of?

1. If a person has put in their hard work, done there best to analyze their world view, and has seen that which once seen or experienced then serves as subjective proof, then is it not the most reasonable thing for them in the world for them to suggest that anyone who does likewise and honestly should come to the same conclusion?

2. Is it any less reasonable for them to state that even if others incorrectly state the same?

3. Even if everything you said was perfectly true (and I do not think everything you said is strictly speaking true), it would not make the person's statement who is right any less right.

4. However not all claims (even the same claims) are all equal. For example to become a Muslim requires absolutely no experiential confirmation, the Koran does not even state that experiential verification is even available to all Muslims or any of them. However Christianity both offers and demands a spiritual experience with God on the basis of Christ's resurrection to every single Christian. So when the average Muslin says to believe them they are actually saying instead that others should merely agree with their own intellectual conclusions and preferences, while the born again Christian is saying that others can find God himself in the form of spiritual baptism and by the finding of it they can have the same assurance of the truth.

5. Also to write off types of claims because others make the same type would be to doom all conclusions that lack 100% percent agreement. Science is out, mathematics is out, history is definitely out, etc..... based on your criteria.

6. Your next to last point is the fallacy of popularity. Nothing is true or false depending on how many believe or deny it. However if popularity was relevant then I could use it to prove the opposite of what you did.

7. Your last point is simply begging the question.

This thread had so many strange awards I expected a world class argument but I am quite disappointed.

 

[metis]

Is there anyone else here absolutely repulsed as I am with those who take the "my way or the highway" approach?

 

[Daemon Sophic]

So I'm noticing a trend in proselytizing religions. It goes something like this:

If you listen/read/pray with a pure heart and open eyes/ears/heart, then you will come to believe in the same thing I have come to believe.
​

I've heard this from Christians, Muslims and Baha'i here. If I've heard you saying it, presumably you've all heard each other saying it as well. So here's the thing:

At what point do you say to yourself, "We're all making the exact same claim as the way to find faith in the religion we already believe in. Maybe all having a pure heart and opened orifices does is reinforce a belief or intensify a leaning that we already had."​

I mean think about it. There's a good chance that in the over one billion people in the religion you are not a part of, at least one or two of its more mild adherents was feeling terribly distraught and truly opened their hearts to whatever was out there. And came away with even deeper faith in their religion just like you did.

Maybe it just really doesn't work unless you're already inclined to believe in the religion you're a part of?

Congratulations!
Your post is a small step for Man, a giant leap for rationality.

 

[Tumah]

1. If a person has put in their hard work, done there best to analyze their world view, and has seen that which once seen or experienced then serves as subjective proof, then is it not the most reasonable thing for them in the world for them to suggest that anyone who does likewise and honestly should come to the same conclusion?

No. As you said, it would make subjective proof. The recognition of that should make one realize that this may not work for everyone. Additionally, without having seen or experienced anything outside what you have seen or experienced, you don't know whether or not its not possible to arrive at an equally compelling conclusion that is not your own using similar means. Not recognizing that points to a very limited mindset.

2. Is it any less reasonable for them to state that even if others incorrectly state the same?

Being as you noted above the correctness of that statement is subjective, there is no reason to assume others are incorrect. And if everyone is correct, then its not the method. So yes, it would be less reasonable.

3. Even if everything you said was perfectly true (and I do not think everything you said is strictly speaking true), it would not make the person's statement who is right any less right.

Sure it would. If the same or similar methodology works to cause people to variously become Muslim, Christian or Baha'i, then it would be unreasonable to assume that someone who uses this method would inevitably become Christian.

4. However not all claims (even the same claims) are all equal. For example to become a Muslim requires absolutely no experiential confirmation, the Koran does not even state that experiential verification is even available to all Muslims or any of them. However Christianity both offers and demands a spiritual experience with God on the basis of Christ's resurrection to every single Christian. So when the average Muslin says to believe them they are actually saying instead that others should merely agree with their own intellectual conclusions and preferences, while the born again Christian is saying that others can find God himself in the form of spiritual baptism and by the finding of it they can have the same assurance of the truth.

This is not relevant to the OP. The question is not whether opening one's heart, lungs and kidneys whilst praying with a pure heart will lead to experiential hallucinations verification, but to belief in a given god.

5. Also to write off types of claims because others make the same type would be to doom all conclusions that lack 100% percent agreement. Science is out, mathematics is out, history is definitely out, etc..... based on your criteria.

We are not writing off the claim here. Approaching something with an open mind is a wonderful way to become invested in all sorts of things, like glossolalia for example. What we are doing is saying that there is an underlying cause that makes praying with purity of heart work for a number of religions. Its not praying to with an open heart that brings one to believe in Jesus. Its praying with an open heart to Jesus that brings one to believe in Jesus. And praying to All-h with an open heart that brings one to believe in All-h, etc.

We;re not writing off the claims, we're modifying it to express its universality.

6. Your next to last point is the fallacy of popularity. Nothing is true or false depending on how many believe or deny it. However if popularity was relevant then I could use it to prove the opposite of what you did.

That was not an appeal to popularity. I don't think you understood what I said. My point was not based on the billion people, but on the one or two within the billion people.

7. Your last point is simply begging the question.

I'm not sure what you are calling my last point here.

 

[Talmai]

Maybe it just really doesn't work unless you're already inclined to believe in the religion you're a part of?

As a Lutheran my position is that asking a person to open up and objectively read the Holy Scriptures or whatever will not lead that person to "come to their senses" and convert to the Christian religion. Anybody within the Christian religion who thinks that is how conversion works is either a Pelagian, a Molinist, or an Arminian. God alone changes hearts and turns people into believers, and He uses actual means for it, namely, Word and Sacrament.

So then a person such as St. Paul may preach the Gospel of Jesus to a crowd of Hellenes, but he cannot personally persuade them to believe either with arguments or even with a sword. The Spirit of God is present in Paul's preaching and it is the Spirit who makes believers out of any number of them. Conversion and salvation are the sole work of one party, namely, God. But why do some of them remain in unbelief? They actively resist God; unbelief only comes from man and Satan. It sounds paradoxical but truth is often found in paradoxes as Laozi taught.

From my perspective a person might be open to the beliefs and texts of Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Buddhism, or whatever the religion happens to be, and they might find solace and assurance in it. It is all on their part. However, with the Christian religion, God alone makes a person into a believer and strengthens them and gives them blessèd assurance.

I may share the Gospel with somebody being that I love it and that I am sure God desires the salvation and faith of us all. It just isn't my part to persuade them with clever arguments or even force.

 

[loverofhumanity]

'Rationalists' are amongst the worst for this, and theirs is a proselytising universal faith also. Few things are as sacred to the rationalist as the sensation of their own reason, and if they are reasonable, then their worldview must be reasonable and dissenting voices must therefore be unreasonable.

They are so utterly convinced that they reach their views based on the objective analysis of carefully considered evidence that to disagree with their worldview can only result from the emotionally stunted mind of a brainwashed fool or feeble soul grasping at a comfort blanket in which to cocoon themselves to avoid the harsh light of reality.

To them, most religions are shackles of the mind which cause nothing but trouble, and if everyone was educated and intellectually honest then they'd all be rationalists too. Then we'd live happily ever after.

But we don't live happily ever after because too many silly people won't consider the evidence with an open mind and a pure heart.

Wouldn't it be great if we all just listened to each other, shared and tried to learn from each other instead of just condemning each other?
I think we should question and not accept blindly but also avoid the other extreme of condemning everything hastily which is done a lot on these forums without much thought at all.

Somewhere in the middle where we would question to try and find out more and understand better the other persons view not just to try and find new ways to disagree.

I think we have become very negative and so skeptical that we ignore solutions which would make this world a better place simply because we have lost faith in humanity's goodness.

 

[Father Heathen]

But you ignore the possibility that it actually was from God.

As you have with the religions other than yours, and my post.

 

[arthra]

Well, I mean it is. You just don't call it proselytizing because of the negative connotations, you call it pioneering. Its maybe a little less aggressive, but I mean, essentially what you're doing is trying to promote conversion to Bah'ai faith.
I mean compare that with Judaism who doesn't proselytize. We actually discourage conversion, let alone sending people to other countries to teach people about Jewish beliefs.

To proselytize in our view means to put undue pressure on any one to convert:

Teaching vs. Proselytizing
308.3 It is true that Bahá'u'lláh lays on every Bahá'í the duty to teach His Faith. At the same time, however, we are forbidden to proselytize, so it is important for all believers to understand the difference between teaching and proselytizing. It is a significant difference and, in some countries where teaching a religion is permitted, but proselytizing is forbidden, the distinction is made in the law of the land. Proselytizing implies bringing undue pressure to bear upon someone to change his Faith. It is also usually understood to imply the making of threats or the offering of material benefits as an inducement to conversion. In some countries mission schools or hospitals, for all the good they do, are regarded with suspicion and even aversion by the local authorities because they are considered to be material inducements to conversion and hence instruments of proselytization.

(The Universal House of Justice, Messages 1963 to 1986, p. 513)

 

[Tumah]

To proselytize in our view means to put undue pressure on any one to convert:

Teaching vs. Proselytizing
308.3 It is true that Bahá'u'lláh lays on every Bahá'í the duty to teach His Faith. At the same time, however, we are forbidden to proselytize, so it is important for all believers to understand the difference between teaching and proselytizing. It is a significant difference and, in some countries where teaching a religion is permitted, but proselytizing is forbidden, the distinction is made in the law of the land. Proselytizing implies bringing undue pressure to bear upon someone to change his Faith. It is also usually understood to imply the making of threats or the offering of material benefits as an inducement to conversion. In some countries mission schools or hospitals, for all the good they do, are regarded with suspicion and even aversion by the local authorities because they are considered to be material inducements to conversion and hence instruments of proselytization.

(The Universal House of Justice, Messages 1963 to 1986, p. 513)

That's fine. But the dictionary definition of proselytize:

pros·e·lyt·ize
ˈpräs(ə)ləˌtīz/
verb

1. convert or attempt to convert (someone) from one religion, belief, or opinion to another.
   "the program did have a tremendous evangelical effect, proselytizing many"
   synonyms: evangelize, convert, save, redeem, win over, preach (to), recruit, act as a missionary
   "I'm not here to proselytize"
   • advocate or promote (a belief or course of action).

Doesn't make any indication of "undue pressure". So I can understand why from your religion's interpretation of the word, you choose not to use it, but I hope you can understand why someone not of your religion might choose to call it that.

 

[arthra]

That's fine. But the dictionary definition of proselytize:

pros·e·lyt·ize
ˈpräs(ə)ləˌtīz/
verb

1. convert or attempt to convert (someone) from one religion, belief, or opinion to another.
   "the program did have a tremendous evangelical effect, proselytizing many"
   synonyms: evangelize, convert, save, redeem, win over, preach (to), recruit, act as a missionary
   "I'm not here to proselytize"
   • advocate or promote (a belief or course of action).

Doesn't make any indication of "undue pressure". So I can understand why from your religion's interpretation of the word, you choose not to use it, but I hope you can understand why someone not of your religion might choose to call it that.

Well as long as we understand one another... The Merriam Webster definition has the following:

".... to induce someone to convert to one's faith.."

See:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/proselytize

It's the inducements that we are concerned about and in some countries there are penalties involved.

 

[Tumah]

Well as long as we understand one another... The Merriam Webster definition has the following:

".... to induce someone to convert to one's faith.."

See:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/proselytize

It's the inducements that we are concerned about and in some countries there are penalties involved.

Also check out MW's definition of induce:

"to move by persuasion or influence"

So it still fits, really.

 

[Kemosloby]

As you have with the religions other than yours, and my post.

Yeah but the jews don't even bother to deny you.

 

[Shem Ben Noah]

Proselyters don't trust in their God to reveal the truth. They fancy themselves as cosmic constables.

Back when I was a born-again Xian, I was told it was OUR job, and not God's, to spread the 'good news' and not doing so was the ultimate selfish attitude if one thinks they have the 'Truth' and keeps it from others. So what to think of those who have God's Torah, the 'Truth' as they feel it is, and not only refuse to share it but actively discourages seekers?

 

[Tumah]

Back when I was a born-again Xian, I was told it was OUR job, and not God's, to spread the 'good news' and not doing so was the ultimate selfish attitude if one thinks they have the 'Truth' and keeps it from others. So what to think of those who have God's Torah, the 'Truth' as they feel it is, and not only refuse to share it but actively discourages seekers?

So your argument is: Jews aren't living up to the standard that Christianity teaches.

 

[Shem Ben Noah]

So your argument is: Jews aren't living up to the standard that Christianity teaches.

Nope, God's standard.

"...I will also make you a light for the Gentiles, that my salvation may reach to the ends of the earth." Isaiah 49:6

What kind of light are Jews today?

 

[Tumah]

Nope, God's standard.

"...I will also make you a light for the Gentiles, that my salvation may reach to the ends of the earth." Isaiah 49:6

What kind of light are Jews today?

That verse is saying that Isaiah will be a light to the nations. Israel/Jacob is the one who Isaiah will be raising up/returning through his prophecies. He is the light.

So again. You're complaining that we aren't living up to Christian standards based on Christian interpretations to our Scriptures.

 

[GodsVoice]

Back when I was a born-again Xian, I was told it was OUR job, and not God's, to spread the 'good news' and not doing so was the ultimate selfish attitude if one thinks they have the 'Truth' and keeps it from others. So what to think of those who have God's Torah, the 'Truth' as they feel it is, and not only refuse to share it but actively discourages seekers?

Those liars who call themselves "born again" Christians have no idea who God is and certainly they haven't heard My voice that is necessary to obtain the knowledge required to know what "born again" means.