Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Explaining v preaching v prostlyzing

preaching prosstlyzing

  • Please log in to reply
52 replies to this topic

#31    Sherapy

Sherapy

    Sheri loves Sean loves Sheri...

  • Member
  • 24,790 posts
  • Joined:14 Jun 2005
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:At the Beach-- San Pedro, California

  • "If one is to be thought acceptable and agreeable in society, one must submit to being taught the same lessons over and over again." --Hammer

Posted 20 February 2013 - 09:52 PM

View PostJor-el, on 20 February 2013 - 07:31 PM, said:

Religion is not a role model for morality, it never was it will never be so, no matter how much people assume it to be the case. It is this misalignment in thought, that was, is and will be detrimental to religion. By allowing religion to be the role model and determining what morality is and ought to be has allowed all kinds of atrocities in the name of religion.

I have often observed/learned that religion is used as a moral guide/influence. Of course-- I do not dispute that religion can be applied in a way that is harmful.


Morality (from the Latin moralitas "manner, character, proper behavior") is the differentiation of intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are "good" (or right) and those that are "bad" (or wrong). The philosophy of morality is ethics. A moral code is a system of morality (according to a particular philosophy, religion, culture, etc.) and a moral is any one practice or teaching within a moral code.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality

http://csrs.nd.edu/a...adolescents.pdf

Edited by Sherapy, 20 February 2013 - 09:53 PM.


#32    Jor-el

Jor-el

    Knight of the Most High God

  • Member
  • 8,026 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portugal

  • We are the sum of all that is, and has been. We will be the sum of our choices.

Posted 20 February 2013 - 10:21 PM

I have often commented that what is "good" to me may really be "bad" to someone else and vice versa. It is a can of worms...

Edited by Jor-el, 20 February 2013 - 10:22 PM.

Posted Image


"Man is not the centre. God does not exist for the sake of man. Man does not exist for his own sake."

-C. S. Lewis


#33    Jor-el

Jor-el

    Knight of the Most High God

  • Member
  • 8,026 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portugal

  • We are the sum of all that is, and has been. We will be the sum of our choices.

Posted 20 February 2013 - 10:25 PM

View PostSherapy, on 20 February 2013 - 09:03 PM, said:

Jor el quotes:
"Proselytizing, means that you are willing to entertain the ideas that someone is "preaching" to you."

"Historically, proselytizing is the most effective method ALL religions had of ensuring their religion lived on after they died away."

Based on both your ideas/positions 8ty offered 2 examples to counter. You defined the perimeter of both his arguments with both of your quotes. One addresses Euclidian and one addresses Religion.

How you would counter to 8ty's argument? He clearly shows 2 examples where your arguments show bias. Can you address this. Thank you. I am actually interested in your counter.

And by countering we would be moving beyond the threads subject matter as I'm sure you noticed both 8B and myself did not wish to do. Naturally we can start a new topic on this matter and then we would be free to indulge.

Posted Image


"Man is not the centre. God does not exist for the sake of man. Man does not exist for his own sake."

-C. S. Lewis


#34    Mr Walker

Mr Walker

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 19,342 posts
  • Joined:09 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Australia

  • Sometimes the Phantom leaves the jungle, and walks the streets of the city like an ordinary man.

Posted 20 February 2013 - 10:34 PM

View PostSherapy, on 20 February 2013 - 05:33 PM, said:

I do not think just because someone is a parent this automatically makes them an authority on all matters  as your quote suggests to me," Parents have a right and a duty to teach everything to their children."

I think I would say a parent has the obligation to make sure that they themselves are up to par and informed/growth minded and  take the steps needed to do so for the sake of the child and society. I think  encouraging curiousity, topicality, and an interest in many things can lead to more options for growth as opposed to just teaching ideas because they serve to affirm ones beleifs. In the big picture it is curiousity that drives one to seek new solutions to old ways of doing things. And well meaning parents can literally limit their childs options by how they teach them things.


If a parent themselves doesn't question, doesn't challenge ideas, isn't curious about other positons and outlooks nor cultivates sympathy to other doctrines how would they go about teaching this?  I do not agree with parenting that seeks to teach by limiting a child to certain commitments or conclusions.(I would use great care in this area.)

I agree.

A parent has a responsibilty to teach everything they have learned to a child. Their experiences and knowledge thus becomes the child's base of knolwedge and understanding. But this process is ongoing. A parent /adult will continue to learn grow and develop  and so will a child. As a consequence they may grow apart in beliefs (or closer together)

But despite the opportunities for a child to learn from many sources in a modern world, their parents are the first source of learning and knolwedge (inmost cases) They teach a child to speak, and read and in doing so how to think and be aware of self and non self. The more that parents can teach to young children, the more ther children will develop as adults.It amazes me how many children come to school unable to read (and some almost unable to speak) because their parents have been either unable, unwilling, or not caring enough, to teach them how to. By five,  (compulsory school age in Australia) many opportunities for language and other growth have already been lost, due to the way the plasticity of the brain decreases from birth.

You are a child of the universe, no less than the trees and the stars; you have a right to be here. And whether or not it is clear to you, no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should.

Therefore be at peace with God, whatever you conceive Him to be, and whatever your labors and aspirations, in the noisy confusion of life keep peace with your soul.

With all its sham, drudgery and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world..

Be cheerful.

Strive to be happy.

#35    Mr Walker

Mr Walker

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 19,342 posts
  • Joined:09 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Australia

  • Sometimes the Phantom leaves the jungle, and walks the streets of the city like an ordinary man.

Posted 20 February 2013 - 11:04 PM

View Posteight bits, on 20 February 2013 - 07:52 PM, said:

Jor-el

I liked Sheri's answer about the geometry better than the one I would have composed. I'll just go with hers.

You and I seem to disagree on the facts about Buddhist recruiting practices, and I don't see the relevance of their pacificism or lack of it to how they restore their membership. That won't be resolved here. Judaism, then, will stand as a counterexample.

We simply disagree that "proselytizing" occurs whenever a religion allows new members to join. Obviously, if that's what the word meant, then it is logically necessary that any religion which didn't proselytize would cease to exist when the first generation died.

I'll settle for our agreement on the general idea that much proselytizing is aimed at folks who've  already been exposed to the message. I disagree that the more accessible parts of Asia or Africa "have never heard the message of Christ," but I think that won't be resolved here, either,  because I suspect we disagree about which "messages of Christ" count.

Proselythesim is the active attempt to convert another. A religion need not die out because no one atempts to convert others to it. I "chose" christianity as a culturally relevant form of expression  without anyone preaching to me or proselythising.
Mere  historical sociological or cultural reading and observation can inform an individual about religions which suit their own preferences. Given that, as creatures, most humans "need" a spiritual/ religious framework as much as they require a logical/philosophical one for their existence, a human may simply chose any form of religious code without anyone ever prosylthesing.

You are a child of the universe, no less than the trees and the stars; you have a right to be here. And whether or not it is clear to you, no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should.

Therefore be at peace with God, whatever you conceive Him to be, and whatever your labors and aspirations, in the noisy confusion of life keep peace with your soul.

With all its sham, drudgery and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world..

Be cheerful.

Strive to be happy.

#36    Sherapy

Sherapy

    Sheri loves Sean loves Sheri...

  • Member
  • 24,790 posts
  • Joined:14 Jun 2005
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:At the Beach-- San Pedro, California

  • "If one is to be thought acceptable and agreeable in society, one must submit to being taught the same lessons over and over again." --Hammer

Posted 20 February 2013 - 11:10 PM

View PostMr Walker, on 20 February 2013 - 10:34 PM, said:

I agree.

A parent has a responsibilty to teach everything they have learned to a child. Their experiences and knowledge thus becomes the child's base of knolwedge and understanding. But this process is ongoing. A parent /adult will continue to learn grow and develop  and so will a child. As a consequence they may grow apart in beliefs (or closer together)

But despite the opportunities for a child to learn from many sources in a modern world, their parents are the first source of learning and knolwedge (inmost cases) They teach a child to speak, and read and in doing so how to think and be aware of self and non self. The more that parents can teach to young children, the more ther children will develop as adults.It amazes me how many children come to school unable to read (and some almost unable to speak) because their parents have been either unable, unwilling, or not caring enough, to teach them how to. By five,  (compulsory school age in Australia) many opportunities for language and other growth have already been lost, due to the way the plasticity of the brain decreases from birth.


I cannot agree more with this, in taking the time, the child has such an advantage in the realm of learning and this is for a lifetime.
Well said MW!

It's hard work and effort to keep oneself informed and current.

Edited by Sherapy, 20 February 2013 - 11:16 PM.


#37    Sherapy

Sherapy

    Sheri loves Sean loves Sheri...

  • Member
  • 24,790 posts
  • Joined:14 Jun 2005
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:At the Beach-- San Pedro, California

  • "If one is to be thought acceptable and agreeable in society, one must submit to being taught the same lessons over and over again." --Hammer

Posted 20 February 2013 - 11:17 PM

View PostJor-el, on 20 February 2013 - 10:25 PM, said:

And by countering we would be moving beyond the threads subject matter as I'm sure you noticed both 8B and myself did not wish to do. Naturally we can start a new topic on this matter and then we would be free to indulge.

Jo rel,

I am interested in your ideas if you change your mind- but if not fair enough.

Edited by Sherapy, 20 February 2013 - 11:18 PM.


#38    Sherapy

Sherapy

    Sheri loves Sean loves Sheri...

  • Member
  • 24,790 posts
  • Joined:14 Jun 2005
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:At the Beach-- San Pedro, California

  • "If one is to be thought acceptable and agreeable in society, one must submit to being taught the same lessons over and over again." --Hammer

Posted 20 February 2013 - 11:21 PM

View PostMr Walker, on 20 February 2013 - 11:04 PM, said:

Proselythesim is the active attempt to convert another. A religion need not die out because no one atempts to convert others to it. I "chose" christianity as a culturally relevant form of expression  without anyone preaching to me or proselythising.
Mere  historical sociological or cultural reading and observation can inform an individual about religions which suit their own preferences. Given that, as creatures, most humans "need" a spiritual/ religious framework as much as they require a logical/philosophical one for their existence, a human may simply chose any form of religious code without anyone ever prosylthesing.

Very well said MW!


#39    Sherapy

Sherapy

    Sheri loves Sean loves Sheri...

  • Member
  • 24,790 posts
  • Joined:14 Jun 2005
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:At the Beach-- San Pedro, California

  • "If one is to be thought acceptable and agreeable in society, one must submit to being taught the same lessons over and over again." --Hammer

Posted 21 February 2013 - 01:20 AM

View PostMr Walker, on 20 February 2013 - 12:27 PM, said:

There are rtwo separate issues here. I am not going to argue the first. I have been forcefully putting my own views on UM for nearly 10 years and no one has ever accused me of preaching or proselytising. And that  is not my intent. It is not my job to "convert " others or preach to them, only to provide information. Each adult must find their own way in life and their own relationship with god.

  The second issue is different. Parents have a right and a duty to teach everything to their children. How to speak, spell, write, do maths; how to think, what  ethics and moralities are good and which are bad. So every parent should teach their child, from birth through stories playing with them involving them in household or work activities, talking to them etc, what has worked for them and what has not.

it is as important to teach a child helpful and constructive spiritual truths, as it is how to cook  safely and successfully, or how to play safely and have fun,  or how to design and build something, or how to play with other children successfully.

Teaching a child spiritual dimensions and spiritual thinking, is as critical as teaching them how to think logically, and how to use their imagination for internal and external creative purposes.

A theist should teach their child to be a theist, because after all as an adult it worked for them. An atheist should teach their child to be an atheist for the same reason.

But there are many more important and basic ethics, knolwedge, teachings, understandings and moralities, than  just religion. Children must not just learn codes of behaviour but internalise certainn values and understand why those values are productive and creative. They mus tbe taught that self is not as important as society tht they are not the most important person in the world, and that happiness does not come from material possessions. (you can disagree and teach a child that self is more important than society or that happiness comes from material possesions  as long as this works and is true for yourself and for your child.)
children can be taught to  read by age 2 and to think in logical fashion by age 3 or 4 They recognise the necessary elements of human thought by about age 4 and should be aware of their stream of consciousness and thought patterns by the same age. But the more, and early, you teach a child, the more it will learn, A young child can learn several languages several musical instruments how to paint and write poetry and lots of other things before school age simply by being taught them in a fun but structured way.

A young child (pre school age)ca n be taught the elements of logical thinking, of basic philosophy and how to debate issues in their mind using different points of view. they can be taught to see anothers point of view, how to develop sympathy and empathy They can be taught different forms of justice including retributive and restorative. most important they can be taught hw to recognise and exercise internal or self discipline. We had a 2 year old visit the other day who  did not touch a single object in our house, despite being fascinated by many of them, because he had been taught not to do so without asking first. He couldn't talk properly yet, but he could understand  the requirement, and exercise the  self control necessary to do this. I spent a couple of hours talking to him, teaching him some simple games, and playing with some of the objects he wanted to touch. We both had incredible fun and learned a lot.

I think this is another good example of how we impart ideas without  "proselytizing". in fact, I'd challenge Jor el's idea that "Historically, proselytizing is the most effective method ALL religions had of ensuring their religion lived on after they died away."
No where is it more imporantt that our ideas live on in our kids.
If we look at Kolhberg's stages of moral development the first stages impart the rules by the immediacy of consequences-- which evolves to the concern of getting caught-- tilll eventually one will do the right thing because they cannot live with themselves-- or they think it is the only right thing to do -- or if not them who.

http://en.wikipedia....ral_development

We can see with your example  MW's  that a 2 year old will learn the rules by the immediacy of consequences, (I am even excluding punishment) what I mean is the child will learn by good ole fashioned consistency. Taking the time to consistently teach  them no not  this, but this..(show them what they can/cannot do as they navigate their enviiornment )(it is what i did with 3 kids , one knows they do not have the comprehension to understand prosletizing/preaching and they tune it out in their teens.lol ) As you show MW the child learned the tules without proselytizing or preaching, the child demostrated this in your home.

Edited by Sherapy, 21 February 2013 - 01:22 AM.


#40    Doug1o29

Doug1o29

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,380 posts
  • Joined:01 Aug 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:oklahoma

Posted 21 February 2013 - 05:15 PM

View PostFrank Merton, on 12 February 2013 - 03:58 PM, said:

What is the difference between explaining
The listener ASKED for an explanation.

Quote

one's religion and preaching it?
The listener isn't listening, hence, no communication.

Quote

When does it become proselytizing
The listener DIDN'T ask to hear it.

Quote

and when does that become trying to "shove one's religion down someone's throat?"
The listener is unable to escape.

Quote

At what age should children be taught religion
Teaching by example begins at birth, long before the words are intelligible.

Quote

and is it fair to a child for the parents to insist the child go to their church?
It's never fair, but some form of education (preferably by the parents at home) is essential.

If Christians spent as much time doing God's work as they do sitting in church, the Kingdom of Heaven would be near at hand.
Doug

If I have seen farther than other men, it is because I stood on the shoulders of giants. --Bernard de Chartres
The beginning of knowledge is the realization that one doesn't and cannot know everything.
Science is the father of knowledge, but opinion breeds ignorance. --Hippocrates
Ignorance is not an opinion. --Adam Scott

#41    Jor-el

Jor-el

    Knight of the Most High God

  • Member
  • 8,026 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portugal

  • We are the sum of all that is, and has been. We will be the sum of our choices.

Posted 21 February 2013 - 07:01 PM

View PostMr Walker, on 20 February 2013 - 11:04 PM, said:

Proselythesim is the active attempt to convert another. A religion need not die out because no one atempts to convert others to it. I "chose" christianity as a culturally relevant form of expression  without anyone preaching to me or proselythising.
Mere  historical sociological or cultural reading and observation can inform an individual about religions which suit their own preferences. Given that, as creatures, most humans "need" a spiritual/ religious framework as much as they require a logical/philosophical one for their existence, a human may simply chose any form of religious code without anyone ever prosylthesing.

Actually no it it does not HAVE to be an active attempt, passive attempts are also included in the concept...

intransitive verb

1
: to induce someone to convert to one's faith

2
: to recruit someone to join one's party, institution, or cause
transitive verb

: to recruit or convert especially to a new faith, institution, or cause

http://www.merriam-w...ary/proselytize

As such any act that induces a conversion is a form of proselytization. Even if that act is in the form of a book or a movie, or a news article or whatever...

That is the reason why I stated earlier that ALL religions proselytize, in one way or another, whether they actively and intentionally try to do so or not.

Posted Image


"Man is not the centre. God does not exist for the sake of man. Man does not exist for his own sake."

-C. S. Lewis


#42    Jor-el

Jor-el

    Knight of the Most High God

  • Member
  • 8,026 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portugal

  • We are the sum of all that is, and has been. We will be the sum of our choices.

Posted 21 February 2013 - 07:09 PM

View PostSherapy, on 20 February 2013 - 09:52 PM, said:

I have often observed/learned that religion is used as a moral guide/influence. Of course-- I do not dispute that religion can be applied in a way that is harmful.


Morality (from the Latin moralitas "manner, character, proper behavior") is the differentiation of intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are "good" (or right) and those that are "bad" (or wrong). The philosophy of morality is ethics. A moral code is a system of morality (according to a particular philosophy, religion, culture, etc.) and a moral is any one practice or teaching within a moral code.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality

http://csrs.nd.edu/a...adolescents.pdf

I came across this quote which clarifies my position much better than my comment yesterday, I thought I would share it with you...


Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws.


Plato



Posted Image


"Man is not the centre. God does not exist for the sake of man. Man does not exist for his own sake."

-C. S. Lewis


#43    Mr Walker

Mr Walker

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 19,342 posts
  • Joined:09 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Australia

  • Sometimes the Phantom leaves the jungle, and walks the streets of the city like an ordinary man.

Posted 21 February 2013 - 09:27 PM

View PostJor-el, on 21 February 2013 - 07:01 PM, said:

Actually no it it does not HAVE to be an active attempt, passive attempts are also included in the concept...

intransitive verb

1
: to induce someone to convert to one's faith

2
: to recruit someone to join one's party, institution, or cause
transitive verb

: to recruit or convert especially to a new faith, institution, or cause

http://www.merriam-w...ary/proselytize

As such any act that induces a conversion is a form of proselytization. Even if that act is in the form of a book or a movie, or a news article or whatever...

That is the reason why I stated earlier that ALL religions proselytize, in one way or another, whether they actively and intentionally try to do so or not.
To induce is still a active attempt. Proselythesising requires active intent. For example if I happen to  stop and hear a person talking about their religion to themsleves, that person is not proselythising. Neither is a historian or sociologist who records and writes in detail about the nature of a religion. There must be an active intent to convert. A parent living their life is not proselythisising their chidren, although their chidren will pick up the parent's behaviours. So if i read a history book about islam and decide to convert to islam  neither the author, nor the book/words, was engaging in proselythisising.

You are a child of the universe, no less than the trees and the stars; you have a right to be here. And whether or not it is clear to you, no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should.

Therefore be at peace with God, whatever you conceive Him to be, and whatever your labors and aspirations, in the noisy confusion of life keep peace with your soul.

With all its sham, drudgery and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world..

Be cheerful.

Strive to be happy.

#44    Mr Walker

Mr Walker

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 19,342 posts
  • Joined:09 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Australia

  • Sometimes the Phantom leaves the jungle, and walks the streets of the city like an ordinary man.

Posted 21 February 2013 - 09:36 PM

View PostJor-el, on 21 February 2013 - 07:09 PM, said:

I came across this quote which clarifies my position much better than my comment yesterday, I thought I would share it with you...




Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws.



Plato


I must be in an argumentative mood this morning but Plato was wrong. In a society all people require laws to establish a standard codification of behaviour. "Good" people may choose to obey those laws and "bad" people may choose to disobey them, but people do not inherently KNOW the laws of a culture they have to be taught them, and for this to happen the laws must exist.

In Plato's time this was not so much so, as people grew up in a culture learning expectations from birth and generally those expectations were consistent within a culture, but today, as we move from one culture to another, and as cultures break down into sub cultures and individualism,, laws are essential For example, in amsterdam prostituion and drugs may be perfectly legal. In singapore you can be fined for chewing gum. Laws reflect the standards and moralities of a culture, and are used as a tool to show ALL people, good and bad, what that society's expectaions are. I am a good person but if i do not know the laws of a country then I can still get into terrible trouble.

You are a child of the universe, no less than the trees and the stars; you have a right to be here. And whether or not it is clear to you, no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should.

Therefore be at peace with God, whatever you conceive Him to be, and whatever your labors and aspirations, in the noisy confusion of life keep peace with your soul.

With all its sham, drudgery and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world..

Be cheerful.

Strive to be happy.

#45    Sherapy

Sherapy

    Sheri loves Sean loves Sheri...

  • Member
  • 24,790 posts
  • Joined:14 Jun 2005
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:At the Beach-- San Pedro, California

  • "If one is to be thought acceptable and agreeable in society, one must submit to being taught the same lessons over and over again." --Hammer

Posted 21 February 2013 - 09:56 PM

View PostMr Walker, on 21 February 2013 - 09:27 PM, said:

To induce is still a active attempt. Proselythesising requires active intent. For example if I happen to  stop and hear a person talking about their religion to themsleves, that person is not proselythising. Neither is a historian or sociologist who records and writes in detail about the nature of a religion. There must be an active intent to convert. A parent living their life is not proselythisising their chidren, although their chidren will pick up the parent's behaviours. So if i read a history book about islam and decide to convert to islam  neither the author, nor the book/words, was engaging in proselythisising.
An example fo my own:
If my 20 year old has chosen to be a Catholic, and I tried to talk him out of it or told him he was wrong/evil not worthy of eternal life  and would be going to athiest nothingness (basically trying to convince him of my non belief stance/pov.) or I was trying to impose my truth as his/the only truth and intentionally sought to convert him to my way then I would be prosletyzing.

If in the exploration/exposure of any ideas, if he is using unimpaired critical faculties (age appropriate) or his own informed opinion has lead him to his decison. I would respect and embrace him as an individual, period. In turn-- by the things that he was saying (such as he is reading the bible and the contradictions are leading him to questions and there are things he doesn't agree with in the bible and will be going his own way, while at the same time understanding if someone else chooses to follow the bible literally that is their right, just not where he is at.) Then this would not be prosletyzing.

There is a huge difference between sharing ideas and seeking to impose them.
I often read ideas/books that are unlike my own(on purpose) simply to embrace/learn other persepctives, not to assume or conclude to the beliefs.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users