When is it appropriate to share your religious faith with others?

[Paladin]

What I see here though is quite simply a selfish response against the act of solicitation.

So you would have us all be nothing but doormats for people who ignore the request to pass us by? Surely that sort of milquetoast attitude might work for some but not for me. Those that truly need help will always find me willing, those that are nothing but emotional vampires, control freaks who try to re-frame a situation so that the victim becomes the one who is in the wrong deserve the fate that they get.
I've spent too many years dealing with people who are very good at manipulation, re-framing, Freudian projection, and I simply will not tolerate that kind of behavior on my front doorstep or on the street for that matter.
I have had many come up to me asking for money, and I give it gladly, for there was a time I was close to that myself.
But dealing with people who think it great sport to wheedle their way into a control position and then if confronted with their behavior have a neat little way of turning things around so that I'm the bad guy.
Pure Narcissistic bull, and I'm not fooled by it.

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by path_of_one

I think what is telling is how most door knockers would feel if they were approached on a regular basis by unannounced Buddhists or Wiccans........

...........or Zeyphodites preaching of the Holy KwanzeyTurtles of the 9th to 11th dimensions.... yes you gave me the idea for making a YouTube spoof.....muhahahahahaha

Tao

[path_of_one]

Originally Posted by cyberpi

I'm just wondering though if someone were so selfish as to be rude to someone who is not offering them ideas or beliefs deemed worthy of their consideration, then what might be the reaction to these beggars who appear to offer absolutely nothing?

Not sure who this is directed to. I'm not rude. But at the same time, I do not exist for the purpose of having salesmen of various sorts to persistently try to sell me stuff. I'll listen to what their initial business is, say no thank you and have a nice day, and then I expect them to return my polite response with politely leaving. If there is any rudeness, surely it is the person who insists on remaining on my front porch, being pushy about their beliefs or product, and ignoring my response. I don't know about you, but I would consider ignoring what someone just said rude. I would also consider over-staying my welcome rude.

It isn't rude to say no to someone. I'm not a doormat for other people- I'm nice, but I have boundaries, and that's a healthy thing.

As for beggars, I will help any individual that God sends my way in need of help. I'm not against charity in the least. Totally different issue. By the way, all the charities who have come by have been very polite and nice- they just leave a flyer about what their needs are and when they'll be by to pick up donations, and we can leave them on the porch. The only ones that are really annoyingly persistent are the police and fire funds, but they only call.

[Nick the Pilot]

Paladin,

You mentioned boundaries. I think you have hit the nail on the head, because boundaries are the key issue. Proselytizers think they have the right to violate our private space. They do this because they think they have the right to drag us off to Heaven against our will. I have two reactions.

(1) This is based on the assumption that the Christian interpretation of what happens in the afterlife is correct. (I see no need to make this assumption.)

(2) If they are wrong (and I think they are), they will be temporarily spending some time in the very Hell they are warning us about.

Aggressive proselytizers will temporarily go to Hell for what they do? I think so. Will they be protected for what they do in Jesus' name, no matter what? I do not think so.

You asked about the similarities to Freudian projection and reaction formation. I am not up on the latest theories in Freudian psychoanalysis. (I think Freud make a lot of mistakes in his theories.) However, the idea of projection is similar to a phenomenon that effects codependent proselytizers. Codependent proselytizers (indeed, all codependent people) have an image of what they want us to be. When they find out we do not fit the fantasy image of what they want us to be, this triggers unfulfilled, subconscious needs within them. At this point, they are dealing more with their own emotional needs than with the person who is standing in front of them. Codependency is described as having emotions that are out of control. I feel that an aggressive proselytizer can be best described as a person whose emotions are out of control.

Reaction formation? Again, let me use the analogy of men who hit on women. When a codependent man hits on a woman (emotionally stable men do not hit on women), he is trying to trick the woman into a romantic relationship. His trickery is his improperly-formed reaction to the situation. The sad thing is, if he would stop talking, and listen to what she is saying, he might have a chance of achieving his goal. Women are not tricked into romances, they agree to them. The decision to enter into a romance must be mutual, not forced by one of the two people.

Codependent proselytizers, in a similar way, are "hitting" on non-Christians. If they would stop talking, and start listening, they would be much more successful.

There is a theory that all proselytizers are needy. I believe that if proselytizers stopped being needy, they would stop being proselytizers.

[cyberpi]

Originally Posted by Paladin

So you would have us all be nothing but doormats for people who ignore the request to pass us by? Surely that sort of milquetoast attitude might work for some but not for me. Those that truly need help will always find me willing, those that are nothing but emotional vampires, control freaks who try to re-frame a situation so that the victim becomes the one who is in the wrong deserve the fate that they get.

The IRS (government) has been the only solicitor who I have come across who would ignore a request to pass us by and will not take 'no' for an answer. Perhaps since I grew up in Seattle which is outside of the bible belt and it has had a little bit more of an atmosphere of promoting individuality, that I have quite simply not witnessed this proselytizer who will not take 'no' for an answer and move on. Should I encounter one then I will be utilizing other methods than threatening him with violence to contend with him and get him off of my door step.

Originally Posted by Paladin

I've spent too many years dealing with people who are very good at manipulation, re-framing, Freudian projection, and I simply will not tolerate that kind of behavior on my front doorstep or on the street for that matter.
I have had many come up to me asking for money, and I give it gladly, for there was a time I was close to that myself.
But dealing with people who think it great sport to wheedle their way into a control position and then if confronted with their behavior have a neat little way of turning things around so that I'm the bad guy.
Pure Narcissistic bull, and I'm not fooled by it.

If it is just discourse then I encourage it. I recognize that when a person says something it reflects them... not me. My own words and actions speak for themselves. So if an anti-abortionist calls me a 'baby killer' on my front porch or a pro-choicer calls me a 'sexist' on my front porch then I'm going to politely recognize that the person has some issues and then try to contend with them. Whether or not I'm a 'baby killer' or a 'sexist' is worthy of consideration, but I'm personally not going to resort to threats of violence to censor my ears.

You mention a position of control... that is a different dimension. You are no longer talking about a stranger trying to generically promote their belief. I'm guessing you are talking about someone in a position of power who could screw with you should you not say the things they want to hear. For example I could sort of be tagged as a 'baby killer' or a 'sexist' and then there may be some form of coercion down the road as a result of it. As far as I know that coercion would be a criminal activity, but the discourse on the porch or in the street is not.

[Alex P]

Every breathing second of our lives...

It's our very soul and life source.... We should be showing it every way in life, and I don't mean as in preaching to others how to do it, but just simply going and doing it... Being kind, helping others showing forgiveness and mercy, ACCEPTANCE of our enemy and to Love those that stand for something different.... and Simply following the guidelines, rules, laws of said religion, Everyone else knows their role, come on do what you need to do, the others will follow suit eventually.

So yeah, sorry in a way it can be understood easier... We should share our religion all the time in our actions, not so much our words.... Then the world peace graph, keep your eyes in that space, it would increase....

Thought I have been pondering on... Thought I'd share.

[cyberpi]

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

Reaction formation? Again, let me use the analogy of men who hit on women. When a codependent man hits on a woman (emotionally stable men do not hit on women), he is trying to trick the woman into a romantic relationship. His trickery is his improperly-formed reaction to the situation. The sad thing is, if he would stop talking, and listen to what she is saying, he might have a chance of achieving his goal. Women are not tricked into romances, they agree to them. The decision to enter into a romance must be mutual, not forced by one of the two people.

Codependent proselytizers, in a similar way, are "hitting" on non-Christians. If they would stop talking, and start listening, they would be much more successful.

Are real men and women NOT codependent? Where I'm from... my generation... most people did not write up contracts complete with full disclosures before having a conversation and going on a date. There is an uncertainty or unknown and that was some of the purpose of the dating... to learn more about each other. Somewhere at sometime complete strangers will have to exchange something... looks, conversation, cash... whatever, and someone has to solicit for the interest in a date. Dinner, movies, whatever. Not just one solicitation either, but many. In my generation that solicitation was termed 'hitting on women' (or men). The phrase did not mean hitting someone on the head with a club, dropping a date rape drug, or otherwise seducing them and then taking them home. It meant seeking and soliciting for a date. Asking, "Would you like to..." Ultimately, yes, the solicitation is for a potential relationship which involves sex someday down the road after however many dates and "I do's" the two are comfortable with... but there are also friendships and less self-serving interests first.

I imagine with the internet now the situation has changed. People can exchange all kinds of personal information without even interacting first and dropping the question for a date wherein people would get to know each other. Today long before asking someone out for a date there is the potential to judge the flesh, the education, the income status, the prior baggage, the job status, all before even meeting the other person. People like to do this pre-judgment to save them time, so there is a pressure for people to disclose their personal information... to sell themselves. The interaction or dating is becoming more secondary to those pre-judgments... and I think that can be a real shame.

[Nick the Pilot]

Alex,

You have described beautfully how to spread your faith, to do it by respecting other people's boundaries instead of violating those boundaries. The purpose of religion is to help other people improve their people-skills, not make them worse. (Proselytizers advocate doing the exact opposite.)

You definitely have the right idea.

[cyberpi]

Originally Posted by path_of_one

Not sure who this is directed to. I'm not rude.

Then it was not directed to you. In my view some rude ways have been presented here to get rid of someone, even a solicitor who is a psychopathic delusional control freek freudian boundary overstepping codependent emotional vampire and coercive criminal. None of the religions that have come around to our door have fit even a portion of that extreme, and they would easily take 'no' for an answer. If they wouldn't, I submit there are more productive methods of dealing with them.

When I was younger we had carolers who would come around and at some level you are a bit pursued and trapped after opening the door... stuck there not exactly enthralled by the vocal skills, uncertain how long it would carry on for, and ultimately prevented from shutting the door on them to go finish enjoying the former activity... simply because that would seem to be rude. I admire their spirit, and I recognize the dilemma, yet I also recognize that the ability to shut the door is still there. I consider threatening them with physical violence would be a bad approach... and putting up a sign that says, "The last caroller here is still missing", equally to be rude.

When I entered life here I did not choose my parents, my siblings, my teachers, my neighbors... even my choice of friends was limited by how far we could walk down the street. So to me dealing with an inability to control who arrives on my doorstep is not that big of a deal. That is life. There are some choices but not everything here is a choice. I think if I insist on limiting my every relationship to the one that I choose... then I would be a selfish control freak and a bit isolated from life. If those carolers come around to my door and I wanted absolutely nothing to do with them... shutting the door on them to return to my former activity would have been a bit selfish. They wanted me to listen, so I politely listened. If someone else prefers to call them rude and to shut the door on them that is their choice, but I see an error.

I think with simple rules: impose upon and solicit to others as you would that they impose upon and solicit to you.... and accept the impositions and solicitations of others as you would that they accept your impositions and solicitations. That doesn't mean saying 'yes' to everything, but it means listening some and answering 'no' with tact.

[Dondi]

You mentioned boundaries. I think you have hit the nail on the head, because boundaries are the key issue. Proselytizers think they have the right to violate our private space. They do this because they think they have the right to drag us off to Heaven against our will. I have two reactions.

(1) This is based on the assumption that the Christian interpretation of what happens in the afterlife is correct. (I see no need to make this assumption.)

(2) If they are wrong (and I think they are), they will be temporarily spending some time in the very Hell they are warning us about.

Aggressive proselytizers will temporarily go to Hell for what they do? I think so. Will they be protected for what they do in Jesus' name, no matter what? I do not think so.

Wow, that's kinda calling the kettle black, don't you think? I agree that not everyone who says, "Lord, Lord" will enter the kingdom of God, as Jesus warned. But your assumption here is rather assertive and blanketed.

FYI, nobody has a 'right' to tell anyone where they are going, that's for God to judge. But there is a difference in judging people and warning people. You don't judge someone for falling overboard on a ship, you toss them a life presever in hopes that they will latch on. If a person doesn't want to be saved, there is nothing much else you can do to help them. No one will go to heaven against their will.

[mee]

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

Namaste Mee,

thank you for the post.



when i think about this statement and your previous statement to me, it seems you've changed your view.





~v

no ,my view is still focused on the bible and what it teaches revelation 7;9-10

[cyberpi]

Originally Posted by Dondi

FYI, nobody has a 'right' to tell anyone where they are going, that's for God to judge. But there is a difference in judging people and warning people.

I say false... because you used the word 'tell'. Anything a person 'tells' is a warning. Warning is a matter of judging and telling. People have a 'right' to tell anyone where they are going, and it is for them to judge. In fact I tell you that it is a requirement... a requirement to judge... if the people wish to love the soul of anyone. Since you used the word 'tell', the word 'judge' was limited to thinking and providing words. Whether or not that judgment is true is yet another matter of judgment for the person who hears the words.

Furthermore it is not God's will that anyone should end in hell. If God provides judgment then it is the choice of the individual whether or not to sin. It is NOT God's will that anyone should fall.

Originally Posted by Dondi

You don't judge someone for falling overboard on a ship, you toss them a life presever in hopes that they will latch on. If a person doesn't want to be saved, there is nothing much else you can do to help them. No one will go to heaven against their will.

As an example of what I am saying, before the person falls overboard anyone has the right to judge and tell, "Stop leaning over that rail or you will fall over and end up in hell." That doesn't necessarily mean it is true and it doesn't mean pushing them over.

Sure someone could say things like, "If you lean over then God will send you to hell", or, "Jump overboard because heaven is down there". Whether any set of thoughts or words is judged as good, bad, misguided, or outright devious, it is still up to the individual who hears the words to judge and decide what to do. If the words were bad, misguided, or outright devious, then the 'tell' was still a warning of a different kind... an unintended 'tell' maybe but also one that can be used for good. For example if someone comes to me and says, "Drugs are good"... at least now I've got an opportunity having received the warning in the 'tell'.

[arthra]

An issue that I don't think has been addressed so far about say sharing your faith door to door is that some groups actually keep track of how much time you doing that and the group reinforces this with say something like a "toll board" or "chart" showing how much time each person spent doing that... Now I gathered this from a conversation I had quite some time ago with someone who goes door to door..but I was wondering what kinds of pressure is exerted on those who go door to door from their own group?

- Art

[Nick the Pilot]

Art,

I have heard that some Jehovah's Witnesses do not want to go door to door, but their church members force them to. I heard one story of an elderly Jehovah's Witnesses couple who were not in good physical shape. However, they were threatened with damnation if they did not go door to door. So they did.

I felt sorry for them.

[mee]

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

Art,

I have heard that some Jehovah's Witnesses do not want to go door to door, but their church members force them to. I heard one story of an elderly Jehovah's Witnesses couple who were not in good physical shape. However, they were threatened with damnation if they did not go door to door. So they did.

I felt sorry for them.

lol if you believe that you will believe anything

it amazes me how people believe lots of made up stories anout Jehovahs witnesses. someone said to me once , you are not allowed to drink coffee are you . people believe alsorts of things