Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What I find most ironic is that I find most who proselytize end up doing "more damage than good" for the purpose of introducing and winning people over to their religion.
For every person that they "win over" they are actively turning dozens (maybe hundreds) away from their belief for life. Thats not winning anyone over really.
Plus, many of the people won over are doing so to end the proselytizing. They have not really become followers or faithful in what is being offered to them. They are agreeing to outwardly agree to end the proselytizing.
Very wise and true words.
Food for thought.
Quote:
For every person that they "win over" they are actively turning dozens (maybe hundreds) away from their belief for life. Thats not winning anyone over really.
While they will win some converts, it is impossible to calculate how many "escaped" and spread the actual warning:
Amen!. There is very little that is more arrogant than a self-righteous proselytizer of religion . . . lest it be a self-righteous proselytizer of atheism.
Yea, it is more than proselytizing we need to feed the needy as they have to be cognizant to understand the word of God, that someone cares about them and give them some hope for a brighter future.
Yeah - "actions speak louder than words."
Paraphrasing: "I've never met a patriot (or religious person) who had an empty stomach."
Amen!. There is very little that is more arrogant than a self-righteous proselytizer of religion . . . lest it be a self-righteous proselytizer of atheism.
Why is one more arrogant than the other in your view? Simply because you agree with one and not the other and anyone who dares proselytize what you disagree with is automatically more arrogant than those who dare to proselytize what you like? Perhaps therefore your accusations of arrogance here are misplaced and should be directed at those that - given two sets of people essentially doing identical things - chooses one as being worse than the other based on nothing at all but which one they personally agree with.
I find it pretty incredible that a preacher would have to ask for a definition.
From dictionary . com: proselytize: to convert (someone) from one religious faith to another.
I think a more contemporary understanding of the word is to go out into the public and attempt to offer religion to other people without an invitation to do so. I've never heard of it being done except by Christians.
I know what the word means. But frequently, especially in my discussions with atheists and members of other religions, the word does not always get used according to the dictionary definition. It's good to make sure we all agree on what we're talking about.
It's interesting to note that your definition and Woodrow's do not match the dictionary definition.
Actually he defined it as sharing your faith when you haven't BEEN asked to ... not when you've been asked NOT to. The difference is that you don't assume a person is interested unless they object. Instead you assume they are NOT interested unless they ASK. That is a fairly important distinction and it flies in the face of some people's understanding of the Great Commission.
I've been accosted by atheists many times who want to tell me I'm wrong....whether or not I ask them to share their faith with me.
Does that include atheists who want to share their faith, too? Or put up obnoxious billboards?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.