Conversion of the Soul

[IMSassafras]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

Hi Scott,

But really don't you think it's splitting a mighty fine hair to make this kind of distinction? If a Christian hands out a pamphlet it's evangelizing, which you seem to consider proselytizing, but if a Baha'i hands out a pamphlet it's teaching, not proselytizing?

peace,
Laurie

Luna,

I know you were responding to Scott in this post, but I was re-reading this thread and came across this post which I had missed in the past and I just could not avoid to respond to it myself. I hope I am not stepping on any toes.

If a Christian hands out a pamphlet, it is considered teaching.
If a Christian walks down a street or sidewalk ranting and raving, it is considered evangelizing.
If a Baha'i hands out a pamphlet and the receiver knows it is about the Baha'i Faith, it is considered teaching.
If a Baha'i hands out a pamphlet and the receiver does not know it is about the Baha'i Faith, we would considered it proselytizing. The guidelines concerning proselytizing in the Baha'i Faith concern only Baha'is and their actions. Since adherents of other religions do not have these guidelines, then the distinction between proselytizing, teaching, and evangelizing could be difficult for many to distinguish.
If a Baha'i posts on Forum under Baha'i section about a principle of the Baha'i Faith and carefully waits for questions and respones, we considered it teaching.
If a Baha'i posts on a Forum under a non-Baha'i section, we considered it proselytizing.
If a Baha'i answers questions from non-Baha'is under a Baha'i section, we considered it teaching.
If a Baha'i answers questions from non-Baha's under a non-Baha'i section, it may be considered proselytizing or teaching depending on the conversation.

It is all in the eye of the beholder.

Unity in Diversity
Sassafras

[lunamoth]

Hi Sassafras, good to see you posting again.

If a Baha'i posts on a Forum under a non-Baha'i section, we considered it proselytizing.

Well, this would be an even more stringent definition of proselytizing than I would suggest, and most of our Baha'i members have done this.

It is hard to judge intent in posts, it is even hard often when talking with someone face to face. I usually go by statements that seem to say, in effect, "I am right, or my religion is right, and you (or your religion) are wrong, incomplete, missing out, corrupted, clouded etc. in your beliefs." Those types of statements, in combination with where posted and in what context, can suggest proselytizing to me. However, if someone misrepresents or misunderstands your religion then it would be only right set the record straight, and there are many examples of this at CR.

If a Christian hands out a pamphlet, it is considered teaching.
If a Christian walks down a street or sidewalk ranting and raving, it is considered evangelizing.

I would say that neither of these is evangelizing. Both are ineffective and the second is downright rude and anti-social. Evangelizing is not a dirty or negative word, although I do understand the connotations it has taken on with the conservative Christian movement. Evangelizing means sharing the good news that God loves us and it is best done by deeds, not words. I'm sure this is something we both can agree on.

If a Baha'i hands out a pamphlet and the receiver does not know it is about the Baha'i Faith, we would considered it proselytizing.[/color]

???

Originally Posted by IMSassafras

I hope I am not stepping on any toes.

No toes injured at all.

peace,
Luna

[IMSassafras]

Luna,

Hello. It is always good to talk with you.

Originally Posted by IMSassafras

If a Baha'i posts on a Forum under a non-Baha'i section, we considered it proselytizing.

Originally Posted by Lunamoth

Well, this would be an even more stringent definition of proselytizing than I would suggest, and most of our Baha'i members have done this.

I need to clarify my above statement, but Baha'is do, in fact, have very defined guidelines concerning proselyzing. I do not know of another religion having any such guidelines for proselytizing. I do, though, know adherents are expected to administer their religion's beliefs to those not of their faith.

Clarification:
If a Baha'i [starts] a post on a Forum under a non-Baha'i section with a pure and loving gesture, we consider it teaching.
If a Baha'i [starts] a post on a Forum under a non-Baha'i section with a definitive or harsh tone to their post, it may be considered proselytizing or teaching depending on the intentions and motives of the individual. How the post was received by readers will, and should, also, be taken in account.

I hope this better clarifies my above statement. My apologies for not accurately conveying my thoughts the first time.

Originally Posted by Lunamoth

It is hard to judge intent in posts, it is even hard often when talking with someone face to face. I usually go by statements that seem to say, in effect, "I am right, or my religion is right, and you (or your religion) are wrong, incomplete, missing out, corrupted, clouded etc. in your beliefs." Those types of statements, in combination with where posted and in what context, can suggest proselytizing to me. However, if someone misrepresents or misunderstands your religion then it would be only right set the record straight, and there are many examples of this at CR.

Conversing on a Forum is more difficult than in person. In person, we have our emotions, attitudes, vocal tones, and our reactions in order to convey to each other how we like or dislike what we are hearing. On a Forum, we have to fill in the blanks. There are many times, in person, I will not get into an indepth conversation about a topic if I am under the impression that person is going to argue with me or try to push their views onto me. On a Forum, I don't know how a person is going to react to something until I post, reply, confront, question, answer, or just have a conversation. Misunderstandings are bound to happen. There is also the possibility that a chain reaction of misunderstandings can occur leading to hurt feelings and a misconstrued judgement of an individual or group of people.

Originally Posted by IMSassafras

If a Christian hands out a pamphlet, it is considered teaching.
If a Christian walks down a street or sidewalk ranting and raving, it is considered evangelizing.

Originally Posted by Lunamoth

I would say that neither of these is evangelizing. Both are ineffective and the second is downright rude and anti-social. Evangelizing is not a dirty or negative word, although I do understand the connotations it has taken on with the conservative Christian movement. Evangelizing means sharing the good news that God loves us and it is best done by deeds, not words. I'm sure this is something we both can agree on.

"Evangelizing" is an aggressive approach to converting adherents of another religion. It is rude. It is close-minded. It is outdated. It is spooky. It is cultish. It doesn't "share" anything. It simply evokes a stringent view upon the listener.

"________ is sharing the good news that God loves us and it is best done by deeds, not words." Fill in the blank with another word. Maybe, then, we can agree. I think Baha'i would suggest the word, "Teaching". I would.

Originally Posted by IMSassafras

If a Baha'i hands out a pamphlet and the receiver does not know it is about the Baha'i Faith, we would considered it proselytizing.

Originally Posted by Lunamoth

???

What's the question?


With Loving Kindness,
Sassafras

[lunamoth]

Good morning, Sassafras,

Well, if you insist that teaching the Baha'i Faith is not proselytizing (to recruit someone to one's party/cause/religion) then I will insist that evangelizing (the revival of personal committments to Christ) is not by definition (or by spirit) rude or coercive.

In their finest form, both are a call to love God and each other.

Peace to you during this glorious Lent and the fasting month of Ala,
Laurie

[IMSassafras]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

Good morning, Sassafras,

Well, if you insist that teaching the Baha'i Faith is not proselytizing (to recruit someone to one's party/cause/religion) then I will insist that evangelizing (the revival of personal committments to Christ) is not by definition (or by spirit) rude or coercive.

In their finest form, both are a call to love God and each other.

Peace to you during this glorious Lent and the fasting month of Ala,
Laurie

Luna,

Our view of each other's religious terminologies are different. I don't know how else to convey to you my view except to tell you to re-read my post.

In their finest form, they are opposites. And these opposites, do not attract.


Thank you, Luna. Fasting is going well. I always look forward to this time.

Peace to you
Sassafras

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by IMSassafras

Luna,

Our view of each other's religious terminologies are different. I don't know how else to convey to you my view except to tell you to re-read my post.

In their finest form, they are opposites. And these opposites, do not attract.


Thank you, Luna. Fasting is going well. I always look forward to this time.

Peace to you
Sassafras

Hi Sassafras,

No Sassafras, they are not opposites (teaching and evangelism). If you want to say that teaching is a specifically Baha'i usage and evangelism refers specifically to teaching Christianity that's fine with me. However, to consistently say that evangelism is bad and rude is to be derogatory toward Christianity, something I know that you do not wish to do. Evangelism does not mean ranting on street corners and telling others that they are condemned to hell, and if that is your only experience of evangelism then I am sorry. However, evangelism, spreading Christ's message of love, is part of being a Christian as much as teaching the Baha'i Faith is part of being a Baha'i.

Yes, I am intending to take back the term 'evangelism' from the conservatives, as well as the term 'born again.'

peace to you,
lunamoth, a liberal born-again, evangelical, pluralistic Christian

[Mick]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

Yes, I am intending to take back the term 'evangelism' from the conservatives, as well as the term 'born again.'

peace to you,
lunamoth, a liberal born-again, evangelical, pluralistic Christian

Good luck, lunamoth. The word needs to be taken back from the zealots.

Personally, I can become a little evangelistic, meaning fervent, when teaching an individual about Baha'u'llah, but never will anybody hear about Him or the Baha'i Faith unless they ask about it, or at least show some interest in it.

Even if I am asked a question concerning our society, such as, do you agree or disagree with some issue, I typically will answer validating my thoughts with a mention of the Baha'i writings. If they ask me to expound, then I will, but if they simply nod their head and agree or disagree with the point, but do not mention the Faith or Baha'u'llah, then I surely wouldn't expound.

When a person "testifies" to me without out my showing any interest, I find this irritating and you would seem to agree. So it sounds like you "teach" with an evangelistic spirit and I applaud you for that. We're on the same page. Just a matter of semantics.

Mick

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by Mick

Good luck, lunamoth. The word needs to be taken back from the zealots.

Personally, I can become a little evangelistic, meaning fervent, when teaching an individual about Baha'u'llah, but never will anybody hear about Him or the Baha'i Faith unless they ask about it, or at least show some interest in it.

Even if I am asked a question concerning our society, such as, do you agree or disagree with some issue, I typically will answer validating my thoughts with a mention of the Baha'i writings. If they ask me to expound, then I will, but if they simply nod their head and agree or disagree with the point, but do not mention the Faith or Baha'u'llah, then I surely wouldn't expound.

When a person "testifies" to me without out my showing any interest, I find this irritating and you would seem to agree. So it sounds like you "teach" with an evangelistic spirit and I applaud you for that. We're on the same page. Just a matter of semantics.

Mick

Thank you Mick, it's a pleasure to hit a note of concordance here.

peace,
lunamoth

[IMSassafras]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

Hi Sassafras,

No Sassafras, they are not opposites (teaching and evangelism). If you want to say that teaching is a specifically Baha'i usage and evangelism refers specifically to teaching Christianity that's fine with me. However, to consistently say that evangelism is bad and rude is to be derogatory toward Christianity, something I know that you do not wish to do. Evangelism does not mean ranting on street corners and telling others that they are condemned to hell, and if that is your only experience of evangelism then I am sorry. However, evangelism, spreading Christ's message of love, is part of being a Christian as much as teaching the Baha'i Faith is part of being a Baha'i.

Yes, I am intending to take back the term 'evangelism' from the conservatives, as well as the term 'born again.'

peace to you,
lunamoth, a liberal born-again, evangelical, pluralistic Christian

Luna,

I am glad to know we are on a path of understanding.

I am not sure if you can take back the term "evangelism" form the conservatives, just as no one can take back the term "gay" from the homosexuals. It is woven into the fabric of Americana today.

Peace to you
Sassafras

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by IMSassafras

Luna,

I am glad to know we are on a path of understanding.

I am not sure if you can take back the term "evangelism" form the conservatives, just as no one can take back the term "gay" from the homosexuals. It is woven into the fabric of Americana today.

Peace to you
Sassafras

Hi Sassafras, well, it's not like I'm on some kind of campaign or anything. Just trying to correct misunderstandings where I see them. peace, luna