Proselytizing is inherently evil

[DNCAttackDog]

First of all, don't try to respond to this by attempts to label me. I am not anti-religious, and I am not an atheist. I also believe that any organized religion CAN have a positive effect on many individual's lives. Just not every individual's life.

I believe that faith must be a matter of conscious free choice on the part of the individual, or it's worse than meaningless. And when faith is forced, such as through proselytizing, it brings out all the elements of religion that cause it to be harmful and destructive. Many religions have recognized this for centuries, and never proselytize.

Some of you might not see any real problem with one individual trying to persuade another to join his or her faith. The reality is, however, that it ALWAYS creates ill will and conflict. Imagine that you're on an airplane, and the pilot comes over the loudspeaker and begins to talk about the inner peace you can achieve through the Koran. This person may have absolutely no connection to any terrorist organization, and may have no desire to hurt an insect. Nevertheless, you'd still be pretty upset with him or her, right?

Should governments ban proselytizing? Perhaps. It's not quite up there with human sacrifices, but the practice is almost as insensitive.

[cpwill]

?:confused: it is impossible to force faith. your definition of proselytizing is innacurate.

[Albert]

I think that you and I perhaps have different definitions of the word. Proselytizing, to recruit non-believers to your cause is a central charge of most organized religions. I do not believe that any Government official or employee should ever sponsor this during working hours. Prophesizing, to speak as if directed by God is a whole other story. When an elected official insinuates that their actions have been directed by God we should be highly alarmed.

[DNCAttackDog]

What about the so-called "Rice Christians" from the days when the missionaries began their work in China? Their next meal was conditional on their attendance at services.

[Albert]

What about the so-called "Rice Christians" from the days when the missionaries began their work in China? Their next meal was conditional on their attendance at services.

I can’t argue the questionable ethics of missionaries, but I don’t think they were as effective as they might have thought. Does this mean we have to paint all missionaries with the same brush?

[DNCAttackDog]

I can’t argue the questionable ethics of missionaries, but I don’t think they were as effective as they might have thought. Does this mean we have to paint all missionaries with the same brush?
We live in an age where missionaries are pretty much obsolete. Most people in the world know what the major religions are, and most are free to talk to local representatives from those religions. What more do they need?

[mataj]

?:confused: it is impossible to force faith. your definition of proselytizing is innacurate.Force is the most effective, dead sure way to spread faith.

[Democritus]

Force is the most effective, dead sure way to spread faith.

I disagree. Force is the most effective, dead sure way to get people to fake a faith.

[MikeD4o7]

People should be allowed to try to spread their faith by word of mouth all they want. It falls under free speech, and as long as the government isn't in any way shape or form sponsoring it... I'm perfectly fine with with it.

[Patriot]

First of all, don't try to respond to this by attempts to label me. I am not anti-religious, and I am not an atheist. I also believe that any organized religion CAN have a positive effect on many individual's lives. Just not every individual's life.

I believe that faith must be a matter of conscious free choice on the part of the individual, or it's worse than meaningless. And when faith is forced, such as through proselytizing, it brings out all the elements of religion that cause it to be harmful and destructive. Many religions have recognized this for centuries, and never proselytize.

Some of you might not see any real problem with one individual trying to persuade another to join his or her faith. The reality is, however, that it ALWAYS creates ill will and conflict. Imagine that you're on an airplane, and the pilot comes over the loudspeaker and begins to talk about the inner peace you can achieve through the Koran. This person may have absolutely no connection to any terrorist organization, and may have no desire to hurt an insect. Nevertheless, you'd still be pretty upset with him or her, right?

Should governments ban proselytizing? Perhaps. It's not quite up there with human sacrifices, but the practice is almost as insensitive.

I was a missionary for two years, a "proselytizing" missionary. I shared, I invited, I respected "not interested," I respected "interested," but never ever was compulsion or force part of the picture. In fact, such methods are repugnant to me and my Church.

I think at times proselytizing can create ill will, but always is certainly not be true. To those receptive to the message, only love and friendship and high affinity occur. I know this from personal experience.

Comparing an act of love and caring to human sacrifices is beyond the pale.

[Patriot]

We live in an age where missionaries are pretty much obsolete. Most people in the world know what the major religions are, and most are free to talk to local representatives from those religions. What more do they need?

No, so much more work to do. For example, the LDS Church has about 69,000 full-time missionaries in the field right now. If China opens up, that number will soar.

[cpwill]

furthermore, who said that missionaries one and only job was that of prostelyzing?

personally, i know that my church and a few other's in the area support a group of missionaries who are running an aid's clinic in africa.

somebody (one of the saints, i can't remember which) once said "Spread the gospel whereever you go. Use words when necessary." and this has very often been the tack of missionaries. people are not going to be impressed with your religion unless they are impressed with you first.

do i think that historically missionaries have done harm in some places? of course they have. do i think that the few rotten missionaries somehow taint the entire mass of people who truly are motivated by a desire to help others less fortunate than themselves? no.

[Patriot]

furthermore, who said that missionaries one and only job was that of prostelyzing?

personally, i know that my church and a few other's in the area support a group of missionaries who are running an aid's clinic in africa.

somebody (one of the saints, i can't remember which) once said "Spread the gospel whereever you go. Use words when necessary." and this has very often been the tack of missionaries. people are not going to be impressed with your religion unless they are impressed with you first.

do i think that historically missionaries have done harm in some places? of course they have. do i think that the few rotten missionaries somehow taint the entire mass of people who truly are motivated by a desire to help others less fortunate than themselves? no.

Good point. We call that a Service Mission: build homes, help the deaf, help the blind learn to read, work with governments, etc, yes, we too have many Service Mission Missionaries in the field.

[DNCAttackDog]

People should be allowed to try to spread their faith by word of mouth all they want. It falls under free speech, and as long as the government isn't in any way shape or form sponsoring it... I'm perfectly fine with with it.
This was never about what people should be allowed to do. It's about what constitutes moral behavior. And proselytizing, in my opinion, does not.

Governments permit "immoral" behavior all the time. And often, rightly so. :devil:

[DNCAttackDog]

furthermore, who said that missionaries one and only job was that of prostelyzing?

personally, i know that my church and a few other's in the area support a group of missionaries who are running an aid's clinic in africa.
You're confusing the issue, CP. Religious groups who participate in medicine, building homes or infrastructure, and whatever -- are not proselytizing by doing so.

[Texsand]

You're confusing the issue, CP. Religious groups who participate in medicine, building homes or infrastructure, and whatever -- are not proselytizing by doing so.
The main question is what is the price of admission to those services? Somebody calling to you invite you to church if you take their help. I can't tell you how many time I've heard I admire the Mormons for taking care of their own which means they aren't doing much for non-Mormons. How may churches help and not require anything in return outside of their own membership?

[cpwill]

You're confusing the issue, CP. Religious groups who participate in medicine, building homes or infrastructure, and whatever -- are not proselytizing by doing so.

i disagree; in fact, i'd say that most times the most effective proselytizing efforts are the ones who are engaging in charity work.

Texsand; my church runs a program for the city school children. if teachers find out that a kid needs something (new clothes, books, etc.), they call us; it's handled no questions asked.

[Patriot]

The main question is what is the price of admission to those services? Somebody calling to you invite you to church if you take their help. I can't tell you how many time I've heard I admire the Mormons for taking care of their own which means they aren't doing much for non-Mormons. How may churches help and not require anything in return outside of their own membership?

Texsand, you are so out of touch about what the LDS Church believes and does, and I've proven many times you have zero credibility when it comes to LDS.

Speak on what you know. Stop spreading lies and falsehoods about the LDS faith, it's Church, people, doctrines, etc.

The Church is known worldwide for it's humanitarian efforts which ask nothing in return from it's recipients. From emergency response, to wheelchair distribution, to clean water to neonatal resuscitation training to vision treatment training to umanitarian aid kits (my family has been personally involved herein with many many hours of service going to non-members we will never see or know)

Texsand, you are a fool.

http://www.lds.org/ldsfoundation/welfare/welcome/0,7133,1325-1-0,00.html
http://www.lds.org/ldsfoundation/0,6892,407-1-0,00.html

[Fasdf]

While humanitarian efforts are all fine and dandy, I see no reason why secular versions aren't as good.

[Texsand]

Texsand, you are so out of touch about what the LDS Church believes and does, and I've proven many times you have zero credibility when it comes to LDS.

Speak on what you know. Stop spreading lies and falsehoods about the LDS faith, it's Church, people, doctrines, etc.

The Church is known worldwide for it's humanitarian efforts which ask nothing in return from it's recipients. From emergency response, to wheelchair distribution, to clean water to neonatal resuscitation training to vision treatment training to umanitarian aid kits (my family has been personally involved herein with many many hours of service going to non-members we will never see or know)

Texsand, you are a fool.

http://www.lds.org/ldsfoundation/welfare/welcome/0,7133,1325-1-0,00.html
http://www.lds.org/ldsfoundation/0,6892,407-1-0,00.html
You haven't proven jack. If anything you have shown what lies hidden within Mormonism. I don't see any of those programs in the US and in particular Utah. Non Mormons are pretty much on their own there.

[Patriot]

While humanitarian efforts are all fine and dandy, I see no reason why secular versions aren't as good.

I agree with you, they are.

[DNCAttackDog]

i disagree; in fact, i'd say that most times the most effective proselytizing efforts are the ones who are engaging in charity work.

CP, if you want to play a little semantics game, go ahead: I think you know perfectly well what I'm talking about when I use the word "proselytizing." I'm referring to unsolicited preaching to others and unsolicitied distribution of religious literature.

Religion must always be a matter of free choice on the part of the believer. Pressure to convert is not, and can never be, moral.

[cpwill]

eh, you can make that charge either way; personally i'd say they're not taking away anyone's rights to make a decision; certainly it's no worse than advertising, or political campaigning.

[Fasdf]

If someone gets seriously persuaded by some jesus freak on a soap box, they're logically inept to begin with.

[cpwill]

:rolleyes:

[DNCAttackDog]

... personally i'd say they're not taking away anyone's rights to make a decision; certainly it's no worse than advertising, or political campaigning.
That holds true until you start talking about those various wacky religions (like Christianity :lol: ) that label unbelievers as evil, unclean, going to hell, or whatever. In such cases, ANY sort of proselytizing carries with it at least a hidden - and often an open - threat, with a message of intimidation thrown in. No one wants commercial or political ads that threaten us. :eek:

[Patriot]

CP, if you want to play a little semantics game, go ahead: I think you know perfectly well what I'm talking about when I use the word "proselytizing." I'm referring to unsolicited preaching to others and unsolicitied distribution of religious literature.

Religion must always be a matter of free choice on the part of the believer. Pressure to convert is not, and can never be, moral.

Why do you think it's "pressure" or "immoral." It makes no sense. I'm trying to see your point, trying to understand, but it makes no sense at all.

How can one make a "free choice" if they don't know what the choice(s) are? It's no more immoral sharing religion than sharing political positions.

[Patriot]

That holds true until you start talking about those various wacky religions (like Christianity :lol: ) that label unbelievers as evil, unclean, going to hell, or whatever. In such cases, ANY sort of proselytizing carries with it at least a hidden - and often an open - threat, with a message of intimidation thrown in. No one wants commercial or political ads that threaten us. :eek:

"This is your mind. This is your mind on drugs," commercials.

Everytime I see or hear a Kerry add it's a threat!

Intimidation? Seems like you think any religion which preaches "no accountability for any actions" is what you are looking for. And there are such religions like that.

[Fasdf]

Why do you think it's "pressure" or "immoral." It makes no sense. I'm trying to see your point, trying to understand, but it makes no sense at all.

How can one make a "free choice" if they don't know what the choice(s) are? It's no more immoral sharing religion than sharing political positions.

Its pressure because you'll burn in hell for all of eternity unless you worship the good lord every Sunday, vote pro-life, vote to ban gay marriage, and send me twelve easy payments of $49.99. Do you want your flesh to be barbecued by Satan and the barbecue brigade?

How can it not be pressuring? Every religious person that I know has a deep sense of moral superiority.

Also, choices are never free.

[Patriot]

Its pressure because you'll burn in hell for all of eternity unless you worship the good lord every Sunday, vote pro-life, vote to ban gay marriage, and send me twelve easy payments of $49.99. Do you want your flesh to be barbecued by Satan and the barbecue brigade?

How can it not be pressuring? Every religious person that I know has a deep sense of moral superiority.

Also, choices are never free.

Well, I see your point, only don't agree with it.

First, God is God, and is he says "Repent And Live. Don't Repent and Die," well, that's up to Him. (and it must be this way by-the-way)

Second, God doesn't have just a Heaven & Hell. There are many kingdoms within kingdoms, namely, Celestial (glory like the Sun), Terrestrial (glory like the moon), and Telestial (glory like the stars). God is far more gracious than sending all his children to eternal hell. Only those like the Devil themselves will suffer that horrible fate, which is few and far between. The choice is yours.

Third, God has moral superiority, not we mortals. I don't feel morally superior to anyone. I've sinned plenty, and repented plenty. I'm more concerned with my sins than anyone elses. If there is any morallity in me or light in me, it's from Gods grace, not any works on my part. If I choose the right, He provides the strength in the first place by His grace, so I've nothing to boast for or take pride it or feel anything near "moral superiority." I know I am nothing, less than the dust of the earth.

[Fasdf]

Third, God has moral superiority, not we mortals. I don't feel morally superior to anyone. I've sinned plenty, and repented plenty. I'm more concerned with my sins than anyone elses. If there is any morallity in me or light in me, it's from Gods grace, not any works on my part. If I choose the right, He provides the strength in the first place by His grace, so I've nothing to boast for or take pride it or feel anything near "moral superiority." I know I am nothing, less than the dust of the earth.

Like I said, every religious person I've met has an aura of moral superiority. They don't need to feel it, and its just my opinion- take it for what its worth (nothing). You just sound like you're bragging about how you repent for your sins and how you're going to paradise when you die... Any non religious person knows what I'm talking about.

To make an attempt at being fair, every almost every atheist I meet seems to be some sort of master of critical thinking and a condescending punk to boot.

[Patriot]

Like I said, every religious person I've met has an aura of moral superiority. They don't need to feel it, and its just my opinion- take it for what its worth (nothing). You just sound like you're bragging about how you repent for your sins and how you're going to paradise when you die... Any non religious person knows what I'm talking about.

To make an attempt at being fair, every almost every atheist I meet seems to be some sort of master of critical thinking and a condescending punk to boot.

I see your point; I do. I'm sorry, I'll repent. Wait, not I won't. ;)

In humor: Glad you are not The Judge; damned if I do, damned if I don't!

[MikeD4o7]

This was never about what people should be allowed to do. It's about what constitutes moral behavior. And proselytizing, in my opinion, does not.

Governments permit "immoral" behavior all the time. And often, rightly so.


I don't see how it could be considered immoral unless it's taken to an intrusive extreme... and I don't think it is taken that far really. If somebody knocks on your door, wanting to tell you about their religion... you can just say no. If somebody calls, you can just hang up. I do it all of the time. Annoying? sure, sometimes... but immoral? Nah.

[DNCAttackDog]

Well, I see your point, only don't agree with it.

First, God is God, and is he says "Repent And Live. Don't Repent and Die," well, that's up to Him. (and it must be this way by-the-way)
Well, right or wrong, that message carries a fairly substantial threat, does it not?

[cpwill]

Like I said, every religious person I've met has an aura of moral superiority. They don't need to feel it, and its just my opinion- take it for what its worth (nothing). You just sound like you're bragging about how you repent for your sins and how you're going to paradise when you die... Any non religious person knows what I'm talking about.

interesting idea; let's take a quick poll.

those of you on this forum who are non-believers, do you get a sense of moral superiority from those of us who are believers?

[/quote]To make an attempt at being fair, every almost every atheist I meet seems to be some sort of master of critical thinking and a condescending punk to boot.[/QUOTE]

i've personally not found this to be true; and i've met a bunch and argued most of them.

[DNCAttackDog]

interesting idea; let's take a quick poll.

those of you on this forum who are non-believers, do you get a sense of moral superiority from those of us who are believers?
You're ignoring the variety of groups that call themselves believers. A lot of them get a sense of moral superiority from those who believe the "wrong" things.

[Pink]

First of all, don't try to respond to this by attempts to label me. I am not anti-religious, and I am not an atheist. I also believe that any organized religion CAN have a positive effect on many individual's lives. Just not every individual's life.

I believe that faith must be a matter of conscious free choice on the part of the individual, or it's worse than meaningless. And when faith is forced, such as through proselytizing, it brings out all the elements of religion that cause it to be harmful and destructive. Many religions have recognized this for centuries, and never proselytize.

Some of you might not see any real problem with one individual trying to persuade another to join his or her faith. The reality is, however, that it ALWAYS creates ill will and conflict. Imagine that you're on an airplane, and the pilot comes over the loudspeaker and begins to talk about the inner peace you can achieve through the Koran. This person may have absolutely no connection to any terrorist organization, and may have no desire to hurt an insect. Nevertheless, you'd still be pretty upset with him or her, right?

Should governments ban proselytizing? Perhaps. It's not quite up there with human sacrifices, but the practice is almost as insensitive.
You bring up a good point. Some people are very good at not being pushy, but the majority of people I've attended church with went way too over the top while witnessing to people. I always want to ask them if they realize that by coming on so strong they could be pushing them away from God instead? But how can anyone fault them, really? They are doing it from a desire to lead them to something that has done so much in their own lives.

[DeathMonkey]

OK, I'm going to start going door to door telling people there is no God, start a TV show where some freak with lavender hair asks for money to continue the good fight against "those fairy tale worshipping bigots" (closest I could get to "godless communists"), and start protesting outside churches. Then we'll see who likes it.

[Pink]

OK, I'm going to start going door to door telling people there is no God, start a TV show where some freak with lavender hair asks for money to continue the good fight against "those fairy tale worshipping bigots" (closest I could get to "godless communists"), and start protesting outside churches. Then we'll see who likes it.
Hey, wouldn't bother me a bit. :D Like any that come to my door, I'd probably look at you crosseyed and slowly close my door in your face. ;)

[cpwill]

You're ignoring the variety of groups that call themselves believers. A lot of them get a sense of moral superiority from those who believe the "wrong" things.

no i'm not i'm applying your accusation to reality; if you don't like what you might find, then don't make the accusation.

You bring up a good point. Some people are very good at not being pushy, but the majority of people I've attended church with went way too over the top while witnessing to people.

:lol: yeah, people do get over excited. my dad always called it "ninjavangelism" :D

Deathmonkey; you come to my door, prepare for a debate:D

you never did answer my question on whether or not you honestly thought i was a bigot.

[DeathMonkey]

Hey, wouldn't bother me a bit. :D Like any that come to my door, I'd probably look at you crosseyed and slowly close my door in your face. ;)

What you gonna wear? :devil:

I always thought it would be fun to be an evangelical druid. Dress up in the robes, get the sickle and mistletoe... or a door to door Satanist. Explain very calmly the power that the Dark one confers...

cpwill once made the comparison of telling a starving man that theres a McDonalds around the corner. When thinking about it, I liken it to foot spray. If I mention to you that my feet itch, and you make a recommendation of foot spray, wonderful. If I ask you about how you treat YOUR feet, fine. Its that I am surrounded with foot spray salesmen, and I DONT BELIEVE IN FEET. :laughter:

[DMann]

I DONT BELIEVE IN FEET.


Is that allowed?

[MikeD4o7]

Like I said, every religious person I've met has an aura of moral superiority. They don't need to feel it, and its just my opinion- take it for what its worth (nothing). You just sound like you're bragging about how you repent for your sins and how you're going to paradise when you die... Any non religious person knows what I'm talking about.

To make an attempt at being fair, every almost every atheist I meet seems to be some sort of master of critical thinking and a condescending punk to boot.


Yes and No for both believer and nonbelievers. I think it's inevitable that many believers will unintentionally gain a sense of moral superiority simply because they believe that they are closer to the giver of morality than nonbelievers... and I think that it gives them a sense that they have better morals because of it.

Nonbelievers have a tendency to look at themselves as masters of critical thinking because it's what they use to guide their moral decisions. Naturally, because nonbelievers don't believe that that God exists... they have a tendency to have a superiority issue as well towards those who base their lives on God.

Bottom line is that both parties feel pretty sure they know something that the other doesn't... and that leads to those kinds of sentiments.

[DNCAttackDog]

You bring up a good point. Some people are very good at not being pushy, but the majority of people I've attended church with went way too over the top while witnessing to people. I always want to ask them if they realize that by coming on so strong they could be pushing them away from God instead? But how can anyone fault them, really? They are doing it from a desire to lead them to something that has done so much in their own lives.
You may or may not have a good case for faulting them, but you can certainly fault their spiritual leaders for allowing it to happen.