Evangelization Vs. Proselytization

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Frankly I didn’t care enough to read every word of your exceedingly long post. I will sum up my concerns in a concise manner—are you trying to make me take time out of my day to listen to you talk about your religion? If so, stop it. Evangelizing or proselytizing, it is unwanted and will never endear your faith to me.

Sorry, but we are blessed to have basic human rights in our country.

I am not in your presence and I didn’t push your finger to click on this thread, you chose to do so. How are you being made to read this thread?

You made a choice to come to a religious forum, where people post about religion. Maybe you should not come to a religious forum if you don’t like religion., or people talking about religion.

It’s nonsensical to do so, and then claim to be victimized by “proselytizing.”

I didn't claim that you were proselytizing by posting this thread. I am explaining my feelings towards people who approach me--on the street, ringing my doorbell, etc. My point is that people who feel as I do don't care about semantics. We just don't want to be asked to take time from our day to listen to a monologue from someone who has a very certain point of view. If I want to learn more about a particular religion, I will take a class on it (and I have).

Unfortunately for you, we live in a country that cherishes religious freedom.
People who do those things are legally and morally allowed to do so.

Are you the poster that had a very extreme reaction to having their doorbell rung by religious people? I think in that thread, a thread about realtors putting flyers in people’s mailboxes about selling their homes was referenced from the real estate forum. It was rationally explained by many posters (and not religious posters) that people who have extreme anxiety and an outsized need to control society have issues they need to deal with.

We all encounter minor annoyances and opinions that counter our own. Our desire to silence other opinions because we don’t like them runs counter to everything our country was built upon. It is unnatural in America to wish to silence other citizens, and legally, not going to happen. We live in a free society.

I am not that poster and don't know the thread you are referring to. I did not say that people are not legally or morally forbidden to do these things. What I am trying to convey is that doing these things has the exact opposite effect that proselytizers/evangelists/whatever you want to call it desire. I assume that the desire is to interest other people in the given religion. However, when people accost me to tell me about their religion, rather than interest me, it engenders a negative opinion of the religion, as it's quite intrusive.

On the flip side, I find other religions, ones whose adherents do not inconvenience me, to be intriguing, and I am more likely to seek out information on those religions.

How you feel about religion and the differences between religions is your personal opinion, which is valid and fine.

However, Christians don’t try to convert you. They believe only God can change your mind and heart about religion, and change you into a Christian. As Christians, we don’t have any power to make you become a Christian or live as a Christian. I don’t think people understand that, because every post claims Christians think they can change someone into a Christian by talking to them or taking them to church. That’s not how it works.

Christians, some of us, do like to tell people about God. That’s personal testimony and sharing the Good News, and Jesus Christ instructs us to do so.

Please tell us you aren’t interested and move along with your day.

America was based upon freedom of speech, religion, the press, etc. You can’t stop people from saying things you don’t like, and lots of people will say things you don’t like. As adults, we learn that other people think differently than we do, and we go about our day. We don’t become enraged and hostile and try to make people stop thinking what they want or saying what they want. Legally, ethically, morally, people have a right to be religious in public and your right is to ignore them.

I am curious. Suppose a high quality study, from an organization you trusted came out and found that the PP’s experience is common. In other words, sharing your religious findings with strangers tends to turn off the listener rather than make them more open to learning about Christianity (or whatever your religion is). Would you still believe in personal testimony and sharing the Good News even if it were shown to drive people away?

What studies do you follow in your life and base your behavior on?

Seriously, it’s not a gotcha. I am just wondering in your world view (which I do not share so I am trying to understand), if you were convinced that sharing your religion with strangers actually makes them less likely to follow your religion, would you continue to evangelize?

I personally cannot understand why anyone in the 21st century would think that evangelizing is anything but a net negative among peers. Either you do not think so or you share to it experiences despite knowing it’s a turn off. I am trying to understand which it is.

So you don’t base your life on high quality studies? Why not?

What? I don’t understand this response. Of course I make choices based on high quality studies. Like for example lots of data that suggests that back sleeping is safer for babies. I put my son to sleep on his back even though he preferred to stomach sleep and as soon as he could flip himself over, he did so. Also my mom had put me to sleep on my stomach and she has been a source of great wisdom in many things, including parenting. But still, high quality studies directed my actions.

But that is truly not the point here. If some source you trust tells you that evangelizing turns people off from your religion, would you continue to evangelize?

Multiple high quality studies show religious people are happier, would you become religious based on those studies?

No. Because believing in God is not an action you can take. I have tried for many years and it never seemed reasonable. So I cannot believe in God even if it would improve my happiness quotient.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Easy solution: If you don't want to be criticized for your beliefs/actions, then keep your religion to yourself. And stay TF away from vulnerable people.

Shouldn’t we do that with everything, though? It’s January 2 and I’ve been inundated with weight loss and fitness ads (despite being at a healthy weight), credit card offers, etc. If I want those things, I can seek them out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Frankly I didn’t care enough to read every word of your exceedingly long post. I will sum up my concerns in a concise manner—are you trying to make me take time out of my day to listen to you talk about your religion? If so, stop it. Evangelizing or proselytizing, it is unwanted and will never endear your faith to me.

Sorry, but we are blessed to have basic human rights in our country.

I am not in your presence and I didn’t push your finger to click on this thread, you chose to do so. How are you being made to read this thread?

You made a choice to come to a religious forum, where people post about religion. Maybe you should not come to a religious forum if you don’t like religion., or people talking about religion.

It’s nonsensical to do so, and then claim to be victimized by “proselytizing.”

I didn't claim that you were proselytizing by posting this thread. I am explaining my feelings towards people who approach me--on the street, ringing my doorbell, etc. My point is that people who feel as I do don't care about semantics. We just don't want to be asked to take time from our day to listen to a monologue from someone who has a very certain point of view. If I want to learn more about a particular religion, I will take a class on it (and I have).

Unfortunately for you, we live in a country that cherishes religious freedom.
People who do those things are legally and morally allowed to do so.

Are you the poster that had a very extreme reaction to having their doorbell rung by religious people? I think in that thread, a thread about realtors putting flyers in people’s mailboxes about selling their homes was referenced from the real estate forum. It was rationally explained by many posters (and not religious posters) that people who have extreme anxiety and an outsized need to control society have issues they need to deal with.

We all encounter minor annoyances and opinions that counter our own. Our desire to silence other opinions because we don’t like them runs counter to everything our country was built upon. It is unnatural in America to wish to silence other citizens, and legally, not going to happen. We live in a free society.

I am not that poster and don't know the thread you are referring to. I did not say that people are not legally or morally forbidden to do these things. What I am trying to convey is that doing these things has the exact opposite effect that proselytizers/evangelists/whatever you want to call it desire. I assume that the desire is to interest other people in the given religion. However, when people accost me to tell me about their religion, rather than interest me, it engenders a negative opinion of the religion, as it's quite intrusive.

On the flip side, I find other religions, ones whose adherents do not inconvenience me, to be intriguing, and I am more likely to seek out information on those religions.

How you feel about religion and the differences between religions is your personal opinion, which is valid and fine.

However, Christians don’t try to convert you. They believe only God can change your mind and heart about religion, and change you into a Christian. As Christians, we don’t have any power to make you become a Christian or live as a Christian. I don’t think people understand that, because every post claims Christians think they can change someone into a Christian by talking to them or taking them to church. That’s not how it works.

Christians, some of us, do like to tell people about God. That’s personal testimony and sharing the Good News, and Jesus Christ instructs us to do so.

Please tell us you aren’t interested and move along with your day.

America was based upon freedom of speech, religion, the press, etc. You can’t stop people from saying things you don’t like, and lots of people will say things you don’t like. As adults, we learn that other people think differently than we do, and we go about our day. We don’t become enraged and hostile and try to make people stop thinking what they want or saying what they want. Legally, ethically, morally, people have a right to be religious in public and your right is to ignore them.

I am curious. Suppose a high quality study, from an organization you trusted came out and found that the PP’s experience is common. In other words, sharing your religious findings with strangers tends to turn off the listener rather than make them more open to learning about Christianity (or whatever your religion is). Would you still believe in personal testimony and sharing the Good News even if it were shown to drive people away?

What studies do you follow in your life and base your behavior on?

Seriously, it’s not a gotcha. I am just wondering in your world view (which I do not share so I am trying to understand), if you were convinced that sharing your religion with strangers actually makes them less likely to follow your religion, would you continue to evangelize?

I personally cannot understand why anyone in the 21st century would think that evangelizing is anything but a net negative among peers. Either you do not think so or you share to it experiences despite knowing it’s a turn off. I am trying to understand which it is.

So you don’t base your life on high quality studies? Why not?

What? I don’t understand this response. Of course I make choices based on high quality studies. Like for example lots of data that suggests that back sleeping is safer for babies. I put my son to sleep on his back even though he preferred to stomach sleep and as soon as he could flip himself over, he did so. Also my mom had put me to sleep on my stomach and she has been a source of great wisdom in many things, including parenting. But still, high quality studies directed my actions.

But that is truly not the point here. If some source you trust tells you that evangelizing turns people off from your religion, would you continue to evangelize?

Multiple high quality studies show religious people are happier, would you become religious based on those studies?

No. Because believing in God is not an action you can take. I have tried for many years and it never seemed reasonable. So I cannot believe in God even if it would improve my happiness quotient.

Literature dating back at least to Adam Smith and Max Weber has argued that religiosity is associated with a set of characteristics that promote economic success, including diligence, thriftiness, trust, and cooperation (lannaccone 1998; lyer 2016). More recent research has linked religiosity to positive outcomes in domains such as physical health (Ellison 1991), crime rates (Freeman 1986), drug and alcohol use (Gruber and Hungerman 2008), income (Gruber 2005), and educational attainment (Freeman 1986; Gruber 2005).

But all these high quality studies show religious belief has a multitude of beneficial effects on our lives.

Also, if belief in God is not an action someone can “take,” do you think Christians can force people to become Christian?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Easy solution: If you don't want to be criticized for your beliefs/actions, then keep your religion to yourself. And stay TF away from vulnerable people.

Shouldn’t we do that with everything, though? It’s January 2 and I’ve been inundated with weight loss and fitness ads (despite being at a healthy weight), credit card offers, etc. If I want those things, I can seek them out.

I want to know who vulnerable people are and why pp isn’t helping them out right now. She obviously wants to protect them.

What’s up pp, when you putting your skin in the game?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Easy solution: If you don't want to be criticized for your beliefs/actions, then keep your religion to yourself. And stay TF away from vulnerable people.

Shouldn’t we do that with everything, though? It’s January 2 and I’ve been inundated with weight loss and fitness ads (despite being at a healthy weight), credit card offers, etc. If I want those things, I can seek them out.

Yes, advertisers go to great lengths to sell their products. They frequently utilize unethical methods, which sounds familiar...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Frankly I didn’t care enough to read every word of your exceedingly long post. I will sum up my concerns in a concise manner—are you trying to make me take time out of my day to listen to you talk about your religion? If so, stop it. Evangelizing or proselytizing, it is unwanted and will never endear your faith to me.

Sorry, but we are blessed to have basic human rights in our country.

I am not in your presence and I didn’t push your finger to click on this thread, you chose to do so. How are you being made to read this thread?

You made a choice to come to a religious forum, where people post about religion. Maybe you should not come to a religious forum if you don’t like religion., or people talking about religion.

It’s nonsensical to do so, and then claim to be victimized by “proselytizing.”

I didn't claim that you were proselytizing by posting this thread. I am explaining my feelings towards people who approach me--on the street, ringing my doorbell, etc. My point is that people who feel as I do don't care about semantics. We just don't want to be asked to take time from our day to listen to a monologue from someone who has a very certain point of view. If I want to learn more about a particular religion, I will take a class on it (and I have).

Unfortunately for you, we live in a country that cherishes religious freedom.
People who do those things are legally and morally allowed to do so.

Are you the poster that had a very extreme reaction to having their doorbell rung by religious people? I think in that thread, a thread about realtors putting flyers in people’s mailboxes about selling their homes was referenced from the real estate forum. It was rationally explained by many posters (and not religious posters) that people who have extreme anxiety and an outsized need to control society have issues they need to deal with.

We all encounter minor annoyances and opinions that counter our own. Our desire to silence other opinions because we don’t like them runs counter to everything our country was built upon. It is unnatural in America to wish to silence other citizens, and legally, not going to happen. We live in a free society.

I am not that poster and don't know the thread you are referring to. I did not say that people are not legally or morally forbidden to do these things. What I am trying to convey is that doing these things has the exact opposite effect that proselytizers/evangelists/whatever you want to call it desire. I assume that the desire is to interest other people in the given religion. However, when people accost me to tell me about their religion, rather than interest me, it engenders a negative opinion of the religion, as it's quite intrusive.

On the flip side, I find other religions, ones whose adherents do not inconvenience me, to be intriguing, and I am more likely to seek out information on those religions.

How you feel about religion and the differences between religions is your personal opinion, which is valid and fine.

However, Christians don’t try to convert you. They believe only God can change your mind and heart about religion, and change you into a Christian. As Christians, we don’t have any power to make you become a Christian or live as a Christian. I don’t think people understand that, because every post claims Christians think they can change someone into a Christian by talking to them or taking them to church. That’s not how it works.

Christians, some of us, do like to tell people about God. That’s personal testimony and sharing the Good News, and Jesus Christ instructs us to do so.

Please tell us you aren’t interested and move along with your day.

America was based upon freedom of speech, religion, the press, etc. You can’t stop people from saying things you don’t like, and lots of people will say things you don’t like. As adults, we learn that other people think differently than we do, and we go about our day. We don’t become enraged and hostile and try to make people stop thinking what they want or saying what they want. Legally, ethically, morally, people have a right to be religious in public and your right is to ignore them.

I am curious. Suppose a high quality study, from an organization you trusted came out and found that the PP’s experience is common. In other words, sharing your religious findings with strangers tends to turn off the listener rather than make them more open to learning about Christianity (or whatever your religion is). Would you still believe in personal testimony and sharing the Good News even if it were shown to drive people away?

What studies do you follow in your life and base your behavior on?

Seriously, it’s not a gotcha. I am just wondering in your world view (which I do not share so I am trying to understand), if you were convinced that sharing your religion with strangers actually makes them less likely to follow your religion, would you continue to evangelize?

I personally cannot understand why anyone in the 21st century would think that evangelizing is anything but a net negative among peers. Either you do not think so or you share to it experiences despite knowing it’s a turn off. I am trying to understand which it is.

So you don’t base your life on high quality studies? Why not?

What? I don’t understand this response. Of course I make choices based on high quality studies. Like for example lots of data that suggests that back sleeping is safer for babies. I put my son to sleep on his back even though he preferred to stomach sleep and as soon as he could flip himself over, he did so. Also my mom had put me to sleep on my stomach and she has been a source of great wisdom in many things, including parenting. But still, high quality studies directed my actions.

But that is truly not the point here. If some source you trust tells you that evangelizing turns people off from your religion, would you continue to evangelize?

Multiple high quality studies show religious people are happier, would you become religious based on those studies?

No. Because believing in God is not an action you can take. I have tried for many years and it never seemed reasonable. So I cannot believe in God even if it would improve my happiness quotient.

Literature dating back at least to Adam Smith and Max Weber has argued that religiosity is associated with a set of characteristics that promote economic success, including diligence, thriftiness, trust, and cooperation (lannaccone 1998; lyer 2016). More recent research has linked religiosity to positive outcomes in domains such as physical health (Ellison 1991), crime rates (Freeman 1986), drug and alcohol use (Gruber and Hungerman 2008), income (Gruber 2005), and educational attainment (Freeman 1986; Gruber 2005).

But all these high quality studies show religious belief has a multitude of beneficial effects on our lives.

Also, if belief in God is not an action someone can “take,” do you think Christians can force people to become Christian?

Believing in God takes “belief” - something I do not possess. Regardless of how much happier I would be if I believed, I cannot do it. It would certainly make my life easier if I could believe. It would make extended family time so much more palatable.

Nobody in this thread or any other said that people are forced to believe. This is a straw man you have come up based on your own definitions if proselytizing. People have said that if there is an inequality or a perceived quid pro quo for missionary work, then it can be exploitive. People have also made the argument that the SC or legislatures finding ways to codify their own religious beliefs is pushing religion into their constituents. You have gone off on some weird tangents.

But you have avoided the question in this subthread. If you knew that evangelizing were going to push people away from your religion, would you continue to do it since it is your right and you are instructed to do so by your scripture?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP seems unfamiliar with the general definitions that are widely used, including on DCUM.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/proselytize
intransitive verb
1: to induce someone to convert to one's faith
2: to recruit someone to join one's party, institution, or cause
transitive verb
: to recruit or convert especially to a new faith, institution, or cause

https://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/evangelize
transitive verb
1: to preach the gospel to
2: to convert to Christianity
intransitive verb
: to preach the gospel

Mormons systematically proselytize
https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2021/05/19/mormon-land-ever-evolving/
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/19/magazine/how-to-proselytize.html

If people weren't "proselytizing" then people all over the world wouldn't be concerned about it
https://apnews.com/article/israel-netanyahu-christians-evangelicals-proselytizing-217563437f499aec3d865e2f009ddac9
https://www.ncronline.org/news/evangelicals-vatican-reach-accord-proselytizing
https://www.brigada.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/OSAC-Proselytizing-Report-Country-List.pdf

OP, you should expand your vocabulary.

The meaning of the word proselytism has changed over time. The Greek Septuagint translation of the Old Testament passed the word ‘proselyte’ into modern languages with a neutral meaning. It simply meant a convert, someone who changed his or her opinion or religion. And, proselytism meant the attempt to persuade someone to make such a change. But, today proselytism is almost universally seen as a sinister activity when it comes to religious beliefs.

The use of coercion of any kind today described as proselytism is always wrong and to be condemned.

Proselytizing takes many forms, some of which are unethical, such as coercion or trying to convert vulnerable people.

And proselytizing is condemned by Christians. When have you been forced to believe, accept, or listen to a Christian talk about their faith?

NP.

Uh, by most politicians in the United States? We've also been forced to have their faith pushed on us, despite our own beliefs and traditions.

What beliefs and traditions are you referring to?

I'm referring to abortion. Most Muslims and Jews don't have such strict ideas about abortion, as Christians do -- yet we're subject to being forced to have conservative Christian ideas being forced on us and our bodily choices. This is a fact, and I don't know how you can pretend to be so naive that the anti-abortion trend isn't being driven by Christian proselytizing.

Abortion is your religious belief and tradition?

It's in within my beliefs, yes. In Islam for example, it's stated that God breathes a soul into a fetus at 120 days. That's the belief. Before that, a fetus does not have a soul, and abortion is considered acceptable by many Muslims.

Clearly you don't know a lot about other religions. Perhaps you should consider that what you don't consider proselytizing and evangelizing, is actually extremely forceful on the beliefs of others outside of your particular ideological subset.

You want the government of the United States to make abortion policy on your belief that God doesn’t breathe a soul into an unborn baby until he or she is 120 days old?

I'm not sure how this is difficult for you to comprehend.

I want the government of the United States to allow people to make decisions for themselves, in the name of religious freedom. Don't want an abortion because you faith says it's murder? Cool. Want to get one because you faith allows for that wiggle room? Cool. To each their own.

No one is forcing anyone to get an abortion. But there are laws that ARE preventing Americans from exercising their own religious freedoms to get an abortion.

The Quran – the Islamic holy book – indicate that a fetus is not a “life” until the soul is breathed into it; that does not happen at conception, but at some later time.

Jonathan C Brown, a professor of Islamic civilisation at Georgetown University in Washington, DC, said, “The process of a life being created extends from 40 days to 120 days, when ensoulment occurs.”

So do you believe the baby isn’t alive until 120 days after conception?

Cool copy/paste from your google search.

It doesn't matter what I believe. What matters is religious freedom. And your denial that Christians don't proselytize is utter BS - you know it, and I know it. Religious minorities (and people who are not religious) have conservative Christianity forced on them constantly. This is a fact in America.

Do you believe the unborn baby isn’t alive until God breathes a soul into his or her body at 120 days?

It does matter what you believe.

We know an unborn baby is alive from conception. It’s scientifically confirmed that a baby is alive from conception.

If you believe a baby isn’t alive from conception, that’s scientifically incorrect. Babies are alive and growing before 120 days.

Babies are alive from conception.

If you want to discuss it scientifically at least use scientific terms. The “fetus” is “alive” from conception. The fetus, which is worshipped by religious extremists.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP seems unfamiliar with the general definitions that are widely used, including on DCUM.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/proselytize
intransitive verb
1: to induce someone to convert to one's faith
2: to recruit someone to join one's party, institution, or cause
transitive verb
: to recruit or convert especially to a new faith, institution, or cause

https://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/evangelize
transitive verb
1: to preach the gospel to
2: to convert to Christianity
intransitive verb
: to preach the gospel

Mormons systematically proselytize
https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2021/05/19/mormon-land-ever-evolving/
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/19/magazine/how-to-proselytize.html

If people weren't "proselytizing" then people all over the world wouldn't be concerned about it
https://apnews.com/article/israel-netanyahu-christians-evangelicals-proselytizing-217563437f499aec3d865e2f009ddac9
https://www.ncronline.org/news/evangelicals-vatican-reach-accord-proselytizing
https://www.brigada.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/OSAC-Proselytizing-Report-Country-List.pdf

OP, you should expand your vocabulary.

The meaning of the word proselytism has changed over time. The Greek Septuagint translation of the Old Testament passed the word ‘proselyte’ into modern languages with a neutral meaning. It simply meant a convert, someone who changed his or her opinion or religion. And, proselytism meant the attempt to persuade someone to make such a change. But, today proselytism is almost universally seen as a sinister activity when it comes to religious beliefs.

The use of coercion of any kind today described as proselytism is always wrong and to be condemned.

Proselytizing takes many forms, some of which are unethical, such as coercion or trying to convert vulnerable people.

And proselytizing is condemned by Christians. When have you been forced to believe, accept, or listen to a Christian talk about their faith?

NP.

Uh, by most politicians in the United States? We've also been forced to have their faith pushed on us, despite our own beliefs and traditions.

What beliefs and traditions are you referring to?

I'm referring to abortion. Most Muslims and Jews don't have such strict ideas about abortion, as Christians do -- yet we're subject to being forced to have conservative Christian ideas being forced on us and our bodily choices. This is a fact, and I don't know how you can pretend to be so naive that the anti-abortion trend isn't being driven by Christian proselytizing.

Abortion is your religious belief and tradition?

It's in within my beliefs, yes. In Islam for example, it's stated that God breathes a soul into a fetus at 120 days. That's the belief. Before that, a fetus does not have a soul, and abortion is considered acceptable by many Muslims.

Clearly you don't know a lot about other religions. Perhaps you should consider that what you don't consider proselytizing and evangelizing, is actually extremely forceful on the beliefs of others outside of your particular ideological subset.

You want the government of the United States to make abortion policy on your belief that God doesn’t breathe a soul into an unborn baby until he or she is 120 days old?

I'm not sure how this is difficult for you to comprehend.

I want the government of the United States to allow people to make decisions for themselves, in the name of religious freedom. Don't want an abortion because you faith says it's murder? Cool. Want to get one because you faith allows for that wiggle room? Cool. To each their own.

No one is forcing anyone to get an abortion. But there are laws that ARE preventing Americans from exercising their own religious freedoms to get an abortion.

The Quran – the Islamic holy book – indicate that a fetus is not a “life” until the soul is breathed into it; that does not happen at conception, but at some later time.

Jonathan C Brown, a professor of Islamic civilisation at Georgetown University in Washington, DC, said, “The process of a life being created extends from 40 days to 120 days, when ensoulment occurs.”

So do you believe the baby isn’t alive until 120 days after conception?

Cool copy/paste from your google search.

It doesn't matter what I believe. What matters is religious freedom. And your denial that Christians don't proselytize is utter BS - you know it, and I know it. Religious minorities (and people who are not religious) have conservative Christianity forced on them constantly. This is a fact in America.

Do you believe the unborn baby isn’t alive until God breathes a soul into his or her body at 120 days?

It does matter what you believe.

We know an unborn baby is alive from conception. It’s scientifically confirmed that a baby is alive from conception.

If you believe a baby isn’t alive from conception, that’s scientifically incorrect. Babies are alive and growing before 120 days.

Babies are alive from conception.

If you want to discuss it scientifically at least use scientific terms. The “fetus” is “alive” from conception. The fetus, which is worshipped by religious extremists.

https://www.babycenter.com/pregnancy/your-baby/fetal-development-week-by-week_10406730

At the end of the 8th week after fertilization (10 weeks of pregnancy), the embryo is considered a fetus.

(You are a real expert, jumping in to give us the correct terminology, except you are wrong.)

[img]

[/img] >[img]

[/img] [img]

Christians don’t worship other people, or themselves, or unborn babies, they worship God.

Not all Christians are pro-life. The Christians who are pro-life believe the unborn baby should at least be given the same protection as their mothers are given.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP seems unfamiliar with the general definitions that are widely used, including on DCUM.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/proselytize
intransitive verb
1: to induce someone to convert to one's faith
2: to recruit someone to join one's party, institution, or cause
transitive verb
: to recruit or convert especially to a new faith, institution, or cause

https://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/evangelize
transitive verb
1: to preach the gospel to
2: to convert to Christianity
intransitive verb
: to preach the gospel

Mormons systematically proselytize
https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2021/05/19/mormon-land-ever-evolving/
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/19/magazine/how-to-proselytize.html

If people weren't "proselytizing" then people all over the world wouldn't be concerned about it
https://apnews.com/article/israel-netanyahu-christians-evangelicals-proselytizing-217563437f499aec3d865e2f009ddac9
https://www.ncronline.org/news/evangelicals-vatican-reach-accord-proselytizing
https://www.brigada.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/OSAC-Proselytizing-Report-Country-List.pdf

OP, you should expand your vocabulary.

The meaning of the word proselytism has changed over time. The Greek Septuagint translation of the Old Testament passed the word ‘proselyte’ into modern languages with a neutral meaning. It simply meant a convert, someone who changed his or her opinion or religion. And, proselytism meant the attempt to persuade someone to make such a change. But, today proselytism is almost universally seen as a sinister activity when it comes to religious beliefs.

The use of coercion of any kind today described as proselytism is always wrong and to be condemned.

Proselytizing takes many forms, some of which are unethical, such as coercion or trying to convert vulnerable people.

And proselytizing is condemned by Christians. When have you been forced to believe, accept, or listen to a Christian talk about their faith?

NP.

Uh, by most politicians in the United States? We've also been forced to have their faith pushed on us, despite our own beliefs and traditions.

What beliefs and traditions are you referring to?

I'm referring to abortion. Most Muslims and Jews don't have such strict ideas about abortion, as Christians do -- yet we're subject to being forced to have conservative Christian ideas being forced on us and our bodily choices. This is a fact, and I don't know how you can pretend to be so naive that the anti-abortion trend isn't being driven by Christian proselytizing.

Abortion is your religious belief and tradition?

It's in within my beliefs, yes. In Islam for example, it's stated that God breathes a soul into a fetus at 120 days. That's the belief. Before that, a fetus does not have a soul, and abortion is considered acceptable by many Muslims.

Clearly you don't know a lot about other religions. Perhaps you should consider that what you don't consider proselytizing and evangelizing, is actually extremely forceful on the beliefs of others outside of your particular ideological subset.

You want the government of the United States to make abortion policy on your belief that God doesn’t breathe a soul into an unborn baby until he or she is 120 days old?

I'm not sure how this is difficult for you to comprehend.

I want the government of the United States to allow people to make decisions for themselves, in the name of religious freedom. Don't want an abortion because you faith says it's murder? Cool. Want to get one because you faith allows for that wiggle room? Cool. To each their own.

No one is forcing anyone to get an abortion. But there are laws that ARE preventing Americans from exercising their own religious freedoms to get an abortion.

The Quran – the Islamic holy book – indicate that a fetus is not a “life” until the soul is breathed into it; that does not happen at conception, but at some later time.

Jonathan C Brown, a professor of Islamic civilisation at Georgetown University in Washington, DC, said, “The process of a life being created extends from 40 days to 120 days, when ensoulment occurs.”

So do you believe the baby isn’t alive until 120 days after conception?

Cool copy/paste from your google search.

It doesn't matter what I believe. What matters is religious freedom. And your denial that Christians don't proselytize is utter BS - you know it, and I know it. Religious minorities (and people who are not religious) have conservative Christianity forced on them constantly. This is a fact in America.

Do you believe the unborn baby isn’t alive until God breathes a soul into his or her body at 120 days?

It does matter what you believe.

We know an unborn baby is alive from conception. It’s scientifically confirmed that a baby is alive from conception.

If you believe a baby isn’t alive from conception, that’s scientifically incorrect. Babies are alive and growing before 120 days.

Babies are alive from conception.

If you want to discuss it scientifically at least use scientific terms. The “fetus” is “alive” from conception. The fetus, which is worshipped by religious extremists.

https://www.babycenter.com/pregnancy/your-baby/fetal-development-week-by-week_10406730

At the end of the 8th week after fertilization (10 weeks of pregnancy), the embryo is considered a fetus.

(You are a real expert, jumping in to give us the correct terminology, except you are wrong.)

[img]

[/img] >[img]

[/img] [img]

Christians don’t worship other people, or themselves, or unborn babies, they worship God.

Not all Christians are pro-life. The Christians who are pro-life believe the unborn baby should at least be given the same protection as their mothers are given.

Pro-life weirdos absolutely do worship embryos/fetuses and are even willing to sacrifice women’s lives for them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Frankly I didn’t care enough to read every word of your exceedingly long post. I will sum up my concerns in a concise manner—are you trying to make me take time out of my day to listen to you talk about your religion? If so, stop it. Evangelizing or proselytizing, it is unwanted and will never endear your faith to me.

Sorry, but we are blessed to have basic human rights in our country.

I am not in your presence and I didn’t push your finger to click on this thread, you chose to do so. How are you being made to read this thread?

You made a choice to come to a religious forum, where people post about religion. Maybe you should not come to a religious forum if you don’t like religion., or people talking about religion.

It’s nonsensical to do so, and then claim to be victimized by “proselytizing.”

I didn't claim that you were proselytizing by posting this thread. I am explaining my feelings towards people who approach me--on the street, ringing my doorbell, etc. My point is that people who feel as I do don't care about semantics. We just don't want to be asked to take time from our day to listen to a monologue from someone who has a very certain point of view. If I want to learn more about a particular religion, I will take a class on it (and I have).

Unfortunately for you, we live in a country that cherishes religious freedom.
People who do those things are legally and morally allowed to do so.

Are you the poster that had a very extreme reaction to having their doorbell rung by religious people? I think in that thread, a thread about realtors putting flyers in people’s mailboxes about selling their homes was referenced from the real estate forum. It was rationally explained by many posters (and not religious posters) that people who have extreme anxiety and an outsized need to control society have issues they need to deal with.

We all encounter minor annoyances and opinions that counter our own. Our desire to silence other opinions because we don’t like them runs counter to everything our country was built upon. It is unnatural in America to wish to silence other citizens, and legally, not going to happen. We live in a free society.

I am not that poster and don't know the thread you are referring to. I did not say that people are not legally or morally forbidden to do these things. What I am trying to convey is that doing these things has the exact opposite effect that proselytizers/evangelists/whatever you want to call it desire. I assume that the desire is to interest other people in the given religion. However, when people accost me to tell me about their religion, rather than interest me, it engenders a negative opinion of the religion, as it's quite intrusive.

On the flip side, I find other religions, ones whose adherents do not inconvenience me, to be intriguing, and I am more likely to seek out information on those religions.

How you feel about religion and the differences between religions is your personal opinion, which is valid and fine.

However, Christians don’t try to convert you. They believe only God can change your mind and heart about religion, and change you into a Christian. As Christians, we don’t have any power to make you become a Christian or live as a Christian. I don’t think people understand that, because every post claims Christians think they can change someone into a Christian by talking to them or taking them to church. That’s not how it works.

Christians, some of us, do like to tell people about God. That’s personal testimony and sharing the Good News, and Jesus Christ instructs us to do so.

Please tell us you aren’t interested and move along with your day.

America was based upon freedom of speech, religion, the press, etc. You can’t stop people from saying things you don’t like, and lots of people will say things you don’t like. As adults, we learn that other people think differently than we do, and we go about our day. We don’t become enraged and hostile and try to make people stop thinking what they want or saying what they want. Legally, ethically, morally, people have a right to be religious in public and your right is to ignore them.

I am curious. Suppose a high quality study, from an organization you trusted came out and found that the PP’s experience is common. In other words, sharing your religious findings with strangers tends to turn off the listener rather than make them more open to learning about Christianity (or whatever your religion is). Would you still believe in personal testimony and sharing the Good News even if it were shown to drive people away?

What studies do you follow in your life and base your behavior on?

Seriously, it’s not a gotcha. I am just wondering in your world view (which I do not share so I am trying to understand), if you were convinced that sharing your religion with strangers actually makes them less likely to follow your religion, would you continue to evangelize?

I personally cannot understand why anyone in the 21st century would think that evangelizing is anything but a net negative among peers. Either you do not think so or you share to it experiences despite knowing it’s a turn off. I am trying to understand which it is.

So you don’t base your life on high quality studies? Why not?

What? I don’t understand this response. Of course I make choices based on high quality studies. Like for example lots of data that suggests that back sleeping is safer for babies. I put my son to sleep on his back even though he preferred to stomach sleep and as soon as he could flip himself over, he did so. Also my mom had put me to sleep on my stomach and she has been a source of great wisdom in many things, including parenting. But still, high quality studies directed my actions.

But that is truly not the point here. If some source you trust tells you that evangelizing turns people off from your religion, would you continue to evangelize?

Multiple high quality studies show religious people are happier, would you become religious based on those studies?

No. Because believing in God is not an action you can take. I have tried for many years and it never seemed reasonable. So I cannot believe in God even if it would improve my happiness quotient.

Literature dating back at least to Adam Smith and Max Weber has argued that religiosity is associated with a set of characteristics that promote economic success, including diligence, thriftiness, trust, and cooperation (lannaccone 1998; lyer 2016). More recent research has linked religiosity to positive outcomes in domains such as physical health (Ellison 1991), crime rates (Freeman 1986), drug and alcohol use (Gruber and Hungerman 2008), income (Gruber 2005), and educational attainment (Freeman 1986; Gruber 2005).

But all these high quality studies show religious belief has a multitude of beneficial effects on our lives.

Also, if belief in God is not an action someone can “take,” do you think Christians can force people to become Christian?

Believing in God takes “belief” - something I do not possess. Regardless of how much happier I would be if I believed, I cannot do it. It would certainly make my life easier if I could believe. It would make extended family time so much more palatable.

Nobody in this thread or any other said that people are forced to believe. This is a straw man you have come up based on your own definitions if proselytizing. People have said that if there is an inequality or a perceived quid pro quo for missionary work, then it can be exploitive. People have also made the argument that the SC or legislatures finding ways to codify their own religious beliefs is pushing religion into their constituents. You have gone off on some weird tangents.

But you have avoided the question in this subthread. If you knew that evangelizing were going to push people away from your religion, would you continue to do it since it is your right and you are instructed to do so by your scripture?

Exactly. PP didn’t seem capable of an honest exchange and instead choses to push an inaccurate definition and a strawman about the use of force. If PP were being honest it’d be a very different discussion.

[Anonymous]

This is actually kind of hilarious, but the PP who posted all the garbage "quotes" about how life begins at conception is just a website "40 quotes from medical experts that prove human life starts at conception" None of which actually "prove" this, and many I cant even find actual quotes from, only the repeated spiel of this website "liveaction.org" citing some "science" from 1974! Are you joking bud?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Frankly I didn’t care enough to read every word of your exceedingly long post. I will sum up my concerns in a concise manner—are you trying to make me take time out of my day to listen to you talk about your religion? If so, stop it. Evangelizing or proselytizing, it is unwanted and will never endear your faith to me.

Sorry, but we are blessed to have basic human rights in our country.

I am not in your presence and I didn’t push your finger to click on this thread, you chose to do so. How are you being made to read this thread?

You made a choice to come to a religious forum, where people post about religion. Maybe you should not come to a religious forum if you don’t like religion., or people talking about religion.

It’s nonsensical to do so, and then claim to be victimized by “proselytizing.”

I didn't claim that you were proselytizing by posting this thread. I am explaining my feelings towards people who approach me--on the street, ringing my doorbell, etc. My point is that people who feel as I do don't care about semantics. We just don't want to be asked to take time from our day to listen to a monologue from someone who has a very certain point of view. If I want to learn more about a particular religion, I will take a class on it (and I have).

Unfortunately for you, we live in a country that cherishes religious freedom.
People who do those things are legally and morally allowed to do so.

Are you the poster that had a very extreme reaction to having their doorbell rung by religious people? I think in that thread, a thread about realtors putting flyers in people’s mailboxes about selling their homes was referenced from the real estate forum. It was rationally explained by many posters (and not religious posters) that people who have extreme anxiety and an outsized need to control society have issues they need to deal with.

We all encounter minor annoyances and opinions that counter our own. Our desire to silence other opinions because we don’t like them runs counter to everything our country was built upon. It is unnatural in America to wish to silence other citizens, and legally, not going to happen. We live in a free society.

I am not that poster and don't know the thread you are referring to. I did not say that people are not legally or morally forbidden to do these things. What I am trying to convey is that doing these things has the exact opposite effect that proselytizers/evangelists/whatever you want to call it desire. I assume that the desire is to interest other people in the given religion. However, when people accost me to tell me about their religion, rather than interest me, it engenders a negative opinion of the religion, as it's quite intrusive.

On the flip side, I find other religions, ones whose adherents do not inconvenience me, to be intriguing, and I am more likely to seek out information on those religions.

How you feel about religion and the differences between religions is your personal opinion, which is valid and fine.

However, Christians don’t try to convert you. They believe only God can change your mind and heart about religion, and change you into a Christian. As Christians, we don’t have any power to make you become a Christian or live as a Christian. I don’t think people understand that, because every post claims Christians think they can change someone into a Christian by talking to them or taking them to church. That’s not how it works.

Christians, some of us, do like to tell people about God. That’s personal testimony and sharing the Good News, and Jesus Christ instructs us to do so.

Please tell us you aren’t interested and move along with your day.

America was based upon freedom of speech, religion, the press, etc. You can’t stop people from saying things you don’t like, and lots of people will say things you don’t like. As adults, we learn that other people think differently than we do, and we go about our day. We don’t become enraged and hostile and try to make people stop thinking what they want or saying what they want. Legally, ethically, morally, people have a right to be religious in public and your right is to ignore them.

I am curious. Suppose a high quality study, from an organization you trusted came out and found that the PP’s experience is common. In other words, sharing your religious findings with strangers tends to turn off the listener rather than make them more open to learning about Christianity (or whatever your religion is). Would you still believe in personal testimony and sharing the Good News even if it were shown to drive people away?

What studies do you follow in your life and base your behavior on?

Seriously, it’s not a gotcha. I am just wondering in your world view (which I do not share so I am trying to understand), if you were convinced that sharing your religion with strangers actually makes them less likely to follow your religion, would you continue to evangelize?

I personally cannot understand why anyone in the 21st century would think that evangelizing is anything but a net negative among peers. Either you do not think so or you share to it experiences despite knowing it’s a turn off. I am trying to understand which it is.

So you don’t base your life on high quality studies? Why not?

What? I don’t understand this response. Of course I make choices based on high quality studies. Like for example lots of data that suggests that back sleeping is safer for babies. I put my son to sleep on his back even though he preferred to stomach sleep and as soon as he could flip himself over, he did so. Also my mom had put me to sleep on my stomach and she has been a source of great wisdom in many things, including parenting. But still, high quality studies directed my actions.

But that is truly not the point here. If some source you trust tells you that evangelizing turns people off from your religion, would you continue to evangelize?

Multiple high quality studies show religious people are happier, would you become religious based on those studies?

"Ignorance is bliss"
Im sure its not just a quote for no reason. Doesnt mean I want to follow it.

[Anonymous]

So we're all in agreement then, there's really no difference?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So we're all in agreement then, there's really no difference?

Pretty much. And OP has no idea what either word means.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So we're all in agreement then, there's really no difference?

Intellectually dishonest poster rides again.

“So we all agree blah blah blah?”

No, we don’t all agree.