Prostelytizing Morally Right?

[gaijin178]

I just had this thought and I hope that it makes sense. After a long day of work sometimes I don't know if I ever do...anyway... I have been going through a lot of the homosexuality threads and used to post on them quite a bit if I remember correctly. But then I decided not to because no matter how creative the approach from both sides, those for and against homosexulity, they all turned into the same run around and nothing interesting ever came from any of them. The only really interesting thread about it despite the typical comments was Alecto's trip to the Castro.

Now, the reason why I made the title as such, was because I wanted to talk about this in regards to morality without going into the details of what these two things really are. These two things being homosexuality and prostelytizing.

Through reading a lot of the homsexuality threads, I even found myself beginning to tolerate or at least accept the Christian who says, "I don't know if homosexuality is a choice or God made them that way but we are all sinners and homosexual folk need to abstain from their sins even if it meant that they had to be celebate." While I don't agree with this view, it was much more palatable for me when reading these threads. I almost laugh when I read it now because I try to imagine any heterosexual male trying to remain celebate for the rest of their lives after they just suggested that another do the same.

My point is that, a lot of the arguments from Christians against homosexulity say that they feel that acting upon one's homosexual urges is morally wrong. This starts the debate about what is morality and is it subjective...

I believe with all of my heart, that prostelytizing is morally wrong. No one should do it and and no one should do so unless openly asked by a curious individual. I believe that Christians who go onto a mission trip to a foreign country and pass out tracts and prostelytize to locals and then leave is morally wrong. I find it even more morally wrong when Christians do this, build a house for a day and then leave so that they can feel good about themselves once they return home. As some of you know, I work in college admissions and I swear, if I have to read another personal statement from some rich kid in Malibu talking about their one week mission trip to Mexico made them really think about the real world I am going to puke. The truth is, these folks don't have to think about the real world because they haven't had to live in it. Prostelytizing is morally wrong and serves no purpose.

Since I don't go around trying to make laws and tell people that they are wrong for prostelytizing, (well, other than this post) can't those against homosexuality just keep it to themselves and stop saying that it is affecting their country and their children? Most of the people who are so against homosexuality haven't even met a homosexual or could even call one their friend. But I know all of us have been prostelytized to as least once in our lives whether we wanted it or not. So what is really more in your face, being prostelytized to without asking for it to happen or someone whom you don't even know, chosing to be in a homosexual relationship?

I know the connection is far fetched but really, we all just want the same things in life. To have a home, to have food, to be happy, and to love whomever God brings into our lives without question.

 

[kedaman]

Why don't you keep your anti prostelytizing doctrine to yourself?

 

[MoonlessNight]

While there are many wrong ways to proselytize, I'm having troubles seeing how the practice is inherently bad. If one has access to the truth, and then later sees someone acting in a way that is not good, but which they could correct if they knew the truth, how can it be wrong to correct their ignorance? And if they have false beliefs ingrained within them, it might be good to persuade them back to the truth.

The real problems come, I think, when:
1.) Someone thinks they know more than they do
2.) Someone assumes too much about someone else's behavior
or 3.) The persuasion gives way to coercion

But with proper procedures all of these things can be avoided.

You say that you think no one should proselytize unless asked. But how will one know if they want to convert, unless they already know something about the religion or school of thought? There are the curious, certainly, but most people are not curious. Should we just leave them in whatever mindset they arrive at first, or would it be better to give them other options?

Granted, that is not what much of, and perhaps the majority of, proselytizing is today. But should we assume the practice is without value merely because it is abused?

 

[gaijin178]

Why don't you keep your anti prostelytizing doctrine to yourself?

Dude, it's not a doctrine, and that is why I said, in my post. I don't do this with the disclaimer of this post.

 

[gaijin178]

While there are many wrong ways to proselytize, I'm having troubles seeing how the practice is inherently bad. If one has access to the truth, and then later sees someone acting in a way that is not good, but which they could correct if they knew the truth, how can it be wrong to correct their ignorance? And if they have false beliefs ingrained within them, it might be good to persuade them back to the truth.

The real problems come, I think, when:
1.) Someone thinks they know more than they do
2.) Someone assumes too much about someone else's behavior
or 3.) The persuasion gives way to coercion

But with proper procedures all of these things can be avoided.

You say that you think no one should proselytize unless asked. But how will one know if they want to convert, unless they already know something about the religion or school of thought? There are the curious, certainly, but most people are not curious. Should we just leave them in whatever mindset they arrive at first, or would it be better to give them other options?

Granted, that is not what much of, and perhaps the majority of, proselytizing is today. But should we assume the practice is without value merely because it is abused?

Yes, I think that there are wrong ways to proselytizing and there might be some better ways. I just think that if one belives in Christianity, that God will give them the right time to talk to someone who is really seeking. Rather then going around prostelytizing and then washing their hands clean saying, "welp, my job is done here. Now they know and if they don't commit to Jesus then that's their bad."

My purpose of this post wasn't to go into the specifics of why I don't like prostelytizing, it was to show that we all have different views about morality and that if one's morality doesn't hurt anyone personally, that we should all just keep it to ourselves.

 

[MoonlessNight]

I just think that if one belives in Christianity, that God will give them the right time to talk to someone who is really seeking.

I'm afraid I don't see why the person has to seek out the Christian. Could not God make sure they are in a crowd that hears a message, which would then get them on the path towards Christianity?

Rather then going around prostelytizing and then washing their hands clean saying, "welp, my job is done here. Now they know and if they don't commit to Jesus then that's their bad."

Right. Proselytizing in that fashion is done only to serve one's ego, not for any altruistic reasons.

My purpose of this post wasn't to go into the specifics of why I don't like prostelytizing, it was to show that we all have different views about morality and that if one's morality doesn't hurt anyone personally, that we should all just keep it to ourselves.

I'm not quite sure I understand what you are saying here. Is it that if one's choices harm noone other than themselves, they should not be corrected for making a bad choice? The only other interpretation of the sentence I can see is that one should only proseltyze if his or her morality is harmful to others, but clearly that isn't it. I'm just not sure what you are trying to say here, exactly.

But if it is that we should not correct errors that only hurt the person performing them, to me that seems cruel. If a person's drug addiction is under control, and shows no signs of getting out of control (that is, they are fufilling all obligations to everyone they know, and they are really only harming themselves) should that person's acquantices ignore the problem because it isn't affecting them? Or should they try to help out?

 

[kedaman]

Dude, it's not a doctrine, and that is why I said, in my post. I don't do this with the disclaimer of this post.

You're telling me that I should stop telling others what to do, why are you making an exception for your own words? Admittably am also against all forms of prostelytizing.. except of my own faith which I regard as true, but I don't regard prostelytizing in general to be morally wrong. What you are saying though seems self defeating.

 

[Matthew777]

I understand that religious recruitment is a rather divisive and complex issue and therefore I will attempt to approach this question in as sensitive a manner as possible.

I am a member of the Christian faith. I believe that Christianity is an exclusivist religion based on what Jesus of Nazareth said about himself, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me" (John 14:6), what he said concerning those who disbelieve, “Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son” (John 3:18), and what the Apostles taught concerning him, “Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.” (Acts 4:12)

As a spiritual seeker, I read the Bhagavad-Gita, the Dao De Ching, much of the Koran, and some great insight from Siddhartha Gautama. Even though my limited study of the world’s religious traditions may not have performed justice to them all, I found none of them to be both spiritually fulfilling and historically verifiable. I concluded that if I am to have faith in anything, there must be a solid bedrock of evidence to base my faith upon.

The Christian faith teaches that through the resurrection of Christ, we are assured of his godhood and our own future resurrection. Thus, the Christian faith stands or falls on the reliability of historical testimony. If we were able to verify that the testimony of the Apostles concerning the resurrection of Christ is trustworthy, then it would be reasonable to believe that we are saved through faith in him.

Not only do I believe the Gospel to be historically reliable, but also I find Christ to be the precise solution to the problem of the human condition. As Blaise Pascal wrote, “The knowledge of God without that of our wretchedness produces pride. The knowledge of our wretchedness without the knowledge of God produces despair. The knowledge of Jesus Christ forms the middle point; for there we find both God and our wretchedness.”

If humans are atoned of their own wretchedness through the blood of Christ, and are brought to everlasting life through the resurrection, then it would be unfortunate to not share this gift to the world.

In an increasingly pluralistic society, the spreading of the Gospel message is often disparaged as mere proselytization. To the Christian, however, this is nothing more than the fulfillment of Jesus’ commission to the Apostles: “All authority hath been given unto me in heaven and on earth. Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I commanded you: and lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world” (Mt. 28:18-20)

One may disagree with the ultimate truth claims of the Gospel, but it would be hard to defend the position that the Christian community is without the right to share the faith. The question should not be whether or not religious recruitment is intellectually defensible but which method of recruitment is intellectually justifiable.

One need not stand on a street corner, shouting threats of eternal damnation and hellfire in order to gain converts. Neither do we have the right to conquer aboriginal cultures, rob them of their identity, and force the Gospel message into their hearts and minds. True conversion is a free-will choice and one mustn’t be brought to the faith by compulsion.

It is the responsibility of the Christian community to live a life of holiness so that the world may be attracted to the Church by our acts of righteousness. As Jesus taught, “You are the light of the world. A city that is set on a hill cannot be hidden. Nor do they light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on a lampstand, and it gives light to all who are in the house. Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father in heaven.” (Matthew 5:14-16) We are not to be prideful and boastful on account of our good works but we are to be humble and congenial.

When people come to us in order to learn about the source of our good works, we are to answer in as civil a way as possible, “…And if you are asked about your Christian hope, always be ready to explain it. But you must do this in a gentle and respectful way. Keep your conscience clear. Then if people speak evil against you, they will be ashamed when they see what a good life you live because you belong to Christ. Remember, it is better to suffer for doing good, if that is what God desire, than to suffer for doing evil!” (1 Peter 3:15-17)

Evangelization should never be an excuse to spread intolerance and hate in the name of Christ. In performing missionary work in foreign countries, the focus should be on relieving their peoples of illness and hunger. By acts of good will and compassion, they should be attracted to the Gospel voluntarily. One should not seek to wipe out their customs and mores but to provide them with whatever spiritual enrichment they choose to receive. If they choose not to believe then so be it, for a good deed is its own reward.

Our love and service to humanity should never be contingent on humanity’s willingness to believe. We are to feed the hungry if they are willing to be fed, remedy the sick if they are willing to be remedied, and only then can we share the Gospel if they are willing to listen.

As Saint Francis of Assisi insisted, “Preach the Gospel at all times, and if necessary, use words.”

May peace be upon thee and with thy spirit.

 

[gaijin178]

I thank you for your post Matthew. It was wel written and thought provoking. I do not, however, think that I was talking about rights, I was talking about my morals.

 

[Matthew777]

I thank you for your post Matthew. It was wel written and thought provoking. I do not, however, think that I was talking about rights, I was talking about my morals.

I would say that sharing the Gospel must be morally right because Jesus commanded that we baptize all nations in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.
However, there is a difference between sharing the Gospel and mere proselytization.

 

[gaijin178]

You're telling me that I should stop telling others what to do, why are you making an exception for your own words? Admittably am also against all forms of prostelytizing.. except of my own faith which I regard as true, but I don't regard prostelytizing in general to be morally wrong. What you are saying though seems self defeating.

Herein lies the problem I think. You think that I am telling you to stop prostelytizing but also think that what I am doing is the same. You also say that you are agianst prostelytizing which is fine too. The exception that you make is because you believe that it is ok to do so with your own faith because you believe it to be the only true faith. You also say that you don't believe that prostelytizing is morally wrong. I believe that it is. So our views on morality are very different no? You view prostelytizing as good when it agrees with you but do not like it either if it doesn't agree with your faith. I don't think that I am self defeating anything in my view because I wanted folks to compare it with how folks say that being homosexual is morally wrong. The funny thing and the thing that I am learing about this forum is that we all, myself inlcuded, jump in and post on a part of a thread when we haven't really read the whole thing.

 

[Nymphalidae]

I don't have a problem with Christians who have manners. They say "Come to my church" and I say "No thanks" and they say "Ok, have a nice day". That's fine. I figure, they're just trying to be nice so I try to be nice back. What I hate is the Christians who corner me in a place where I have to listen to them and then proceed to "witness" to me. "Before I became Christian I visted every sex shop from Eau Claire to Milwaukee and they were gross - cum all over the floor and....But now I'm a Christian and my life is so much better without that filth." That's when I get hostile.

 

[David Gould]

My problem is that I can see why Christians try to convert people.

If you honestly believed that your next door neighbour would suffer eternal torment if they did not come to believe in Jesus before they died, how could you not desperately try to talk to them about this every chance you got?

It would be like me knowing that a volcano is about to erupt under your house and not staying on the line trying to convince you. Sure, it would bug you if you did not believe that an eruption was imminent. But what is bugging you compared to the attempt to save your life?


If we expand this to other religions, if you believe that you have valuable insights into the way the universe functions, surely the moral thing to do under most standards is to share those insights with as many people as possible.

 

[Matthew777]

When it comes to sharing the Gospel, one should stick with the strategy of actually living it.

 

[Alecto]

I would say that sharing the Gospel must be morally right because Jesus commanded that we baptize all nations in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.
However, there is a difference between sharing the Gospel and mere proselytization.

What about other faith's attempts to share thier own ideals?

I think whatever you call it, preaching, prostelyizing, sharing, educating, enlightening, its wrong unless its asked for.

If I say "Teach me." Then fine, but if I dont ask, dont share. I cannot STAND those people who stick Jesus into every conversation, I dont stick Zeus or his children into every conversation I have, I think you can manage.

Its rude, bottom line, if someone doesnt ask you to preach. Freaking dont, its rude, bottom line its bloody rude because it makes the assumption that the other person is stupid and needs you to lift them out of thier pit of dumb.

 

[psychedelicist]

I don't see anything wrong with it. I don't enjoy being preached to by people who just can't keep their beliefs to themselves, but thankfully most people I know aren't like that. But, that's the downside to a free country, you have a lot of stupid people spreading their ideas. I'm not insulting christianity here, I'm just saying that people who relentlessly prostelytize are idiots no matter the religion, IMO. And unfortunately, it is often the idiots who talk the loudest.

 

[Alecto]

Im not saying it should be forbidden. I realize its a free country and I bank on the 1st amendment heavily. But that doesnt change that fact that I think preaching when it isnt called for is extremely rude

 

[Matthew777]

What about other faith's attempts to share thier own ideals?

I think whatever you call it, preaching, prostelyizing, sharing, educating...

Please refer to my essay.

 

[Alecto]

Please refer to my essay.

No no no I want to hear your answer.

 

[Matthew777]

The essay is my answer, which is why I wrote it. Ummmmmmmmm