posted
In another thread, there's been some banter about religion. At one point someone said: "I could care less that you're an atheist" (By the way, this was directed toward someone other than myself)
As a teen, this attitude confused me. Time hasn't really changed that.
I'm a devoutly befuddled agnostic, or play one on the internet. But I don't understand why true believers don't spend more time proselytizing.
The stakes are so high for your fellow man: gaining eternal paradise versus either eternal agony or nullity (I believe various religions differ on this.)
It is a tenet of Christianity to love your fellow man (I'm pretty sure about this.)
Why would people who really believe that those whom they strive to love are in danger of, at the very least, losing out on eternal paradise, do anything else with their time than trying to save them?
I realize the majority of people here are Mormon, and you guys do a lot more in this area than most, but still, if the stakes are that high, could you ever do enough? Don't you owe it to them.
Extrapolate this out, and doesn't the Christian West owe it to the world to convert them?
I guess the arguement against this is that conversion can be done through example, or it is difficult accomplish on those who aren't open to it, but if the stakes are truly infinite, don't they justify any means?
A little post script: someone in the other thread said something about LDS differing from other religions in that those who were never given the opportunity to learn of LDS in this world, due to accidents of geographical or temporal placement, had a chance after death. OSC mentioned in a post a while back, which I've had no luck in finding, that Mormonism explained some difficulties better than other religions, to him at least. I wonder if this is what he was talking about. I really think that this mechanism for salvation very nice. Honestly, the fair play aspect is enough to sway me. If I ever do find myself gravitating toward religion, which has to be more likely as my mortality looms ever nearer (hopefully still 50 years away), I will definitely give serious consideration to LDS. I'm sincere in this.
Posts: 24 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that the "lack" of missionary work, as you see it, is a byproduct of Western history. I would even say that open atheism is a byproduct of Western history. What I mean is that for several generations, and from the start of human recorded history, religion and state were one and the same. Because of this the political, military, and religous work were virtually identical.
Somewhere along the way in Western society (particularly Europe) religion became a taboo social subject. This seems to be traced to WWI and then WWII where the limits of human evil became intolerable to some. In the early period of U.S. history missionary work pretty much helped build the Frontier, with Catholics founding missions that became some cities we know today. In the early to mid 19th Century there were several religious revivals that acted similar to great missionary pushes.
U.S., and thus Christian, missionary work is still prevalant in other countries. But, the zeal mirrors modern Christian trends of increased European doubt, liberalism, and an equally zeolous church and state seperatism. In my view the reason you don't see much "missionary work" is because athiests, jews, and liberal Christians have shouted Christianity down and Christians have not put up a big enough fight to counter them. On the other hand, Evangilical Christians are doing missionary work that is not the traditional variety. Catholics also continue in less noticable ways to develop missions, although the focus has turned to charity rather than teaching to the unconverted.
I guess its another one of those "it still continues, but you just don't see it in the news" things. My guess is you just don't know where to look.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
That all sounds pretty reasonable, Occasional. Honestly, a little too much so to me.
If the stakes are infinite, what measures are unjustified?
I agree that, as you say, "religion became a taboo social subject."
But if billions of people are at risk of losing eternal bliss, perhaps suffering eternal torment, isn't it worth it throw off the shackles of decorum?
I don't see how anyone who truly believes that he is duty-bound to love his fellow man, and that the great majority of those fellow men were in danger of losing something of infinite value (or suffering infinite hardship), and that that fellow man could be saved through a modicum of effort, can justify not putting forth that effort. And then, directly moving on to the next fellow man. Even if you saved only one in a hundred (or a thousand), since what gave them is infinite, the effort would be justified.
Seems like being a zealot (in the good way, ie full of zeal) is demanded by these beliefs. Anything less would be hypocrisy.
posted
Who says the best method is proselytizing? I happen to think it's an extremely INeffective tactic, especially in the long run. (Not willing to debate it, though. )
I think being a living example is far better. And strive to be one -- and maybe even succeed some of the time.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I realize the majority of people here are Mormon
This is not true. Mormons are certainly over-represented her in comparison to, say, American society, but we do not even approach 50% on Hatrack.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
To be honest, I think picking up a sword and forcing your religion on another has been the most effective missionary tool. The first generation might hate and dispise, but the subsiquent generations gain an equal amount of zeal and passion as the original conquerers. If you look at history it seems those with the most numbers of followers started out as militants spreading the word.
However, just for the record, I don't believe God wants it to be that way. That is why I know that Mormonism will forever be a backwater minor religious sect. Other than bumps in its history, violence is not considered an option for missionary work.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I disagree with Occasional on the source of religion as taboo; I think it is more accurate to trace that to the Thirty Years' War. As wars go, it was perhaps even nastier than the Great War, although smaller in scale; the population of Germany as a whole dropped by something like a third, and even more in the regions where the fighting was concentrated. Whole districts were depopulated.
Now, that was a war fought for precisely the reasons joeyconrad mentions : If people are indeed in error, and in danger of hellfire, then it is entirely justifiable to do almost anything to convert them. (The Inquisition, at any rate its more philosophical members, operated on the same premise, and was at its worst in the same period.) It lasted thirty years, and it was absolute hell on earth. That is why Europe, in particular, has a taboo on trying to convert people from one sect of Christianity to another : We've tried doing it by force, and not only doesn't it work, it is really horrible.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Also there are whole nations devoted to making damed sure that whatever religion it deems (with good reason) a threat to its culture and existence will also make sure that legally that they can't operate.
IP: Logged |
quote:Also there are whole nations devoted to making damed sure that whatever religion it deems (with good reason) a threat to its culture and existence will also make sure that legally that they can't operate.
And those nations are evil.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think spending ALL your time proselytizing your beliefs to others shows love to your fellow man. Have you ever been to an LDS ward? It really is the best place, IMO, for non-members to learn about the churches beliefs.
Posts: 1138 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
This whole topic is a huge challenge for people of faith, at least the ones I know. To say "I don't care if you're an atheist" would not be true, for me at least. I do care. I want everyone to have the happiness and hope that I have found in the gospel. But I will say that I respect everyone's right to believe or not believe as they will, and I also respect their right to not be forced into converting. Being forced to conform to beliefs that you don't really believe in does not much good - since the gospel requires that you change not just your outward behavior, but your heart.
So knowing how and when to introduce the gospel to friends is a big challenge for me. For one thing, I don't think they'll have any desire to listen if they don't know that I really care about them first. I don't want people to think I'm only interested in trying to change them. But I do care, and I feel very keenly the mandate to go into all nations and teach the gospel. Balancing my desire to share the gospel with my desire to be considerate of my friends' beliefs and feelings is a challenge. After all, I'm human; my family and I have to live in these neighborhoods and we would prefer not to be outcast. It would be painful for us and would not do the neighbors any good.
Also, there are certain restrictions on when and where you can proselyte. In many jobs it's just not appropriate, so all you can do is live your beliefs and discuss them privately as they come up, but not try to push them on everyone. If you lose your job you can't take care of your family, which is also a commandment.
I think the kind of people who spend all their time hounding their neighbors and trying to actively "proselytize" people become annoying to their neighbors. The neighbors get the impression that the only thing those people care about is getting them to change, and it may cause them to put up walls that will keep them away from the religion - the opposite of what is intended. Example is really the best way to introduce the gospel - and then taking opportunities to teach as they come, not forcing it on people, but hoping that through your love and your example they'll see what you have and want it too. Discussions like the ones we have here on Hatrack help, too, even though they're not "proselyting" in nature - just an honest discussion of beliefs and lifestyle.
Posts: 1522 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Know this, that every soul is free, To choose his life and what he'll be; For this eternal truth is given, That God will force no man to heaven.
He'll call, persuade, direct aright, And bless with wisdom, love and light, In nameless ways be good and kind, But never force the human mind.
Freedom and reason make us men; Take these away, what are we then? Mere animals, and just as well The beasts may think of heav'n or hell."
-Know this , that every Soul is Free , Anon., ca. 1805, included in the first LDS hymnbook, 1835
The greatest gift God has given us is the ability to make our own choices. An so while I will never stop teaching my religion to anyone willing to listen (and never stop asking people if they want to listen),they can always say no. The moment I try to force it on them (by threats or some kind of force), then I would be trying to take a gift from them given by God.
I also agree with much of what has been said before, history shows that converting people at all costs normally involves sending a great many people who refuse to be "saved", to the place prepared for those that don't want to be converted at all costs.
In the end it is our choice to seek God or not. We can and should try to help each other, but to take away someones right to choose in order to "help" them just isn't God's way, and therefore isn't mine
Posts: 147 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think your judgement of the "I don't care if you're an atheist" statement is right. Personally my attitude is more along the lines of, "For your sake, I wish you weren't an atheist, but if that's your decision, I'll respect it, because you have the free will and human dignity that I believe God gave you, and I won't strip you of the latter by denying you of the former." It's a bit more long-winded, but I think it's a much more Christian sentiment.
The thing is that a lot of people - especially in today's skeptical, sarcastic, individualistic society - will have the opposite response to evangelism than the intended response. Saint Francis of Assisi once said to his young order of Franciscans, "Preach the Gospel. If necessary, use words." I think many Christian denominations support a view along these lines. The idea is that if you live a truly Christian life, people will respond to the joy and love and life that they see in you and become open to the idea that your religion has something going for itself. They get curious and, ideally, convert. It happens quite a lot actually. I've had a lot of agnostic friends who seem to lean away from religion start asking interested questions after knowing me for a few months or a year. The more interesting the person is, the more you can evangelize to them, although I dislike the connotations that the words has developed.
Posts: 34 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Also there are whole nations devoted to making damed sure that whatever religion it deems (with good reason) a threat to its culture and existence will also make sure that legally that they can't operate.
And those nations are evil.
Welcome to Sri Lanka...
Posts: 8355 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It would be wrong to force my beliefs on another person. They cannot benefit from those beliefs unless they willingly embrace them. So, while I am always happy to discuss my beliefs with those who will listen respectfully, I do not try to pressure.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Edit: For a far nicer and more summed up version of my opinion, read what Beverly said right above me.
This is just my take on it, hold it for what you will being as I'm probably not one of the best suited to give an informed opinion on this topic.
I hold no religion to myself, I do not call myself agnostic, atheist, nor any deity belief system. I just say I'm nothing. This is not the topic for me to explain why I am this way, so I shall not go in further, but it is necessary to know that to understand my idea.
On the thought of those with a belief in a higher power seeking to bring people to salvation stating that 'they could care less if they're atheist.' Is for one simple reason.
Respect.
This goes for any two differing parties on religious beliefs.
Allow me to illustrate it this way. I, with my current set of beliefs, could under a stereotypical sense say something along the lines of "Why do you people hold to a religious belief? There is no true testable physical manisfestation of what you believe, so why do you waste your time?" (Note that I do NOT say that, it's merely for an example.) The reason I don't say something like that is for one: I don't believe people waste their time in holding to a faith. And two: I try to respect people with different ideas than my own, I seek no need to try to put people under the need to adopt my beliefs. If they desired to know of my thoughts and feelings, they could ask for more; however, I will not go to the level of forcing my ideas on them without their consent.
I'd like to believe that idealy, that goes likewise. That people respect me and my decision enough not to try to condemn me for my beliefs. That they will withold their beliefs in the sense of preaching unless we both are on mutual grounds of discussion.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for missionary work and being open about wanting to teach it. It's almost like the picture painted above. Tell me your beliefs, that's fine. Just don't put a sword to me to force me to change.
I really would like to think that people can respect each other enough not to try such forceful things upon another as to try to make a person change beliefs. And that's what I try to do.
Posts: 1831 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I still think that violence is the best way to bring in converts long term. At least during the first and second generations. Where would Christianity (Catholicism specifically) be without the power and might of Constantine and the Roman Empire? Where would Islam be without Medina and its subsiquent battles with infidels? Where would Hinduism be without the great Persian Empire in utilized?
In contrast, lets look at the Jewish religion. It was at its strongest under the warrior David, but fell apart when bigger and stronger nations decided they were a problem. Of course, Rome and Egypt and all the ancient nations were powerhouses that mixed religion with state and military might.
I can't think of any large religion that grew large and strong by simple example and discussion without state support and a strong force. This goes for anything really and not just religion. Words, respect, and compromise have historically proven to develop stagnation and a bread and circuses mentality.
My point? If you are a peace loving and non-confrontational group or personality, be prepared for mediocrity.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, it was far stronger under David's son Shlomo, who name means peace and whose life was war-free.
Oh, and the nation fell apart not so much because of pressure from without as much as civil war from within.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: I still think that violence is the best way to bring in converts long term. ... I can't think of any large religion that grew large and strong by simple example and discussion without state support and a strong force.
A couple of problems with that tactic: We're talking about the behavior of individual believers here, why they do or don't use "any means necessary" to convert the world. And those individuals (if they're really doing it out of love) are less interested in having a big church, and more interested in the individual souls of those around them. So the converting has to be done one-on-one.
And it's been said more than once in this thread that people don't change their beliefs and their hearts due to force. They may change their outward behavior, but being a member of a religion because you were forced to, without it truly changing your heart, really makes no difference to the status of your eternal soul. So it would do no good for those individuals - which is what the believers are concerned with (not just generations and countries - individuals).
quote: My point? If you are a peace loving and non-confrontational group or personality, be prepared for mediocrity.
There's a difference between being small in numbers and being mediocre. There are other, more important measures than size.
Posts: 1522 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by joeyconrad: I guess the arguement against this is that conversion can be done through example, or it is difficult accomplish on those who aren't open to it, but if the stakes are truly infinite, don't they justify any means?
No. In the LDS religion (and I imagine others as well, I am simply not as familiar with their doctrine as I am my own, so I hesitate to speak for them) you cannot seperate the end from the means as far as faith is concerned. A central tenet to my faith is agency- that man must be free to choose whether to accept the Savior and his gospel, forcing them to accept it would negate the whole purpose of our earthly existance. In this case the means cannot simply be justified by the end.
Also, some people have taken Geoff's statement in a way other than which it was intended I believe (although I am obviously not him). It seemed to me that based on their conversation, his meaning was that KoM's aethist beliefs and lifestyle were not a threat to his LDS beliefs and lifestyle, so why did it seems as though KoM was threatened by Geoff's beliefs. Now looking at how awkwardly my last sentence was composed, it's no wonder he phrased it as he did.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
More particularly, in LDS theology coercion is a characteristic of Satan. It's also a common enough error for mortals to fall into. Contention is another one.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
This is an old eastern religious quote I have heard, it speaks of a missionary who loved his religion to the extent he would hurt others to support it. It also says that that people will do almost anything to have others follow and believe in them, and as such as soon as you speak you attempt to have the other person follow your belief, which is often painful, and as such you are becoming evil.
I am not quite sure what ramifications this may have but I feel that it is a reasonable assumption about humans, most of religion has been formed by massive bloodshed, and great pain. What I dont understand is that for a very long time the religious devout would make an attempt to convert you, and if you did not follow their creed you would be killed. Some of the most powerful religious leaders I have read of seem to have been the least supportive of the values they preached.
I understand that this is more than a little ranting.
Posts: 883 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
More specifically, in LDS doctrine, the devil wanted to take away our ability to choose.
Saul was persecuting the Christians because he really believed they were wrong and blasphemous. He was honest in heart, but he wouldn't listen to a contrary point of view without it coming from the Lord. And he had to be really convinced that it was from the Lord.
That was a highly persuasive bit of convincing, don't you think?
Many others have seen signs and wonders and still didn't change their hearts or convert. Saul made a choice to believe and to change, he wasn't forced.
And isn't this in the wrong thread? Posts: 1522 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:That was a highly persuasive bit of convincing, don't you think?
Yes. I'm rather disappointed that God doesn't do us ALL the same favor. I do not share the Mormon opinion that most people, faced with God, would choose to disobey or defy Him.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I do not share the Mormon opinion that most people, faced with God, would choose to disobey or defy Him.
Aye, this is a key difference. When studying Mormon scripture, there is a clear message of, "The more understanding you have of the things of God, the greater the condemnation for not living up to those things."
God, knowing all things, knew that Saul would respond beautifully to the revelation of His existance. There are similar examples in LDS scripture. Alma the Younger and the sons of Mosiah. In Helaman chapter 5 you have a large group of people who have a heavenly close-encounter who then go on to be valiant and zealous with that knowledge.
I know that I am a lazy, corner-cutting, procrastinating person. I am glad that God is giving me a chance to improve upon those things before I am under such heavy responsibility.
I assume that the crux of this is that you, Tom, believe that if God revealed Himself to you, you would be valiant with this information. If God exists and He deems you not able to handle the sure knowledge of His existance, that could smack as a tad bit insulting.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
(I hate it when I jump into the fray, I don't belong here.)
There are cases where people "faced with God" obeyed Him at the time, out of fear, but as soon as He wasn't "facing" them anymore they turned back to their previous ways. Their behavior was changed while the fear was present, but their hearts were not changed. You can force someone to change their behavior, but not their heart or their innermost beliefs. And if you don't change their heart you haven't converted them - not for the long term.
Saul was the kind of man whose heart was really in the right place to begin with, IMO. He changed his behavior because he wanted to; he wanted to follow God, he just didn't know that what he'd been doing was against God's will. When presented with credible evidence to the contrary , he really converted - and stayed that way for the rest of his life.
Posts: 1522 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bev, didn't see your post before. I'm of the opinion that God doesn't just reveal Himself to people for the sake of their own conversion - He only does it fairly rarely in cases where that individual's conversion makes a much bigger difference to the community/world around them.
Saul/Paul, Alma the Younger, Joseph Smith, Moses are all cases in point. Each of their visions or visitations was the precursor to saving many people from being hurt/killed, and/or leading many people to the gospel.
Therefore, there's no reason for Tom (or I) to be insulted that we haven't been visited (yet). Posts: 1522 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Unless Tom believes that were he to be similarly visited, he could have just as much zeal and potential for good. But I understand what you are saying and it makes sense to me. Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Why would people who really believe that those whom they strive to love are in danger of, at the very least, losing out on eternal paradise, do anything else with their time than trying to save them?
I believe there is an assumption present in this question that is not necessarily warranted.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by cheiros do ender: I don't think spending ALL your time proselytizing your beliefs to others shows love to your fellow man. Have you ever been to an LDS ward? It really is the best place, IMO, for non-members to learn about the churches beliefs.
Or not, there's a reason why members developed the saying "The church is perfect the people aren't"
Granted the Utah incarnation of the Church was my only experience with LDS beliefs, hierachy etc but it was enlightening
Posts: 26 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
)![[Wink]](wink.gif)
