Please note that new user registrations disabled at this time.

Conversion by zeal (no spam)

Anything goes... just keep it clean.
User avatar
fable
Posts: 30676
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2001 12:00 pm
Location: The sun, the moon, and the stars.
Contact:

Conversion by zeal (no spam)

Post by fable »

A US conference between Catholic bishops and Jewish rabbis has issued a statement rejecting the evangelization of Jews. To quote an article in the Boston Globe, "Citing teachings dating back to the Second Vatican Council, and statements by Pope John Paul II throughout his papacy, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops declared unequivocally that the biblical covenant between Jews and God is valid and therefore Jews do not need to be saved through faith in Jesus." You can read the article here.

I found of some interest the article's remarks on Southern Baptists:

"However, the declaration puts the Catholic Church at odds with evangelical Protestants, particularly the Southern Baptist Convention, the largest Protestant denomination in the country. In a 1996 resolution, the Southern Baptists declared, ''whereas Jesus commanded that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem ... we direct our energies and resources toward the proclamation of the gospel to the Jewish people.''

This should also be taken the light of "sneaky conversions" which caused a nationwide stir a few years ago, when small Jewish children who went on "camping weekends" with their Baptist friends were told they were doomed to hell if they didn't sign pledges to convert. (Here's an example of an article dealing with the general subject.)

How do you feel about attempts at religious conversion? Note, not just to some form of Protestantism--what about your converting others to your point of view, even if you're an atheist? Is it right, or wrong, and why? If it is right, how should it be done? If it is wrong, how would you stop it?

Please keep tempers under control. I'll probably need to repeat this periodically, but I'd like this subject to stay open, if possible. Thanks. :)
To the Righteous belong the fruits of violent victory. The rest of us will have to settle for warm friends, warm lovers, and a wink from a quietly supportive universe.
User avatar
Weasel
Posts: 10202
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2000 11:00 pm
Location: Gamebanshee Asylum
Contact:

Post by Weasel »

Originally posted by fable

CUT/SNIP

How do you feel about attempts at religious conversion? Note, not just to some form of Protestantism--what about your converting others to your point of view, even if you're an atheist? Is it right, or wrong, and why? If it is right, how should it be done? If it is wrong, how would you stop it?

CUT/SNIP
It would depend on how the attempt to convert was tried. I personally believe most attempts (Past and present) are wrong. The forcing of a or any religion on a person or persons goes against my beliefs. Looking back thru history, I believe most attempts at conversion is forced. But I'm not closed minded, if someone can tell me the crusades didn't in fact happen I will 'somewhat' change my opinion.

Would I stop it? This is a question that is two sided IMO....Would I be different than the ones who force the religion if I tried to stop it?
"Vile and evil, yes. But, That's Weasel" From BS's book, MD 20/20: Fine Wines of Rocky Flop.
User avatar
C Elegans
Posts: 9935
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2001 11:00 pm
Location: The space within
Contact:

Post by C Elegans »

There are several things I react aginst here. If I understand the article in your first link correctly, the Catholic church has decided to practise "positive racism", meaning that Jews are granted eternal salvation by birth whereas all other people are legit targets for conversion. The Southern Baptists do not share this view of Jewish people, they think everyone needs to be saved.

However, to focus on the topic of religious conversion, I think there is no reason to treat religion different from other ideologies like political ideologies or view of life in general, religious or not. It would be easy to say conversion is always wrong, but unfortunately I can't say that as a general statement. An example would be people who are recruited by destructive cults. Regardless of whether these cults are religious or not, forcible conversion may be necessary to help people get out of such cults.

There are however ways to classify degrees and types of influencing other people's opinions. I am personally against all kinds of mind control methods, such as "scare tactics" or taking advantage of children and youths being away on camps where they are not in touch with their parents and friends. I am also against indoctrination methods, such as presenting biased information that only convers part of the whole picture. I also reject manipulation, where the meaning and the goals of the individual or organisation that are trying to influence a person, are kept secret from the target person.
"There are in fact two things, science and opinion; the former begets knowledge, the latter ignorance." - Hippocrates
Moderator of Planescape: Torment, Diablo I & II and Dungeon Siege forums
User avatar
HighLordDave
Posts: 4062
Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2001 11:00 pm
Location: Between Middle-Earth and the Galaxy Far, Far Away
Contact:

Post by HighLordDave »

I think that people's view on evangelism are coloured by their upbringing. For instance, Baptists and Methodists generally are very fervent in their proselytisation and believe that they have an obligation and charge from God to bring the lost sheep (ie-everyone else) into the fold. I believe that Islam also requires Muslims to spread the word of the Prophet (someone correct me if I'm wrong).

Other denominations take a stance that is not quite as hardline, but the bottom line is that religions must perpetuate themselves by either breeding more of their sect or converting others (voluntarily or by force).

I have grown up a Presbyterian and I consider myself to be a Christian, although my pastor and parents encouraged me to question everything about the church's teachings (sometimes to the point of annoyance) including some of the most basic reformed Protestant beliefs. At almost 29 years old, I am no closer to finding many of those answers than I was when I was 12, so I am not about to tell someone else that I know the singular way into Heaven and if they don't believe that I do, they're going straight to Hell.

I think that churches have a missionary responsibility. After all, each religion believes that their path to Heaven/Valhalla/Nirvana/Stovokor is the right one and that what they believe is righteous and good. I believe that many people who undertake missionary calls or go out to spread the word of [insert your god of choice here] do so for the right reasons.

At the same time, when I look out in the world and see 1.2 billion people who follow the teachings of Mohammad and the hundreds of millions on Hindus in India and the billion plus people who live in Asia and subscribe to the tenants of the various east Asian religions (Buddhism, Confucianism, Shinto et al), I have a hard time believing that Christianity must be the only answer, and I have an especially hard time believing that Presbyterians have a monopoly on Christian "Truth".
Jesus saves! And takes half damage!

If brute force doesn't work, you're not using enough.
User avatar
fable
Posts: 30676
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2001 12:00 pm
Location: The sun, the moon, and the stars.
Contact:

Post by fable »

Originally posted by C Elegans
I am also against indoctrination methods, such as presenting biased information that only convers part of the whole picture. I also reject manipulation, where the meaning and the goals of the individual or organisation that are trying to influence a person, are kept secret from the target person.
Yet doesn't any religious belief system, including an anti-belief religious system, attempt indoctrination by methods other than logic? Logic cannot lead to faith; so what methods must be used? Children are typically indoctrinated in a given religion or anti-religious POV long before they reach the age of personal discernment. The "fear of God," a major plank in many Western Christian-based sects, would seem to be a prime example of manipulation. @CE, how does one escape from the trap of using manipulative methods to convert on a subject impervious to logic?
To the Righteous belong the fruits of violent victory. The rest of us will have to settle for warm friends, warm lovers, and a wink from a quietly supportive universe.
User avatar
Ode to a Grasshopper
Posts: 6664
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2001 10:00 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

Post by Ode to a Grasshopper »

Personally I am opposed to forcing any standard of moral beliefs, whether it be religious or no (a good irreligious example is Political Correctness) onto others. People should be able to examine moral issues and reach their own conclusions, rather than be told that there is a certain set of standards one must adhere to.
Unfortunately this ideology of mine does not mesh well with many aspects of modern-day society, including many laws. IMO the law should not impinge upon personal choice as much as it does.
Proud SLURRite Gunner of the Rolling Thunder (TM) - Visitors WELCOME!
([size=0]Feel free to join us for a drink, play some pool or even relax in a hottub - want to learn more?[/size]

The soul must be free, whatever the cost.
User avatar
EMINEM
Posts: 891
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2001 10:00 pm
Contact:

Post by EMINEM »

Originally posted by fable


Yet doesn't any religious belief system, including an anti-belief religious system, attempt indoctrination by methods other than logic? Logic cannot lead to faith; so what methods must be used? Children are typically indoctrinated in a given religion or anti-religious POV long before they reach the age of personal discernment. The "fear of God," a major plank in many Western Christian-based sects, would seem to be a prime example of manipulation. @CE, how does one escape from the trap of using manipulative methods to convert on a subject impervious to logic?
In the first place, what makes you think logic doesn't lead to faith? Philosophers both ancient and modern can positively argue the existence of God. Before a pagan monarch (Agrippa, IIRC) who thought he was out of his mind, the Apostle Paul in the New Testament, argued that the Christian faith was in fact "true and reasonable." Some of the greatest minds who have ever lived (ie. Newton, Luther, Einstein) believe in God, and did so quite passionately. Newton, by any standard was a religious fanatic.
User avatar
C Elegans
Posts: 9935
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2001 11:00 pm
Location: The space within
Contact:

Post by C Elegans »

Originally posted by EMINEM
Some of the greatest minds who have ever lived (ie. Newton, Luther, Einstein) believe in God
Much can of course be said in regard to the topic, but a little nitpick: we don't know whether Einstein believed in a god or not, especially not a christian god. He said many things that can be interpreted in both directions, so please do not use him as an example. I know it is common to use Einstein and Hawking to examplify that great physicists who work with physics and the mechanisms of our universe, believe/d in a god. This is not necessarily so, and people need to realise that physicists often use the word "god" not as meaning the christian/muslim or any specific god, but just as meaning "the creator" or "the natural forces". I know you know that the argument "great minds believed in god, so it must be right" is invalid (appeal to authority) but I do think you use it in a valid way in this case (ie logical thinking can result in a person coming to the conclusion that a god exists). Logical is not the same as rational! But please do not use people who we don't know what religion they had, there are plenty other people to use as examples.
"There are in fact two things, science and opinion; the former begets knowledge, the latter ignorance." - Hippocrates
Moderator of Planescape: Torment, Diablo I & II and Dungeon Siege forums
User avatar
EMINEM
Posts: 891
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2001 10:00 pm
Contact:

Post by EMINEM »

Interesting article, but how authoritative is this declaration? If you notice, the article repeatedly states that the conference of US Catholic Bishops cite Vatican II and words that Pope John Paul has spoken throughout his ministry, but remains deafeningly silent on what the Pope and the Vatican actually think of their interpretation. Without official papal sanction of this sea change in doctrine, the declaration will probably carry as much weight as any number of attempts by liberals to reform the Catholic teachings in the image of what is politically correct (ie. ordination of female priests). In any case, the declaration flies in the face of so many of the basic teachings of the New Testament by asserting that Jews do not need faith in Christ to be saved (and not just what Southern Baptists and conservative evangelicals think) I'm surprised Rome hasn't responded to it yet. For crying out loud, the entire Gospel of John, the Acts of the Apostles, and the epistles of Paul to the Romans, Galatians, and Hebrews have as their theme the need for Gentiles AND Jews to come to faith in Christ, or else perish.
User avatar
EMINEM
Posts: 891
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2001 10:00 pm
Contact:

Post by EMINEM »

Originally posted by fable

How do you feel about attempts at religious conversion? Note, not just to some form of Protestantism--what about your converting others to your point of view, even if you're an atheist? Is it right, or wrong, and why? If it is right, how should it be done? If it is wrong, how would you stop it?
How do I feel about attempts at religious conversion? I have had the privilege of personally converting, or helping to convert, five people to Christianity in the past seven years, mostly from the Washington campus ministry; their backgrounds were Sikh, Hindu, Agnostic, Atheist, and Muslim. It's not that hard, or complicated, really. The hard part is actually finding someone - anyone - open to studying the Bible or coming out to a church service (read - the more you sow, the more you reap. Not enough Christian sow, unfortunately). Afterwards, if he or she in interested in learning more about Scripture, and what it means to be a Christian, and how to become one, the minister or one of his assistants (usually a summer intern) schedules a time to meet with him or her (usually at the library or a restaurant cafe nearby) to expound the message in greater detail, the soteriological process embraced by that denomination, and the sacrifices such a decision must require (ie. lordship of Christ, obedience to his word, repentence and baptism). In my experience, I have never witnessed any form of mind control, or emotional and/or intellectual manipulation. Perhaps the closest thing to "manipulation" that occurs, if you can call it that, is the part where the minister introduces the consequence of rejecting Jesus Christ - eternal punishment in hell. This happens very, very rarely, but the justification is that since J.C. himself preached about the road to perdition (in fact, he taught more often about hell than about prayer), it is the responsibility of his followers to do the same in order for some to be saved. If the person accpts tyhe message, he or she is then baptized and welcomed as a member of the Church.

Is this wrong? I don't think so. I think it is pre-eminently right, especially when I see the renewed sense of hope, and change in the characters, lives, and relationships of some of the people who, before their conversion, had no business being anywhere near a church building.

Of course, I recognize there is wrong way to convert somebody to Christianity, or for that matter any religion or political ideology. When human beings are involved, the likelihood of something going wrong goes up exponentially. In the United States, however, with our constitution, and history of religious revivals, awakenings, and movements, as well as the Religious Right's influence in money and votes upon Republican politics, I seriously doubt proselytization is likely to be curbed, even if done nefariously.
User avatar
Maharlika
Posts: 5991
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2001 10:00 pm
Location: Wanderlusting with my lampshade, like any decent k
Contact:

Post by Maharlika »

I don't like conversion...

... when forced, coerced and used with intimidation. :mad: I guess anyone for that matter wouldn't want that either...

...the end does not justify the means as you'll just end up with disillusioned believers/followers and one not totally INTO the Faith.

Open-mindedness is the key as far as the target individual is concerned...

...otherwise you're just doing your religion a disfavor by forcing unwilling individuals to be part of your sect.

Leave the people alone if they don't want to be converted.
"There is no weakness in honest sorrow... only in succumbing to depression over what cannot be changed." --- Alaundo, BG2
Brother Scribe, Keeper of the Holy Scripts of COMM


[url="http://www.gamebanshee.com/forums/speak-your-mind-16/"]Moderator, Speak Your Mind Forum[/url]
[url="http://www.gamebanshee.com/forums/speak-your-mind-16/sym-specific-rules-please-read-before-posting-14427.html"]SYM Specific Forum Rules[/url]
User avatar
Ode to a Grasshopper
Posts: 6664
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2001 10:00 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

Post by Ode to a Grasshopper »

Re: Re: Conversion by zeal (no spam)
Originally posted by EMINEM
I have had the privilege of personally converting, or helping to convert, five people to Christianity in the past seven years, mostly from the Washington campus ministry; their backgrounds were Sikh, Hindu, Agnostic, Atheist, and Muslim.
That's quite the impressive record, so far I've only converted one Christian (one of my best friends) away from Christianity. Of course, I only 'converted' her because she kept trying to force her beliefs onto me and get me to convert, otherwise I would have left her to enjoy her beliefs in peace. I make it a rule not to try to force my opinions onto others unless they try to do the same to me.
As Mah says, leave the people alone if they don't want to be converted.
Proud SLURRite Gunner of the Rolling Thunder (TM) - Visitors WELCOME!
([size=0]Feel free to join us for a drink, play some pool or even relax in a hottub - want to learn more?[/size]

The soul must be free, whatever the cost.
User avatar
fable
Posts: 30676
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2001 12:00 pm
Location: The sun, the moon, and the stars.
Contact:

Post by fable »

Re: Re: Re: Conversion by zeal (no spam)
Originally posted by Ode to a Grasshopper
As Mah says, leave the people alone if they don't want to be converted.
Yet in certain religions, there is only one path to truth, which in turn leads to eternal glory, etc. All other paths lead to perpetual damnation. Isn't it an act of singular merit, then, for the person who has been "reborn into the light" to lead others into it?
To the Righteous belong the fruits of violent victory. The rest of us will have to settle for warm friends, warm lovers, and a wink from a quietly supportive universe.
User avatar
HighLordDave
Posts: 4062
Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2001 11:00 pm
Location: Between Middle-Earth and the Galaxy Far, Far Away
Contact:

Post by HighLordDave »

At their best, evangelical Christians are so moved by the Holy Spirit that they must share the joy and salvation they have found in Christ with everyone who will listen. As fable says, if you believe that your sect holds the one and only Eternal Truth, then you are bound to spread the word of that Truth with everyone (because you are right and they are wrong). I would argue with fable that evangelical Christians do not spread the gospel for their own personal glory, but for the glory of God and to save the souls of heathens from enternal damnation.

At their worst, evangelical Christians (I use Christians here as an example, but fill in the blank with any religious group) are self-righteous bigots who want to impose their beliefs upon everyone else, despite their wishes.
Jesus saves! And takes half damage!

If brute force doesn't work, you're not using enough.
User avatar
fable
Posts: 30676
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2001 12:00 pm
Location: The sun, the moon, and the stars.
Contact:

Post by fable »

Originally posted by HighLordDave
I would argue with fable that evangelical Christians do not spread the gospel for their own personal glory, but for the glory of God and to save the souls of heathens from enternal damnation.
Huh? When did I say that evangelicals of any religion spread their gospel for *any* personal glory? That idea has never been one I held. :confused:
To the Righteous belong the fruits of violent victory. The rest of us will have to settle for warm friends, warm lovers, and a wink from a quietly supportive universe.
User avatar
HighLordDave
Posts: 4062
Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2001 11:00 pm
Location: Between Middle-Earth and the Galaxy Far, Far Away
Contact:

Post by HighLordDave »

Originally posted by fable
Huh? When did I say that evangelicals of any religion spread their gospel for *any* personal glory? That idea has never been one I held. :confused:
That's how I interpreted you statement above, "Isn't it an act of singular merit, then, for the person who has been "reborn into the light" to lead others into it?"

I think some people believe that their status within the religion (and thus in Heaven) is based upon the numbers of people converted. For instance, one of the things about Reverend Billy Graham is that he's preached to more people than Paul did (of course, the Apostles didn't have things like world-wide stadium tours). Does this make him a better person, or more highly esteemed in the eyes of God than someone like me, who has, to my knowledge, never converted someone to Christianity in their life, and doesn't have any intentions to?

Some congregations (especially the small ones) exhort their members to bring more people into the fold because if their membership doesn't grow, they'll either die out or get absorbed by a larger congregation. Perhaps I misread your statement (that seems to be happening a lot lately; I guess I picked the wrong week to quit methamphetamines), but I also think that some religions actively use increased status and personal glory as a tool to get people to be more fervant in their proselytisation efforts.
Jesus saves! And takes half damage!

If brute force doesn't work, you're not using enough.
User avatar
Ode to a Grasshopper
Posts: 6664
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2001 10:00 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

Post by Ode to a Grasshopper »

Re: Re: Re: Re: Conversion by zeal (no spam)
Originally posted by fable


Yet in certain religions, there is only one path to truth, which in turn leads to eternal glory, etc. All other paths lead to perpetual damnation. Isn't it an act of singular merit, then, for the person who has been "reborn into the light" to lead others into it?
It's still attempting to force one's own moral beliefs onto others, which IMO is intrusive and overbearing. By all means, if someone were to seek 'salvation' in any given religion, it would be more than fair to accomodate their wishes, but to go out and attempt to make people who may well be quite happy to change to any given system of beliefs is not.
Proud SLURRite Gunner of the Rolling Thunder (TM) - Visitors WELCOME!
([size=0]Feel free to join us for a drink, play some pool or even relax in a hottub - want to learn more?[/size]

The soul must be free, whatever the cost.
User avatar
fable
Posts: 30676
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2001 12:00 pm
Location: The sun, the moon, and the stars.
Contact:

Post by fable »

Originally posted by HighLordDave


That's how I interpreted you statement above, "Isn't it an act of singular merit, then, for the person who has been "reborn into the light" to lead others into it?"
No. To restate, then, "Within their POV, aren't the evangelicals out to convert all non-believers doing something really great, since to do otherwise would show great contempt for the rest of humanity?"
To the Righteous belong the fruits of violent victory. The rest of us will have to settle for warm friends, warm lovers, and a wink from a quietly supportive universe.
Post Reply