A bully in nanny's clothing

Do you also find joy in stealing?

Mr. Reynolds,
You wrote:"we both have been given the right by our American (and overwhelmingly Christian) fathers and mothers to have this disagreement."

Your attempt to credit Christianity with the religious freedom we enjoy in America is incorrect.
Many founders and pilgrims were running away from the oppressive and intolerant tendencies of Christians in Europe to the new land. In addition, the Founding fathers were acutely aware of this same political and oppressive tendency of Christianity when they wrote the Bill of Rights. I don't think they were worried about Buddhists or Hindus getting on ships and going to far away lands to satisfy a strange urge to spread the word by any means necessary.
Contrast this with the role of the Pope during the Inquisition, the settling of the Americas, the Holocaust, the child molestations in Boston, Ireland, etc. and even today, the behavior of the current Pope's brother, Mr. Rathzinger. Do you a disturbing tendency? There is an ability to harm others (violence) while remaining self-righteous which is unique to Christianity & Islam.

As an American, I appreciate our freedoms thanks to secular political ideals.
As a scientist, I appreciate rationality and objective analysis.
As someone who has studied other spiritual traditions and history, I appreciate the uniquely tolerant philosophy and attitudes of Hindus and Bhuddhists.
For 2000 years, Christians have lived in India among Hindus trying to proselytize, often in an offensive and violent manner. Read about the Dutch in Goa and the British Missionaries during the last 200 years. It would be interesting to see some objective facts to substantiate your claim of Christians being slaughtered "in the name of Hinduism". Such claims are often made by Christians and usually turn out to be wrong or unrelated to Hinduism. This is similar to the "desecration of the Koran" claims often made by muslims to incite and emotional reaction.
Besides, the number of Hindus killed by the small number of Christians in India has far outnumbered the Christians killed. Over the last 2,500 years Buddhists, Jains, Jews, Christians, Sikhs, Zoroastrians, and Muslims have found refuge among the Hindus. Even the Dalai Lama was denied sanctuary by Christian nations in 1959, but found a home among the impoverished but principled Hindus.

The historical record of tolerance is indisputably and overwhelmingly in favor of Hindus and Buddhists versus Christians or Muslims for 2000 straight years. This is the wrong place for you to go in this conversation on proselytization.
Again, proselytization is unique to Christians and Muslims and a source of conflict and violence.

Daniel,

Whenever I share my faith, I am open to being wrong. That is part of the joy of proselytizing. I might learn something!

John Mark

JMR
If your claim is true that you find other people's beliefs to be fascinating, even though you consider them to be false, then I would not consider your discussion with them to be the same as proselytizing. A characteristic of proselytizing is the dismisal, on principle, of the beliefs of others, to be superceded by ones own. Only you can be the judge of your own conduct, and if you are alienating people or not, and only you can care about your own reputation.

Ralegesan,

Your data might be a bit outdated about missions. Korea is a major player in global missions and it is hard to think of the Koreans as major colonizers.

John Mark

Daniel says:

"When in fact, neither represents truth; both are speculative in nature, which is different than ordinary truth and plain truth; religion is not ordinary and plain truth."

I say:

Religions claims (in propositional form) are (or should be) subject to normal tests for truth.

I think the opposing religious claims are false. We can have a cordial discussion.

You might think such discussions must lead no place. I have found them fascinating, clarifying, and helpful. Many find them persuasive and so convert to Christianity which is growing rapidly globally.

Other faiths are also growing and so things will shake out in the (hopefully) free market place of ideas.

John Mark

The fact that you believe that your religion represents truth is its flaw. This flaw is pointed out by your opponent who believe that his religion represents truth.

When in fact, neither represents truth; both are speculative in nature, which is different than ordinary truth and plain truth; religion is not ordinary and plain truth.

Asserting that you have the truth is irritating to someone who believes just as firmly that he has a different truth, and it is irritating to people like me who do not recognize any kind of ordinary truth in religious speculation.

Promoting the truth of your religion only makes sense if you are engaged in a conversation with someone who is genuinely and sincerly interested in finding out about your beliefs, or if you think you may be helping someone in distress, who may need help and who has not help. If your goal is to irriate people, then go right ahead, but do not act like you are a harmless fellow while doing it.

Murder does not compare to proselytizing. Pointing out the bad religious practices of other religions does not justify our own bad practices.

Some good questions to ask oneself are:
what is truth?
what is knowledge?
what is belief?

But, of course, a person who confuses speculaation or even faith with truth is not going to be very interested in asking these kinds of questions; such a person just lurches on past these very important questions with never a care about good manners, respect, or tolerance.

Having good manners, respect, and tolerance does not mean that you are obligated to belief what other people believe and it does not mean that you must believe that there are no diffences.

Good manners, respect, and tolerance mean, very siimply, good manners, respect, and tolerance.

There are no "yes but"'s ... to it. It is not complicated at all.

It is perfectly fine to share one's religious values to people of other faiths as long as it doesn't fall into borderline nuisance. Most of the conversion in asia and africa are being done by people that had previously colonized and looted their wealth. Naturally, there is suspicion of intention. Not that the native faiths in africa or asia are not good enough to defend their faith. The people practicing native faiths in the poor countries do not have the wherewithal to protect their folks/faith against well-endowed missionaries.

Where people accept a faith other than their own, voluntarily and for spiritual reasons alone, is perfectly fine.

A student of mine just returned from visiting a village where Christians were slaughtered in the name of Hinduism.

Nobody has a monopoly on misreading texts and acting badly.

An exclusive claim to truth isn't irrational per se . . . if it allows that other points of view may contain truths.

The Christian claim is NOT that other religions are totally false . . .but that Christianity is as true as anything we know.

We can come to this conclusion (like all human decisions) tentatively, but come to a conclusion we must.

The question is: is it?

The answer, as best I can see, is: "yes."

I may not like this (I did not at one period of my life), but it need not be irrational to come to this conclusion.

Your mileage may vary, but (hurrah!) we both have been given the right by our American (and overwhelmingly Christian) fathers and mothers to have this disagreement.

The main source of the need to "share" or proselytize is the feeling unique to Christians and Muslims that they have the only right answer, right prophet, right book, right truth, or right way.

Isn't this fundamentally irrational?

Contrast this with the Rig Veda, the oldest spiritual text in the world and the basis of Hinduism and secondarily Buddhism.
Rig Veda: "Truth is One, but sages call it by various names".
This attitude towards Truth seems much more rational, decent, & tolerant. No claims of monopoly of the Truth or God; no supremacism or exclusion. No need for proselytization, violence, or conflict.

I think that in the Christian practice of witnessing, there is such a thing as appropriate setting, good manners, and toleration for other views. To me it is very clear. I have absolutely no difficulty in knowing what is proper or improper. Many, many Christians also seem to know what is proper and what is improper.

But many do not. They are ones who cause the big stink about Christianity, and give all Christians a bad name. And if you seek to point it out to them, they can get pretty offensive, even defiant, saying that they are not in a popularity contest, that firemen do not practice good manners when rescuing someone from a burning building. But, I'm sorry to inform the uninformed, that converting an infidel to Christianity cannot compare to rescuing a person from a burning building.

I think that the principle is plain, simple, and clear; there is not a lot to say on it. When you are a pain in the butt and people want to run the other way when they see you coming, then you are a proselytizer.

Proselytizers are the bullies, not the victims. I get a little tired of all the bullies of the world feeling picked on when the fact of their bullying is pointed out to them, and they are asked to stop.

I was asked:
"Are you saying that your overtly benign description of a gentle "suggestion" about Christians being more "rational" in any way corresponds to the reality of proselytization today or in the past, anywhere?"

Well, yes. I am a Christian. I wish you were one. I am therefore witnessing to you . . . and so far as I know this fits the definition of "reality."

My University has a school of inter-cultural studies that is a global leader in this area and I have spent some time talking to leaders there. They agree that being gentle and open is good and so I do think my view of it fits at least one aspect of reality.

Are there bad missionaries? Yes. Have there been bad missionaries? Yes.

Generalizations that say all such folk are bad are silly.

Mr. Reynolds,
You wrote: "So when I suggest to you that it would be more rational to be a Christian.."

Are you saying that your overtly benign description of a gentle "suggestion" about Christians being more "rational" in any way corresponds to the reality of proselytization today or in the past, anywhere?

May I suggest to you that your statement is an excellent example of deception (trying to change the definition of proselytization to sound more benign) and supremacist views inherent in Christianity and Islam ("more rational"). This combination of deception and supremacism is often seen among missionaries.

Have you honestly studied the foundation of Bhuddhism and Hinduism (Vedanta)? You will see a much more rational approach to spirituality, if you look with an open mind.

It was written:

"Muslims & Christians don't seem to get the basics of goodness and spirituality. Pretending to be good while having an ulterior motive fools no one and is an act of evil."

So when I suggest to you that it would be more rational to be a Christian, it is an act of evil?

I might be wrong (I assume you think I am), but this is an act of evil?

Really?

John Mark

Mr. Reynolds,
Please don't try to cloak the inherently violent nature of proselytization by obfuscating it with "freedom of expression" and "conversation and sharing" of ones' faith. Pause for a moment and listen to individuals and societies that have beem victimized by missionaries for centuries. Listen & try to empathize. See it and hear it from their side. It's an ugly, offensive, and violent history sugar-coated with sweet insincere words about charity and civilizing the inferior "others".

PROSELYTIZATION is a manifestation of the SUPREMACIST foundation of Christianity & Islam.
No one else has this serious flaw that Christians and Muslims have in their "religions" or spiritual systems. Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs, Zoroastrians, Jews, Wiccans, Animists, etc.. are all trying to make themselves better, not trying to undermine others.

Conversion has caused some of the biggest problems in third world countries.
The "charity" and "kind deeds" are insincere and deceptive actions, and therefore, are acts of evil.

Muslims & Christians don't seem to get the basics of goodness and spirituality. Pretending to be good while having an ulterior motive fools no one and is an act of evil. This can eventually lead to crusades, inquisitions and suicide terrorism.
REMEMBER: Almost all religious conflicts in the world involve Muslims or Christians on one side or both.
Sneakiness, deception, conversion, undermining other cultures, etc... is offensive and nonspiritual.

You really feel the urge to do charity? Go to the inner city in America and help those in need. Look in your own family and help those who are depressed or drunk or angry.
Stop going to 3rd world countries and causing problems & hurting others.

John,

"Sadly for you, the history of the United States is replete with references to God, trust in God, thanks to God, and other acts of civil religion."

By "acts of civil religion", are you referring to acts of a state religion -- the "Church of America", perhaps?

Daniel,

The question talked about"sharing one's faith" and that is the part I address.

We really don't disagree do we (on this particular topic)?

Tell me we can agree!

Your comment pal,

John Mark

Bdunn,

Sadly for you, the history of the United States is replete with references to God, trust in God, thanks to God, and other acts of civil religion.

So unless we get a new history or purge any references to it, we shall all have to live with the nation we have.

You might also note that those nations that have officially purged God from their civil society have not (on the whole) been desirable places to live. Perhaps this is an accident (who knows for sure?), but pardon us if we don't get enthusiastic about the experiment!

John Mark

Since you brought up "in God we trust," I think it is funny that this slogan must appear on money. Of all things, MONEY should be the very last place where these words should appear. Of the six billion people in the world, am I, alone, the only one who notices the irony of fighting over such a silly thing?

In God We Trust? Whose god? Trust what god? I think not, and neither do millions of Americans. We resent state, local or national government endorsement and subsidization of anyone's god in public spaces and on currency, for example.

I do not think that having conversations with your friends about what you believe is the same thing as proselytizing.