Proselytism

[Rhiannon]

I've often wondered why the mainstream UK-based Christian sects actually bother with evangelising in this day and age.

They do it because it's the Church's only raison d'etre, Gordon.

They would be much better letting good deeds do the talking, which are much more effective than spouting dogma, imo.

It's not so much good deeds - what on earth are those anyway - but how people live in general that is effective. 'Let your life be your message'.

That's right.

And of course the opposite can often be the case. We all know the judgemental christian types who are constantly 'bigging themselves up' about their involvement in the church and going on about the importance of getting involved in religion, yet are the most mean spirited and judgemental people going.

Not suggesting that is an image of all christians - that would be non-sense there are loads that do what Rhiannon says - simply live a 'good' life, but sadly there are plenty who take delight in ramming their religion down your throat while at the same time being the worst possible advert for christianity.

And this doesn't just apply to Christianity, but people from every path, or philosophical POV.

[ProfessorDavey]

I've often wondered why the mainstream UK-based Christian sects actually bother with evangelising in this day and age.

They do it because it's the Church's only raison d'etre, Gordon.

They would be much better letting good deeds do the talking, which are much more effective than spouting dogma, imo.

It's not so much good deeds - what on earth are those anyway - but how people live in general that is effective. 'Let your life be your message'.

That's right.

And of course the opposite can often be the case. We all know the judgemental christian types who are constantly 'bigging themselves up' about their involvement in the church and going on about the importance of getting involved in religion, yet are the most mean spirited and judgemental people going.

Not suggesting that is an image of all christians - that would be non-sense there are loads that do what Rhiannon says - simply live a 'good' life, but sadly there are plenty who take delight in ramming their religion down your throat while at the same time being the worst possible advert for christianity.

And this doesn't just apply to Christianity, but people from every path, or none.

Of course, but this was a thread about proselytism. And the key feature about proselytism is that there is a requirement to take your views to others, whether they wish to hear them or not.

[Hope]

What on earth is friendship evangelism? If it means befriending someone so they will convert, seems unpleasantly sneaky to me.

Its what one does when one is with a friend or group of friends, and theoretically needn't have anything to do with religion, Floo.  As you know, I'm involved wit Tools with a Mission.  I often ask people whether they would be interested in getting involved in some way.  I'm quite happy to ask someone whether they'd be interested in becomig a donor (perhaps of the parental toolkit that has been lying around unused in the shed for some years) with very little previous knowledge of the person.  Asking whether they'd be interesting in being involved as a collector or a refurbisher/sorter tends to take me longer because I want to get to know where their interests lie.

[Hope]

Of course, but this was a thread about proselytism. And the key feature about proselytism is that there is a requirement to take your views to others, whether they wish to hear them or not.

Is that so, PD?  Jesus was the ultimate exponent of 'proselytism'; how often did he talk to people about the Kingdom of God who hadn't already chosen to seek him out and listen to his teaching?

[Shaker]

Ironically, I found the equivalent in regard to the issue of homosexual relationships.  On a previous board I was a member of, there were several gay and pro-gay members.  One of the latter became a firm friend of mine and we used to attend the Christian music and arts festival - Greenbelt - together until he died a couple of years ago.  On and off the board, we debated the rights and wrongs of the matter

What are the supposed "wrongs" of homosexuality according to you?

Oh, sorry, I forgot: you can't tell us, can you?

[Hope]

What are the supposed "wrongs" of homosexuality according to you?

Oh, sorry, I forgot: you can't tell us, can you?

No, I'm not going to tell you on this thread.

[Shaker]

As you know, I'm involved wit Tools with a Mission.

How apt.

[Shaker]

What are the supposed "wrongs" of homosexuality according to you?

Oh, sorry, I forgot: you can't tell us, can you?

No, I'm not going to tell you on this thread.

You haven't told anybody on any thread.

[floo]

Ironically, I found the equivalent in regard to the issue of homosexual relationships.  On a previous board I was a member of, there were several gay and pro-gay members.  One of the latter became a firm friend of mine and we used to attend the Christian music and arts festival - Greenbelt - together until he died a couple of years ago.  On and off the board, we debated the rights and wrongs of the matter

What are the supposed "wrongs" of homosexuality according to you?

Oh, sorry, I forgot: you can't tell us, can you?

Exactly what are  the 'wrongs' of homosexuality? There are no more right or wrongs than there are for being a heterosexual, it is just a matter of the skin you are in.

[Shaker]

Exactly what are  the 'wrongs' of homosexuality? There are no more right or wrongs than there are for being a heterosexual, it is just a matter of the skin you are in.

Hope claimed to have two A4 pages of notes on the matter somewhere; they are yet to materialise, amazingly enough.

[ProfessorDavey]

Of course, but this was a thread about proselytism. And the key feature about proselytism is that there is a requirement to take your views to others, whether they wish to hear them or not.

Is that so, PD?  Jesus was the ultimate exponent of 'proselytism'; how often did he talk to people about the Kingdom of God who hadn't already chosen to seek him out and listen to his teaching?

Then you need to talk to the people who sometimes knock on my door. I don't remember ever asking them to come.

And I thought (and you confirmed earlier in this thread) that proselytism was about converting people with other religions (or presumably none) rather than 'preaching to the converted', who of course would be the only ones that you would know had already chosen to 'seek him out'.

If someone comes up to a complete stranger as part of proselytism how can they have a clue whether that person is receptive until after they have intruded on them.

[ProfessorDavey]

I have found that on the occasions I have really managed to get in tune with God, my actions/behaviour have stood out from that of others and I have been asked what it is that is making me do that.

Clearly humility isn't your strong point though.

[Aruntraveller]

On and off the board, we debated the rights and wrongs of the matter, in a sensible, reasonable and honest way, and I was beginning to come round to his point of view.  Unfortunately, at the same time, the gay and the othe pro-gay members spent all their time being abusive to & dismissive and misrepresentive of me and the others on the board who shared my viewpoint.  To a degree that stopped by moving all the way towards them - why would I want to think in the same way as people whose only form of argument was abuse and uncritical dismissal.

So your approach to issues such as homosexuality are based not on a consideration of the facts of the issue but on your emotional response to the views of people you happen to chat to on the internet.

I would suggest that you are perhaps using the wrong method and medium to come to a balanced view on such topics.

[Shaker]

We don't fully know what his view is, balanced or otherwise. He refuses to say.

For four or five months in my experience alone.

[ProfessorDavey]

What on earth is friendship evangelism? If it means befriending someone so they will convert, seems unpleasantly sneaky to me.

Its what one does when one is with a friend or group of friends, and theoretically needn't have anything to do with religion, Floo.  As you know, I'm involved wit Tools with a Mission.  I often ask people whether they would be interested in getting involved in some way.  I'm quite happy to ask someone whether they'd be interested in becomig a donor (perhaps of the parental toolkit that has been lying around unused in the shed for some years) with very little previous knowledge of the person.  Asking whether they'd be interesting in being involved as a collector or a refurbisher/sorter tends to take me longer because I want to get to know where their interests lie.

But I don't see why that is anything other than asking others to get involved in a good cause, which of course people of all religions and none are doing all the time.

But if there is a back-door agenda additionally to suck them into your religion, well (as Floo puts it) that's a bit sneaky.

And actuality there is an issue here. Many people are quite rightly suspicious of 'hidden agendas' that exist all over the place and of course why a lot of people steer clear of getting involved in religious linked charities and activities. And thats for two reasons - first the one you talk of, the hidden agenda of conversion. But the other is simply that you don't wish to give an agenda you don't agree with (in this case religion, but it could just as well be a political party) the opportunity to promote itself through your endeavours.

So a good example in another context. Some years ago I was heavily involved in a non political campaign to save our local library. Although many of the leading people were actually members of a variety of political parties (Labour, Green, LibDem) we took the decision to make sure the campaign wasn't affiliated with any of them. Frustratingly the local LibDem councillors (who did bugger all) jumped on the bandwagon, and so the work we were doing was instantly seen as part of the plan to get a LibDem councillor re-elected (including all over their campaigning literature).

Very frustrating and why people can be wary of a hidden agenda.

[ProfessorDavey]

... but sadly there are plenty who take delight in ramming their religion down your throat while at the same time being the worst possible advert for christianity.

Ironically, I found the equivalent in regard to the issue of homosexual relationships.  On a previous board I was a member of, there were several gay and pro-gay members.  One of the latter became a firm friend of mine and we used to attend the Christian music and arts festival - Greenbelt - together until he died a couple of years ago.  On and off the board, we debated the rights and wrongs of the matter, in a sensible, reasonable and honest way, and I was beginning to come round to his point of view.  Unfortunately, at the same time, the gay and the othe pro-gay members spent all their time being abusive to & dismissive and misrepresentive of me and the others on the board who shared my viewpoint.  To a degree that stopped by moving all the way towards them - why would I want to think in the same way as people whose only form of argument was abuse and uncritical dismissal.  Sadly, I have found similar behaviour from a few here - in the same way that some here have expressed their distrust of Christians behaving the same way.

Is a tendency to become abusive when we hold strong opinions simply human nature?

But I think you are missing the point.

If you chose to go onto a message board, by definition you are asking to be involved in a debate - for others to give you their opinion and for you to give yours. That's the nature of this board and I image of the one you talk about.

That's not what I am talking about - rather people who, uninvited, start pontificating at the drop of a hat without any indication from the person being preached at that they wish to engage in that kind of conversation.

[Owlswing]

Of course, but this was a thread about proselytism. And the key feature about proselytism is that there is a requirement to take your views to others, whether they wish to hear them or not.

Is that so, PD?  Jesus was the ultimate exponent of 'proselytism'; how often did he talk to people about the Kingdom of God who hadn't already chosen to seek him out and listen to his teaching?

We are not talking here about people who seek out the proselytes, we are talking about proselytes who seek out people.

[ProfessorDavey]

Of course, but this was a thread about proselytism. And the key feature about proselytism is that there is a requirement to take your views to others, whether they wish to hear them or not.

Is that so, PD?  Jesus was the ultimate exponent of 'proselytism'; how often did he talk to people about the Kingdom of God who hadn't already chosen to seek him out and listen to his teaching?

We are not talking here about people who seek out the proselytes, we are talking about proselytes who seek out people.

Exactly - if someone walks into a church and asks the vicar to talk to him about christianity that's absolutely fine of course.

However, to my mind, if someone unannounced and uninvited 'cold-calls' you by knocking on your door expecting to talk about god, without any indication that you wish to discuss god (or even that you wish to discuss god now) that's the same as any other kind of cold calling and is flat out wrong. It is intrusive and requires the 'victim' of the cold calling to try to extract themselves from the situation which was not wanted and not invited.

Now in most cases a polite (or not so polite) 'no thank you' is sufficient, but there are of course many vulnerable people around who may be taken in particularly if the proselytiser is well trained and experienced (as they often are) and may feel the only way to get rid of them is to agree to something they don't really want to.

[Hope]

However, to my mind, if someone unannounced and uninvited 'cold-calls' you by knocking on your door expecting to talk about god, without any indication that you wish to discuss god (or even that you wish to discuss god now) that's the same as any other kind of cold calling and is flat out wrong. It is intrusive and requires the 'victim' of the cold calling to try to extract themselves from the situation which was not wanted and not invited.

And where, in that approach, is there anything to do with friendship, PD?  I appreciate that there are a number of groupings - not all Christian (nor necessarily religious) - who might knock on your door and try to 'convert' you to their way of thinking, but I'm not sure that that could be deemed as 'friendship' evangelism in any circumstance.

Sorry, just reread the post, and I think I've missed my own point!!  My point, that first Matt and then you responded to, was that Jesus modelled the best way of doing things, which hisn followers should tryn to emulate.  I wasn't saying that some hadn't.

[Hope]

So your approach to issues such as homosexuality are based not on a consideration of the facts of the issue but on your emotional response to the views of people you happen to chat to on the internet.

I would suggest that you are perhaps using the wrong method and medium to come to a balanced view on such topics.

Is virtual discussion of issues less valid than face2face, Trent?  As I pointed out, I took part in both virtual and face2face discussion, and had been involved in the latter long before the internet became publically available.

[Owlswing]

So your approach to issues such as homosexuality are based not on a consideration of the facts of the issue but on your emotional response to the views of people you happen to chat to on the internet.

I would suggest that you are perhaps using the wrong method and medium to come to a balanced view on such topics.

Is virtual discussion of issues less valid than face2face, Trent?  As I pointed out, I took part in both virtual and face2face discussion, and had been involved in the latter long before the internet became publically available.

Yeah, yeah, yeah!

As usual your experiences transcend those of all us ordinary mortals!

[Aruntraveller]

So your approach to issues such as homosexuality are based not on a consideration of the facts of the issue but on your emotional response to the views of people you happen to chat to on the internet.

I would suggest that you are perhaps using the wrong method and medium to come to a balanced view on such topics.

Is virtual discussion of issues less valid than face2face, Trent?  As I pointed out, I took part in both virtual and face2face discussion, and had been involved in the latter long before the internet became publically available.

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. Some people you meet on line are not in my experience necessarily balanced in their approach to issues, furthermore the 'at one remove' feature of the internet means that some posters say things that they would never say in real life to a persons face, therefore there is a tendency to exaggeration, lies, hyperbole and insults.

Whilst some of these may have a place in discourse occasionally, I am not convinced that in the long term they are condusive to a sensible discussion.

[floo]

Of course, but this was a thread about proselytism. And the key feature about proselytism is that there is a requirement to take your views to others, whether they wish to hear them or not.

Is that so, PD?  Jesus was the ultimate exponent of 'proselytism'; how often did he talk to people about the Kingdom of God who hadn't already chosen to seek him out and listen to his teaching?

We are not talking here about people who seek out the proselytes, we are talking about proselytes who seek out people.

Exactly - if someone walks into a church and asks the vicar to talk to him about christianity that's absolutely fine of course.

However, to my mind, if someone unannounced and uninvited 'cold-calls' you by knocking on your door expecting to talk about god, without any indication that you wish to discuss god (or even that you wish to discuss god now) that's the same as any other kind of cold calling and is flat out wrong. It is intrusive and requires the 'victim' of the cold calling to try to extract themselves from the situation which was not wanted and not invited.

Now in most cases a polite (or not so polite) 'no thank you' is sufficient, but there are of course many vulnerable people around who may be taken in particularly if the proselytiser is well trained and experienced (as they often are) and may feel the only way to get rid of them is to agree to something they don't really want to.

As you say if a person seeks out a believer to talk about their faith NO PROBLEM. It is the uninvited believer who wants to proselytise to the uninterested, which is a problem.

[Hope]

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. Some people you meet on line are not in my experience necessarily balanced in their approach to issues, furthermore the 'at one remove' feature of the internet means that some posters say things that they would never say in real life to a persons face, therefore there is a tendency to exaggeration, lies, hyperbole and insults.

Whilst some of these may have a place in discourse occasionally, I am not convinced that in the long term they are condusive to a sensible discussion.

And I'm not convinced that your argument matches what I posted.  At no point did I say that I had based 'your approach to issues such as homosexuality ... on your emotional response to the views of people you happen to chat to on the internet'.

For one thing, I pointed out that I knew the guy I referred to in real life as well as on the internet.  I accept that I could also have mentioned that several of the board's members met up on 2 or 3 occasions - in the same way that some of our Scottish brethren here do.

I have now been involved in this particular debate on one level or another for nigh-on 30 years.  The internet has been a minimal part of that involvement.

[Aruntraveller]

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. Some people you meet on line are not in my experience necessarily balanced in their approach to issues, furthermore the 'at one remove' feature of the internet means that some posters say things that they would never say in real life to a persons face, therefore there is a tendency to exaggeration, lies, hyperbole and insults.

Whilst some of these may have a place in discourse occasionally, I am not convinced that in the long term they are condusive to a sensible discussion.

And I'm not convinced that your argument matches what I posted.  At no point did I say that I had based 'your approach to issues such as homosexuality ... on your emotional response to the views of people you happen to chat to on the internet'.

For one thing, I pointed out that I knew the guy I referred to in real life as well as on the internet.  I accept that I could also have mentioned that several of the board's members met up on 2 or 3 occasions - in the same way that some of our Scottish brethren here do.

I have now been involved in this particular debate on one level or another for nigh-on 30 years.  The internet has been a minimal part of that involvement.

Just going by what you posted:

Unfortunately, at the same time, the gay and the othe pro-gay members spent all their time being abusive to & dismissive and misrepresentive of me and the others on the board who shared my viewpoint.  To a degree that stopped by moving all the way towards them - why would I want to think in the same way as people whose only form of argument was abuse and uncritical dismissal.

If that wasn't your emotional response - I apologise, but it sounded like it to me.

Let's take another example, just because anti-abortionists are in some cases raving loons - do you then disregard the case for the anti-abortionist cause because those particular people are very clearly abusive and in some cases murderous.