proselytizing and free speech?

[JennyD]

I'm also Jewish and find religious proselytizing to be a profoundly foreign notion, but as I have learned more about Christian theology I take it little less personally. I think it really does go to core differences between the religions, particularly with respect to the role of faith.

 

That said, although I do understand that people mean well, I find it so strange to be urged to consider conversion. It's like someone urging me to consider having a sex-change operation.

[Audrey]

I find proselytizers annoying. I am actually okay with the JW and LDS people who come to my door and hand me a pamphlet. I politely tell them that I'm busying hsing and they give me their little pamphlets and go away. The fact that they go away after just a minute or two is the important point here. If they tried to keep me at the door or kept ringing my bell repeatedly, I'd start to get very upset with them.

 

 

I find proseltizers annoying, but also offensive. Like your example though, I am fine with JW and LDS people who (very rarely) drop by with a pamphlet. I usually ask them to take us off their list and have a nice day, good-bye. I have never encountered a single one who pushed it past that.

 

I have encountered proselytizers out in public spaces and I find that type to be repugnant. Most won't simply let you ignore them. They have to follow you or press their offensive little tracts into your hands. It particularly bothers me when a certain kind of proselytizer targets an area that they know is not of their persuasion and spreads those wicked little Chick tracts all over. That actually happened in my town a few days ago. Some family came around and left Chick tracts called "Is There Another Christ?" on all the doors in town. My in-laws got one, so I saw it for myself. Several people noticed this family walking around and were more than a little shocked to find what they'd left behind. The fact that they involved young children in this activity made it seem even more insidious.

 

In case you don't know, this particular tract is very, very anti-Catholic, claiming all sorts of things about Catholics, priests and the Church that are egregiously untrue. Our little town is quite obviously French Catholic. If the name of the town didn't inform them of that, then certainly the enormous Church at the entrance of town with its huge crucifix had to be a give-away. I suspect, however, that they targeted the town for precisely that reason.

 

Bottom line: I am as offended by most proselytizers as I am by those gentlemen who hawk the attributes of strippers outside their clubs. Both are entitled to free speech, but that doesn't mean I think either one of them is worth my listening time.

[sleepymommy]

I find it so strange to be urged to consider conversion. It's like someone urging me to consider having a sex-change operation.

 

:iagree:

[mcconnellboys]

Free speech does not mean "I can say anything I want to, anywhere I want to, anytime I want to, without repercussion." Perhaps I misread your post, but this appears to be what you're saying by making the statement....

 

...

 

For example, free speech does not include libel and slander. I cannot, for example, seriously say, "[insert name here] cheated on his or her spouse with Miley Cyrus, Tiger Woods, and the cast of Glee!" without being subject to laws of libel or slander.

 

For another famous example, I cannot yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater."

 

 

 

I understand what the laws are in this country. I also understand that some are beginning to try to label as "hate speech" anything with which they don't agree in an effort to suppress it. My statements were obviously unclear in expressing that, sorry.

 

 

"Well, maybe it's because I haven't had my coffee yet -- or enough of it -- but I fail to see how yelling "racism" constitutes an infringement of your free speech -- or anyone else's. Certainly it does not constitute an infringement of your free speech by a governmental agency, which is what the Constitution guarantees in the First Amendment. As many others have said, free speech does not mean other people have to automatically agree with you.

 

If you have said something another person perceives as racist, and the other person says, "You're a racist," or "This is a racist statement," this is not an infringment of your free speech: it is someone reacting, correctly or incorrectly, to something you said. This is a consequence of free speech, not an infringement upon it.

 

No, of course comments made in passing by one person to another do not compromise such infringement. I don't believe I said that they did.

 

I said that I was mortified that I see such accusations happening so often today in so many different situations. I see it as part and parcel of a larger problem, namely the one that I just mentioned above.

 

There seems to be a movement afoot to have speech that certain groups do not like labeled as "hate speech" so that such speech can be controlled. Once any such type of speech becomes disallowed, other limitations will surely follow as each new group to enter office in a particular city, county, or state will want to insure that speech with which their group does not agree is not disseminated during the time they are in office.

[mcconnellboys]

Right, I agree. Speech does have its limits. As CW mentions above, you can not spew things that will hurt others in their professional lives. If you do, they may sue you for slander and/or libel.

 

They must prove that you are in the wrong regarding what you said, of course, but assuming that your allegations were baseless, you would lose such a case and perhaps have an injunction or other orders issued in an attempt to insure that you did not do such a thing again.

 

You would probably have to pay a settlement regarding such a case, although some other sort of specific performance might be required. Now, in actuality, you would not be prevented from saying the same things again, or other, worse things. You might be jailed, but you could still speak. We do not have the sort of regime that would insure your silence through cutting out your tongue or having you killed. Thank goodness. I'd like to insure that we dont' move in that direction, either.

 

Speech that incites violence, "hate speech", also needs to be tightly controlled. My problem in today's world is that some are trying to label as "hate speech" any little thing that they don't like.... A person prosletyzing is probably not "hate speech", unless they've really crossed a line; you'd have to know the exact words in order to know that..... A person using words you don't like or in ways you don't like is probably not "hate speech" - and labeling any element of a given conversation as such in an attempt to "win" or simply shut up the other person is, indeed, the beginning of a descent down a slippery slope if it catches on and so many people begin doing it that it becomes accepted practice....

[nono]

 

Being a Jew - albeit not a practicing one - I also don't begin to understand why would any religion want to multiply its membership at all costs. By "us", not only you have to come to "us" if you want to join (definitely not the other way round - proselytizing is forbidden), but saying that you'd like to join is also not enough. As in, you actually have to learn some things (and that may take a while...), live that way for a little ("a little" = in any serious Orthodox community at the very least a year), the community makes several attempts to talk you out of it and at the end of the process, you face three rabbis whose purpose is also to try to tell you that you don't need any of that anyway and who try to talk you out of it, and THEN, IF you have been persistent enough, you get to convert.

Now, THAT is a way that might not ensure the quantity, but it certainly ensures the quality - we accept into the tribe (:D)

 

 

Ah, coming from a family of origin that is both Catholic and Jew*, we often talk of this. It's the whole market share concept. These days, known as Apple and Microsoft. :tongue_smilie:

 

(*Yeah, the market share folks got to some of us!)

[Peela]

What I dont get is why people think that proseletyzing is the most effective way of getting your point of view across. or in this case, converting people to Christianity.

It just isnt. It annoys people. It makes them wrong and you right. It is righteous. It is obnoxious behaviour.

Living the truth is what Jesus did, far more than preaching it. I am not saying he didnt preach- but what he did do was live unconditional love and selflessness and he spoke against the politics of the day. His preaching was in a lot of context.

When the modern proseletizers start living their truth as deeply as Jesus did, I will listen to them, because they will be coming from a deeply resonant space that I personally aspire to. But then, I doubt they would be banging us with their Bible, they will be getting on with changing what needs to be changed, with love, in our times, and not making me feel I am wrong for having my own beliefs, integrity and spiritual understandings, from my own life experience.

I really wonder if they have stopped and checked and done a scientific study as to whether proseletyzing people actually works, or iif it just makes peopel feel better to do it.

I would rather people focus on the log in their own eye first, and also have an open mind.

 

I am friends with a beautiful Franscescan monk who is an example of what I am talking about. He owns virtually nothing and lives in a vow of poverty, yet is grateful for everything he is given. He is open minded. He studies other religions and doesnt dismiss them as wrong, evne though he is highly educated in Christian theology. He sees truth in all of them. He is passionate about his own religion without seeing others' as inferior. He listens and is deeply compassionate. He is not afraid to spend time in Buddhist or Hindu ashrams. He lives his truth and walks his path and is a living inspiration...and if you are open to it, he will share with you and try to get you to see the beauty and light in his beloved Christianity. But he won't make you wrong for not being converted, even though he would love to convert you.

That is who would inspire me to become Christian, if anyone could.

Edited July 3, 2010 by Peela

[Guest rubilynne4]

wow! look what my op has brought about. maybe my choice of words was too emotionally charged to begin with. anyway, it has been interesting reading what all the different people here believe about freedom of speech. thanks to everyone, even those of you i disagree with, for sharing. i like open discourse, and i learn alot from it.

[elegantlion]

What I dont get is why people think that proseletyzing is the most effective way of getting your point of view across. or in this case, converting people to Christianity.

It just isnt. It anjoys people. It makes them wrong and you right. It is righteous. It is obnoxious behaviour.

Living the truth is what Jesus did, far more than preaching it. I am not saying he didnt preach- but what he did do was live unconditional love and selflessness and he spoke against the politics of the day. His preaching was in a lot of context.

When the modern proseletizers start living their truth as deeply as Jesus did, I will listen to them, because they will be coming from a deeply resonant space that I personally aspire to. But then, I doubt they would be banging us with their Bible, they will be getting on with changing what needs to be changed, with love, in our times, and not making me feel I am wrong for having my own beliefs, integrity and spiritual understandings, from my own life experience.

I really wonder if they have stopped and checked and done a scientific study as to whether proseletyzing people actually works, or iif it just makes peopel feel better to do it.

I would rather people focus on the log in their own eye first, and also have an open mind.

 

 

Thank you for this post. It sums up perfectly why I can not call myself an "evangelical" Christian. I'm way too busy with the log in my own eye. :glare:

[Guest rubilynne4]

I am friends with a beautiful Franscescan monk who is an example of what I am talking about. He owns virtually nothing and lives in a vow of poverty, yet is grateful for everything he is given. He is open minded. He studies other religions and doesnt dismiss them as wrong, evne though he is highly educated in Christian theology. He sees truth in all of them. He is passionate about his own religion without seeing others' as inferior. He listens and is deeply compassionate. He is not afraid to spend time in Buddhist or Hindu ashrams. He lives his truth and walks his path and is a living inspiration...and if you are open to it, he will share with you and try to get you to see the beauty and light in his beloved Christianity. But he won't make you wrong for not being converted, even though he would love to convert you.

That is who would inspire me to become Christian, if anyone could.

very cool. i hope that no one thought it was my intention to convert anyone. although, i would be happy if you did convert. :D i just wanted to know, if even something highly offended you, and you disagreed with it, your take on freedom of speech would still allow for it. i disagree with things all the time, some of them highly offensive, but i still want a person to have the right to say it. again, i'm not talking libel, slander, or yelling fire in a theater.

[ShutterBug]

nm...wrong thread :) .

[Guest rubilynne4]

 

What I dont get is why people think that proseletyzing is the most effective way of getting your point of view across. or in this case, converting people to Christianity.

i don't think proselytizing is the most effective way to get my pov across, or the most effective way to convert ppl, but, freedom of speech wise, i think it should be allowed. Edited July 3, 2010 by rubilynne4

[MelanieM]

What I dont get is why people think that proseletyzing is the most effective way of getting your point of view across. or in this case, converting people to Christianity.

It just isnt. It annoys people. It makes them wrong and you right. It is righteous. It is obnoxious behaviour.

Living the truth is what Jesus did, far more than preaching it. I am not saying he didnt preach- but what he did do was live unconditional love and selflessness and he spoke against the politics of the day. His preaching was in a lot of context.

When the modern proseletizers start living their truth as deeply as Jesus did, I will listen to them, because they will be coming from a deeply resonant space that I personally aspire to. But then, I doubt they would be banging us with their Bible, they will be getting on with changing what needs to be changed, with love, in our times, and not making me feel I am wrong for having my own beliefs, integrity and spiritual understandings, from my own life experience.

I really wonder if they have stopped and checked and done a scientific study as to whether proseletyzing people actually works, or iif it just makes peopel feel better to do it.

I would rather people focus on the log in their own eye first, and also have an open mind.

 

I am friends with a beautiful Franscescan monk who is an example of what I am talking about. He owns virtually nothing and lives in a vow of poverty, yet is grateful for everything he is given. He is open minded. He studies other religions and doesnt dismiss them as wrong, evne though he is highly educated in Christian theology. He sees truth in all of them. He is passionate about his own religion without seeing others' as inferior. He listens and is deeply compassionate. He is not afraid to spend time in Buddhist or Hindu ashrams. He lives his truth and walks his path and is a living inspiration...and if you are open to it, he will share with you and try to get you to see the beauty and light in his beloved Christianity. But he won't make you wrong for not being converted, even though he would love to convert you.

That is who would inspire me to become Christian, if anyone could.

 

This is such a fabulous post! I was thinking the same thing as I was reading this thread, and I think you said it so well, Peela. When I meet people as you describe it really does make me consider their faith at deeper levels. But when I meet people that are trying to convince me I'm about to be hit by a car that I can't see (to use the previous example), well, that makes me want to run away fast. And I'd bet dollars to donuts that a random poll of non-Christians would get you the same answer.

 

That said, I have fond memories of talking to a lovely JW woman who called me up randomly one day. I was clear from the get-go that I had no interest in converting, yet we went on to have many thought-provoking discussions about religion. Actually, I half way thought I might have converted her at one point. :lol:

[Slartibartfast]

 

Speech that incites violence, "hate speech", also needs to be tightly controlled. My problem in today's world is that some are trying to label as "hate speech" any little thing that they don't like.... A person prosletyzing is probably not "hate speech", unless they've really crossed a line; you'd have to know the exact words in order to know that..... A person using words you don't like or in ways you don't like is probably not "hate speech" - and labeling any element of a given conversation as such in an attempt to "win" or simply shut up the other person is, indeed, the beginning of a descent down a slippery slope if it catches on and so many people begin doing it that it becomes accepted practice....

 

Hate speech is still protected under free speech or the Phelps clan would not be running amok as they are.

 

What they do is "hate speech" in addition to their own definition of proselytizing.

[Guest rubilynne4]

What I dont get is why people think that proseletyzing is the most effective way of getting your point of view across. or in this case, converting people to Christianity.

i don't think proselytizing is the most effective way to get my pov across, or the most effective way to convert ppl, but, freedom of speech wise, i think it should be allowed. i personally don't proselytize, at least not the way it's discussed on this board (i.e. standing on the street corner yelling the end of the world is coming, holding a busload of people captive with my words, etc.). i think i would be considered by most here an ultra, right wing conservative christian if i discussed some of my beliefs, but i have refrained from doing so out of respect for some on this board. however, i think some of those same people would be surprised to know that, i, as an ultra, right wing conservative christian also believe that some truth can be found in every religion/belief, although i don't believe that any one religion/belief has the whole truth, and that i also don't believe that all the different christian sects (including my own), have the whole truth. some of the generalizations made about evangelical christians are not necessariy true either, just as i'm sure some of the generalizations made about catholics, or pagans aren't either. and again as far as hate speech goes i agree with the poster who said that the definition of hate speech is becoming much too broad. for example some people might think certain actions are wrong, but does that mean they hate the people that commit such acts? i'm sure that some do hate them, but there are some that just think the action is wrong, but don't hate the person committing the act. if they were to say i think this act is wrong by some people's definition this would be hate speech. i think that is too broad. i am not saying any of you believe this, but i do know some people that believe if you think the action is wrong, you are saying you hate the person committing the act.

[OnTheBrink]

Sadly, I think a lot of of people proselytize because they believe they're personally responsible for getting people into heaven. I've been to churches that are huge on the numbers game. How many souls can WE save? How many can WE win for God? Answer? None. God does the winning and saving; Christians are to spread the word, plant the seeds and let God do His will.

 

As for sharing one's faith on the job; I think that get's sticky. You're there to work. Scripture has many verses on what the work ethic should be. If you're being paid to work 8 hours, then work 8 hours. If someone is interested in your faith, talk to them during the lunch break, or after work. I think it's a far more impacting witness to do your work well, stay out of office snark and gossip, treat everyone kindly despite how different they may be, and be an encourager. Be interested in your coworkers' lives in an appropriate way. That sticks with and intrigues people far more than a big ole leather-bound study Bible situated prominently on your desk.

 

The hate speech issue really bothers me. I should be able to say I disagree with something without someone making the leap that I *hate* someone, or a group of people, or whatever. There's a lot I don't like/disagree with. But HATE people over it? Not quite.

[Lovedtodeath]

Oh! :lol: Forget proselytizing! I'm sitting here (admittedly under the influence of a large amount of allergy meds) thinking of all of the wonderful applications of this method of defense. Salesman at the door? "JINGLE BELLS! JINGLE BELLS!" Spouse refuses to see your side of a disagreement? "JINGLE BELLS! JINGLE BELLS!" Nosy relative can't seem to stop making disparaging remarks about homeschooling? "JINGLE BELLS! JINGLE BELLS!"

 

ETA: I meant absolutely no disrespect for the OP's question, nor did I intend to hijack the thread. Parrothead's post and 50 mg of Benadryl combined to give me a serious case of the giggles!

I have also taken cold medicine and that is :lol::lol:

 

I never got why some religions and sects seem to care so much about the quantity, and so little about the quality of their would-be members. It might be one of those things in which I, as an eternal Jew (albeit an atheist :D) will never understand about the non-Jewish world, but it totally escapes me why would anyone proselytize. We were raised to consider it almost inherently impolite, in addition to it being counter-productive (because those that truly want to convert will come to you first anyway).

 

I don't like people shoving their beliefs down my throat, basically. If they ask kindly (and NOT if they see me walking down the street in a HURRY, or if I'm with obviously underage children, or if the situation is in any other way "inconvenient") and retreat after my no, I have no issues with them.

 

Only my .02.

Just FYI: It is not easy to become a JW. It requires passing of time, passing a test, becoming a publisher then finally baptism. Also, we are told to ask for parents rather than speaking to the children.

 

I really wonder if they have stopped and checked and done a scientific study as to whether proseletyzing people actually works, or if it just makes peopel feel better to do it.

Not a scientific study really, but lots of data is kept on the matter. For example in 236 lands reporting, their were 7,313,173 Jehovah's Witnesses and 18,168, 323 people attended the Lord's Evening Meal, so handing out invitations must have made a difference. ;)

2009 Report of Jehovah s Witnesses Worldwide

[Guest rubilynne4]

If you want to know whether someone truly values freedom of speech, ask them about "hate speech." People won't be as likely to show their true colors when it comes to oh-I-would-never-oppress-anybody religious talk, but when it comes to ideas that are almost universally reviled in our society (such as racism), they'll throw freedom of speech out the window faster than you can say "unonstitutional."

i have no problem with someone who is a racist exercising freedom of speech, i think racism is wrong, but i think a person has a right to be a racist, and even speak publicly about it. i am not one of those who would shout unconstitutional if i heard someone preaching racist rhetoric. i might shout morally reprehensible, but not unconstitutional.

[Guest rubilynne4]

Actually, my dh and I, along with many others we know, do the bolded part frequently. My dh goes a lot without me, because I stay home with the littles. But he open-air preaches, passes out tracts, and witnesses one-on-one. While certainly there are those who 'give us a wide berth', and avoid, I'm not sure it's fair to say that 'most people' assume we're 'mentally unstable'. But even if that's so, it would not deter us.

 

We feel it is our duty, given by scripture, to proclaim the gospel. We also fully expect it to offend people; scripture tells us it will. Jesus offended so many, he was put to death.

 

Just my two cents.

well said.

[Guest rubilynne4]

Free speech refers to the structure of the government allowing for the expression rather than dictation of ideas, principles and opinions.

 

Free speech, applied to individual settings or persons, is a misnomer.

 

You are using the term incorrectly.

i'm not sure i follow you. i stated that in private settings, i would need to defer to the owner of the private setting. i would respectufully discontinue if asked. i am speaking about public, and am asking wether you respect the right for me to speak my beliefs freely in a public setting. i do see your point about free speech and the governemnt allowing for it, but my question is not whether governemnet allows for it, but wether you think i should be allowed to speak my beliefs freely in public, or if you only allow for that if my beliefs are in accord with your own. does that make sense. i guess i'm asking do other here think that views that annoy/irritate them should still be allowed to be spoken in public. of course the govt allows for this expression (in some countries anyway), but do you, as an individual allow for it in a public place, or do you think it should be banned because you find it offensive.

[keptwoman]

Think of it like this......You (general "you", not anyone in particular) are standing in the middle of the road. I walk up to you and tell you that there is a car coming quickly and you need to move out of the road. I don't want you to get hit. You don't believe me because you don't see the car - there's a pole blocking your line of sight. I see it coming and I desperately want you to move, I don't want you hurt. You start to get angry because I'm frantically telling you that there is a car coming and that you ARE going to get hit, but since you don't see the car, you think I'm either crazy or lying.

 

Should I just give up and stand back and watch you get hit? Or should I step up my game and continue to try to get you to understand?

Yes you should give up. Show me a person who hasn't been told about the oncoming car and I'll eat my hat. I've been told about it many times, I even used to believe in it, but now I've ascertained for myself that the oncoming car is your truth not mine, and I'm safe in the knowledge that I'm not going to get hit, much as you think I might.

 

What I dont get is why people think that proseletyzing is the most effective way of getting your point of view across. or in this case, converting people to Christianity.

Exactly, totally pointless. Live your faith people. I'm told by Christians that others are like a shining light, well I'd put that in their version of truth frankly, but if you believe in it, then the light will shine and people will be drawn to it more for its silence.

[MeanestMomInMidwest]

i'm not sure i follow you. i stated that in private settings, i would need to defer to the owner of the private setting. i would respectufully discontinue if asked. i am speaking about public, and am asking wether you respect the right for me to speak my beliefs freely in a public setting. i do see your point about free speech and the governemnt allowing for it, but my question is not whether governemnet allows for it, but wether you think i should be allowed to speak my beliefs freely in public, or if you only allow for that if my beliefs are in accord with your own. does that make sense. i guess i'm asking do other here think that views that annoy/irritate them should still be allowed to be spoken in public. of course the govt allows for this expression (in some countries anyway), but do you, as an individual allow for it in a public place, or do you think it should be banned because you find it offensive.

 

I certainally feel that you (or anyone, for that matter) can speak their beliefs in public, as long as I am not held captive, required to listen, or required to show respect for such publically spoken beliefs.

[Lovedtodeath]

 

Yes you should give up. Show me a person who hasn't been told about the oncoming car and I'll eat my hat. I've been told about it many times, I even used to believe in it, but now I've ascertained for myself that the oncoming car is your truth not mine, and I'm safe in the knowledge that I'm not going to get hit, much as you think I might.

Well, you see, some are telling you that it is a car, and others are warning you about a charging Rhino, and still others are telling you to swat a mosquito... so maybe you would want one of the warnings even while dismissing the others.

[Guest rubilynne4]

I certainally feel that you (or anyone, for that matter) can speak their beliefs in public, as long as I am not held captive, required to listen, or required to show respect for such publically spoken beliefs.

i can respect that. i don't think you should have to listen, be held captive, or even respect my beliefs for that matter. just respect my right to voice my opinion, as i respect your right to voice yours.

Edited July 3, 2010 by rubilynne4

[Guest rubilynne4]

Well, you see, some are telling you that it is a car, and others are warning you about a charging Rhino, and still others are telling you to swat a mosquito... so maybe you would want one of the warnings even while dismissing the others.

i don't know if you meant this to be funny, but either way it made me chuckle. :D

[Lovedtodeath]

 

i don't know if you meant this to be funny, but either way it made me chuckle. :D

:D Mysterious ain't it?

[keptwoman]

Well, you see, some are telling you that it is a car, and others are warning you about a charging Rhino, and still others are telling you to swat a mosquito... so maybe you would want one of the warnings even while dismissing the others.

Well I have eyes and ears and a brain and I'm comfortable observing for myself the presense or lack of a rhino, car or mosquito.

[Lovedtodeath]

I was hoping you would go with the chuckle.

 

My weird analogy was for this: There are foundational differences between what Christian A and Christian B will teach... foundational to the point of the reason for a ransom, what happens at death, and the personality of God, so it could really make a big difference depending on someone's reasons for rejecting Christianity. Not necessarily your reasons, but their are atheists, pagans, and other who have become Christians. That is why Christians who preach don't give up.

[Mrs Mungo]

I've never witnessed to someone who has not asked. But, I *have* been asked and I did share with them. I think if you witness with your life *first*, then they will come to you. You won't need to shove it down anyone's throat, shout it from a street-corner or stick a tract on their door.

Edited July 3, 2010 by Mrs Mungo

[Guest rubilynne4]

even though i think i know the truth, i am open to someone who is genuinely concerned for my welfare, be it physical, spiritual, or otherwise to come to me and share their point of view. i would try to take the time to listen, even if in the end i didn't agree/take their advice. i don't want to be so convinced in my own belief that i am right that i possibly miss out on something. i guess that is what i would consider being open minded. being willing to hear an opposing view, and dare i say, even be open to the fact that the opposing view may be right, and i may be wrong.

i have a friend, who i persistently shared my faith with, and yes i initiated (she did not agree with me, but also did not ask me to stop sharing), and she ended up becoming a christian as a result, and thanked me later for continuing to share my faith with her.

in like manner i have had people share things with me, and i got very upset with them, even offended, but later, upon examining what they said, realized they were right. if they hadn't of shared, and been persistent, i would never had known the truth (i am not talking about christianity in this instance, but a certain character flaw i had). sometimes hearing the truth (whatever that may be) can be hurtful, or offensive, but that doesn't mean it's wrong, and we shouldn't share or speak it.

Edited July 3, 2010 by rubilynne4

[asta]

 

We feel it is our duty, given by scripture, to proclaim the gospel. We also fully expect it to offend people; scripture tells us it will. Jesus offended so many, he was put to death.

 

Exactly. You worded it perfectly.

 

Christians who believe every word the Bible says are instructed to witness. How can we not when we are instructed to do so?

 

Think of it like this......You (general "you", not anyone in particular) are standing in the middle of the road. I walk up to you and tell you that there is a car coming quickly and you need to move out of the road. I don't want you to get hit. You don't believe me because you don't see the car - there's a pole blocking your line of sight. I see it coming and I desperately want you to move, I don't want you hurt. You start to get angry because I'm frantically telling you that there is a car coming and that you ARE going to get hit, but since you don't see the car, you think I'm either crazy or lying.

 

Should I just give up and stand back and watch you get hit? Or should I step up my game and continue to try to get you to understand?

 

That's what Christians grapple with. We don't want to see anyone "get hit." However, there are tactful ways to approach people on the subject. "Hitting them over the head" with the Bible is not the way to do it.

 

Ah, but therein lies a fundamental misunderstanding.

 

If one "buys into" the premise of Christianity, Jesus wasn't "put to death" because he "offended so many" at all; his death was preordained from the time of his birth.

 

Jesus died for the sins of mankind: the sacrificial lamb sent by God to atone for the sins of Adam and Eve, to offer man a "second chance".

 

It was his apostles who were told they would face discrimination and likely death for spreading his gospel. Jesus already knew he was going to die; he knew from the time he was born.

 

Don't confuse the story about the God with the story about the messengers: it makes people who already know the story not willing to listen to your particular version of the message.

 

JMO

 

 

a

[Annabel Lee]

Now, THAT is a way that might not ensure the quantity, but it certainly ensures the quality - we accept into the tribe (:D) only those who REALLY want it and who REALLY confirm, practically, and repeatedly, that they want it so much that they're willing to wait for so long, and face with being turned down a few times.

 

I never got why some religions and sects seem to care so much about the quantity, and so little about the quality of their would-be members. It might be one of those things in which I, as an eternal Jew (albeit an atheist :D) will never understand about the non-Jewish world, but it totally escapes me why would anyone proselytize. We were raised to consider it almost inherently impolite, in addition to it being counter-productive (because those that truly want to convert will come to you first anyway).

 

:iagree:This. I agree. And I'm a Jesus-follower. I spent my childhood in a church that did some things very well, yet simultaneouly was able to produce many young people who got saved because there was no other acceptable option unless you felt so strongly about it that you would leave that church community (and likely be shunned). It also produced many young people (and maybe some older) that were scared into it. I say young b/c I think the youngers are more susceptible to that. They were very good at presenting some parts of the truth that other denominations shy away from. That they focused only on parts in that particular church is where I take issue.

 

As I got older I had to do my own searching around outside that church to improve the quality of my relationship w/ God.

[Annabel Lee]

Now you all have me wondering what exactly Jesus did. He often went to an open public place; a mountaintop, a shore, etc. where people would follow Him to hear Him talk. I don't remember any stories of Him "shoving down people's throats", but I could be wrong. I'll have to look up the details. It makes me wonder what exactly He had in mind when He gave the great commission. He held dialogue with people who held dialogue with Him - they were participating instead of walking away. But then again, He used to go to the temple to preach (a somewhat public place, but not where preaching would be unexpected).

 

Those who know the Bible well, help me iron this out here. I'm just wondering what the truth according to Him is.

[asta]

Now you all have me wondering what exactly Jesus did. He often went to an open public place; a mountaintop, a shore, etc. where people would follow Him to hear Him talk. I don't remember any stories of Him "shoving down people's throats", but I could be wrong. I'll have to look up the details. It makes me wonder what exactly He had in mind when He gave the great commission. He held dialogue with people who held dialogue with Him - they were participating instead of walking away. But then again, He used to go to the temple to preach (a somewhat public place, but not where preaching would be unexpected).

 

Those who know the Bible well, help me iron this out here. I'm just wondering what the truth according to Him is.

 

You would be hard pressed to know that, as he left no written record.

 

 

a

[....]

Now you all have me wondering what exactly Jesus did.

Those who know the Bible well, help me iron this out here. I'm just wondering what the truth according to Him is.

 

If you read through the Book of Matthew, I think that really sums it up. It includes a lot of his conversations, healings, the Sermon on the Mount, the exorcisms and his conversations on how we should live our lives. I reread Matthew sometimes and I still learn things that I didn't know. There's an incredible amount of information/content in that particular Book.

[Peela]

You would be hard pressed to know that, as he left no written record.

 

 

a

 

Exactly.

[mcconnellboys]

Yes, speech is still currently protected.

 

Here is an old piece (1999) that offers some compelling reasons why "hate speech" should not be lumped in with hate crimes. Limiting the speech of one person or group also will limit any rebuttal to that speech....

 

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/commentary.aspx?id=2619

 

I don't want to introduce any sort of argument whatsoever about the particular incident covered in this essay, I offer it simply because it has been one of the top cases in the legal community touching on the issue of "hate speech" in the past dozen years.

 

And here is a piece from the NYT's about the legislation that was finally passed with regard to the case that was the focus of the above essay:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/09/us/politics/09hate.html?_r=1

 

Again, I do not wish to introduce a new topic of debate regarding the subject of this piece. I simply offer it because it is relevant to the issue of "hate speech". Of note in this piece is the quote at the very end:

 

"Democrats, however, noted that the bill would specifically bar prosecution based on an individual’s expression of “racial, religious, political or other beliefs.†It also states that nothing in the measure should be “construed to diminish any rights under the First Amendment to the Constitution.â€"

 

(Bold and italics are mine.) When our legislature finally got this bill passed after ten years, they specifically did not include "hate speech" as part of it. However, we will now have to wait to see how this plays out in the legal system. Any attorney worth his/her salt is going to use language that is and is not included in legislation as they argue their cases. It is their job to find ways to best defend their clients. How judges and juries accept those arguments and begin to interpret the language in the legislation will begin to set precedent as we go forward. We'll see what happens....

[Heather in Neverland]

Ah, but therein lies a fundamental misunderstanding.

 

If one "buys into" the premise of Christianity, Jesus wasn't "put to death" because he "offended so many" at all; his death was preordained from the time of his birth.

 

Jesus died for the sins of mankind: the sacrificial lamb sent by God to atone for the sins of Adam and Eve, to offer man a "second chance".

 

It was his apostles who were told they would face discrimination and likely death for spreading his gospel. Jesus already knew he was going to die; he knew from the time he was born.

 

Don't confuse the story about the God with the story about the messengers: it makes people who already know the story not willing to listen to your particular version of the message.

 

JMO

 

 

 

a

 

Well, not exactly. The Jews DID want him put to death because he DID offend them in many, many ways (i.e. challenging the Pharisees, claiming to be God, etc.). They saw him as a trouble-maker and a heretic and they wanted him out of the picture. Now of course his death was preordained by God BUT who was RESPONSIBLE for his death? The Jews (for demanding it)and the Romans (for going along with it).

 

It is one of those "what you meant for evil, God used for good" moments. So he WAS put to death for "offending" others but the results of that death (and his resurrection) is our salvation.

 

NOW...one quick question...because I see a huge variety of viewpoints here... what, in your (collective your) mind is the difference between "proselytizing" and "sharing your faith/witnessing"? Some seem to see a big difference while others see no difference at all.

[kalanamak]

What I dont get is why people think that proseletyzing is the most effective way of getting your point of view across. or in this case, converting people to Christianity.

 

 

From someone I know well who used to go door to door on weekends: Some people seem to think it gives them extra punches on their ticket to heaven, and there is peer pressure in some congregations to show how devoted you are to your beliefs.

 

For some of the most "over the top" people, I fear it is the tip of the iceberg of monomania.

[kalanamak]

[ You start to get angry because I'm frantically telling you that there is a car coming and that you ARE going to get hit, but since you don't see the car, you think I'm either crazy or lying.

 

Should I just give up and stand back and watch you get hit? Or should I step up my game and continue to try to get you to understand?

 

 

At this point, if I did believe there was a car coming, I would flag it down and ask it to drive carefully as there was one who was unaware ahead.

[ThatCyndiGirl]

In fact, we're becoming such a homogenized society that I feel we're pretty well beyond the subject of "race" at this point in our history - at least here in America. I've grown to feel that it's just a catch word people use mindlessly, like the "socialization" word they throw around in front of homeschoolers. .....

 

 

I'm sorry, but this is really just patently WRONG and horribly misinformed. I work in close contact with clients of various minorities and I can tell you that racism IS ALIVE AND WELL (UNFORTUNATELY) IN AMERICA!!!

 

There are still caucasians using the "n word" and there are STILL people who are quite vocal in this country who hate the fact that they have to share "their" country with people of colour!

[Guest rubilynne4]

You would be hard pressed to know that, as he left no written record.

 

 

a

we know some of the things socrates said, or rather we accept that he said them based on his student plato's eye witness accounts. there are several gospels written by Jesus followers who were eye witneesses to his teachings. even in court eye witness accounts are accepted, as long as there are two or more witnesses, which in the case of the gospels there is. of course some will debate the accuracy, etc of the accounts. i sometimes find that funny as so many accept other ancient writings of dfferent peoples without question.

[Guest rubilynne4]

Well, not exactly. The Jews DID want him put to death because he DID offend them in many, many ways (i.e. challenging the Pharisees, claiming to be God, etc.). They saw him as a trouble-maker and a heretic and they wanted him out of the picture. Now of course his death was preordained by God BUT who was RESPONSIBLE for his death? The Jews (for demanding it)and the Romans (for going along with it).

 

It is one of those "what you meant for evil, God used for good" moments. So he WAS put to death for "offending" others but the results of that death (and his resurrection) is our salvation.

 

NOW...one quick question...because I see a huge variety of viewpoints here... what, in your (collective your) mind is the difference between "proselytizing" and "sharing your faith/witnessing"? Some seem to see a big difference while others see no difference at all.

well said, and also fulfillment of the prophecy as the op said. i see it as both. he offended people and was put to death because of it, and that is how the prophecy was fulfilled. also, i later admitted that my original wording may have been off. proselytiaing had negative connotation while sharing faith may not be perceived as negative by some, although some will still find it offesnsive either way i'm sure.

[Heather in Neverland]

we know some of the things socrates said, or rather we accept that he said them based on his student plato's eye witness accounts. there are several gospels written by Jesus followers who were eye witneesses to his teachings. even in court eye witness accounts are accepted, as long as there are two or more witnesses, which in the case of the gospels there is. of course some will debate the accuracy, etc of the accounts. i sometimes find that funny as so many accept other ancient writings of dfferent peoples without question.

 

what she said.

[asta]

I'm sorry, but this is really just patently WRONG and horribly misinformed. I work in close contact with clients of various minorities and I can tell you that racism IS ALIVE AND WELL (UNFORTUNATELY) IN AMERICA!!!

 

There are still caucasians using the "n word" and there are STILL people who are quite vocal in this country who hate the fact that they have to share "their" country with people of colour!

 

And there are still people of color (hmm... aren't all people "of color"? I don't believe any human is translucent...) treating caucasians (a misnomer, btw, as few people in the US actually trace their lineage to the Caucasus) like crap.

 

Poor behavior is poor behavior - it isn't limited to any particular skin color.

 

 

asta

 

(who spent 5 years being treated like crap by the majority of the people where she lived for the sin of being "pale")

[mommaduck]

I'm sorry, but this is really just patently WRONG and horribly misinformed. I work in close contact with clients of various minorities and I can tell you that racism IS ALIVE AND WELL (UNFORTUNATELY) IN AMERICA!!!

 

There are still caucasians using the "n word" and there are STILL people who are quite vocal in this country who hate the fact that they have to share "their" country with people of colour!

 

And there are still people of color (hmm... aren't all people "of color"? I don't believe any human is translucent...) treating caucasians (a misnomer, btw, as few people in the US actually trace their lineage to the Caucasus) like crap.

 

Poor behavior is poor behavior - it isn't limited to any particular skin color.

 

 

asta

 

(who spent 5 years being treated like crap by the majority of the people where she lived for the sin of being "pale")

Both very true.

[Heather in Neverland]

proselytiaing had negative connotation while sharing faith may not be perceived as negative by some, although some will still find it offesnsive either way i'm sure.

 

my point exactly. where is the line between offensive sharing of faith and not offensive? For some ANY sharing of faith is offensive. For others it would have to be really in your face for it to be offensive. so for Christians who feel it is their God-given duty to share their faith, you have no idea where on the tolerance spectrum any given person falls. Am I speaking to a person with ZERO tolerance for the word GOD? Or do I have more leeway? You never know so really, you just roll the dice and hope for the best.

[Lovedtodeath]

Now you all have me wondering what exactly Jesus did. He often went to an open public place; a mountaintop, a shore, etc. where people would follow Him to hear Him talk. I don't remember any stories of Him "shoving down people's throats", but I could be wrong. I'll have to look up the details. It makes me wonder what exactly He had in mind when He gave the great commission. He held dialogue with people who held dialogue with Him - they were participating instead of walking away. But then again, He used to go to the temple to preach (a somewhat public place, but not where preaching would be unexpected).

 

Those who know the Bible well, help me iron this out here. I'm just wondering what the truth according to Him is.

(Luke 8:1; 9:1-6; 10:1-9) 1 Shortly afterwards he went journeying from city to city and from village to village, preaching and declaring the good news of the kingdom of God. And the twelve were with him,

1 Then he called the twelve together and gave them power and authority over all the demons and to cure sicknesses. 2 And so he sent them forth to preach the kingdom of God and to heal, 3 and he said to them: “Carry nothing for the trip, neither staff nor food pouch, nor bread nor silver money; neither have two undergarments. 4 But wherever YOU enter into a home, stay there and leave from there. 5 And wherever people do not receive YOU, on going out of that city shake the dust off YOUR feet for a witness against them.†6 Then starting out they went through the territory from village to village, declaring the good news and performing cures everywhere.

1 After these things the Lord designated seventy others and sent them forth by twos in advance of him into every city and place to which he himself was going to come. 2 Then he began to say to them: “The harvest, indeed, is great, but the workers are few. Therefore beg the Master of the harvest to send out workers into his harvest. 3 Go forth. Look! I am sending YOU forth as lambs in among wolves. 4 Do not carry a purse, nor a food pouch, nor sandals, and do not embrace anybody in greeting along the road. 5 Wherever YOU enter into a house say first, ‘May this house have peace.’ 6 And if a friend of peace is there, YOUR peace will rest upon him. But if there is not, it will turn back to YOU. 7 So stay in that house, eating and drinking the things they provide, for the worker is worthy of his wages. Do not be transferring from house to house.

8 “Also, wherever YOU enter into a city and they receive YOU, eat the things set before YOU, 9 and cure the sick ones in it, and go on telling them, ‘The kingdom of God has come near to YOU.’ Acts 20:20 while I did not hold back from telling YOU any of the things that were profitable nor from teaching YOU publicly and from house to house

[Lovedtodeath]

 

(who spent 5 years being treated like crap by the majority of the people where she lived for the sin of being "pale")

:iagree:

[Guest Amy in MS]

:iagree:

 

In keeping with the thread, I hold with those who say, "yes, you can say whatever you like, and I can disagree with you. Free speech doesn't mean I have to privilege your speech, and esteem it. In fact, your speech will likely affect how I think of you, for better or worse. Welcome to the consequences of your free speech."

 

As to the suffering of the poor whites, like me, and how we're just as put upon as people of color, (or whatever terms you want to use, crossing swords on the point is merely derailing) I encourage folks to Google, "Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack." I found it really fascinating and finally began understanding racism beyond "racism is hating people of a different racial background than you." Truly, eye-opening. It's not a difficult read, and there are about 50 bullet points to make for easy accessibility, if not easy thought matter.