Show of Hands

Amen!!

I may have to quote you on that!

I can't claim authorship, but it is appropriate. Keep it handy.

The simile is sarcastic and seeks to shame anyone who wants to share their faith. It almost equivocates proselytizing to rape.

A religion is a worldview and unlike a penis, EVERYONE has one. Furthermore, in a Constitutional Republic that legislates through a deliberative body, and that is based on moral ethics directly pulled from Abrahamic faiths, having debate and trying to convert people is central to our way of life.

I think what you need is thicker skin. Just my opinion.

Good way to ruin a funny little analogy.

Simile.
You compared two unlike things.

...and you're welcome.

Sorry buddy, when it comes to religion it's one size fits all.

What is your reasoning for that?

There is only one God and only one savior. Forget religion and get to know Jesus and you'll understand.

I was raised Christian. I went to church and a few youth groups. It just never felt right to me. I happened to see a news story on Wicca one morning when I was in high school. I was immediately drawn to it. Then I went to college. I took a course on various religions. Wicca was still the one that just felt right to me. I didn't feel like I was forcing myself to believe something just to make someone else happy.

Temporary gain but long term loss I'm afraid. The powers that can be gained in this world through Wicca or other such religion will end when you die. The power gained from a relationship with Jesus will continue into eternity. I'm not trying to bible thump you, this is just my perspective. Good luck bro

Point of interest: You're coming off as really pretentious, and it's really off putting. You might have more luck inviting people into your religion if you toned it down a bit.

That is your belief. I do not believe that I gain any powers. I believe in reincarnation. So what I do now affects what happens to me when I die. No one knows for sure 100% about religion. It's all in what you believe. Nothing has ever been proven. So just be nice, don't hurt others, and believe what feels right to you.

Toning it down has gotten society to where it is today. I just speak what I believe is the truth without apology. You don't have to agree with me, that's on you.

Well sure, and you never should have to apologize for your beliefs. But there is a difference between beliefs even strongly held convictions, and objective facts.
Presenting the former as if it were the latter (while they seem interchangeable to you) demonstrates egocentrism and an unwillingness to examine the situation from beyond one's own frame of reference.
And that's a perfectly legitimate way to act if that's what you're going for, you should just be aware of it and that people are far more likely to listen to you if you're not being actively off-putting.

What proven fact is there to any religion?

Prostelytization is unacceptable because it implies pressure and unwanted persistence.

MrMD ... did Christ "force" His disciples to share the gospel?

How do you square the Savior's directive to the remaining eleven with the comment from the Pope? In Mark 16:15, the admonition was clear ... "Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature."

Like I said, there's a difference between evangelization and proselytization. I'm not sure what's not clear.

Here's a better article on what the church is actually talking about.
www.catholicnews.com/services/englishnews/2015/new-vatican-document-reflects-on-relations-between-catholics-jews.cfm

MrMD ... proselytizing and evangelizing are synonyms. You can attempt to distinguish, but they are the same. To suggest that evangelizing is somehow passive sharing and proselytizing is somehow aggressively forcing is a huge stretch. Yes, I understand that the government has attempted to drive a wedge between the two, but it's just not there.

Who, other than ISIS is forcing conversions?

MrMD ... a quick check of the Oxford dictionary reinforces that these two words are synonyms ...

www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/proselytize

No, they are not synonyms.
Proselytize literally means "to make a convert," wherein the word "convert" is a noun, not to be confused with "to make someone convert," which is a step further.
Evangelize means "to spread or preach the gospel."

They are two completely different words, and are only confused in modern English where people don't understand the important difference between the two. In a Vatican document, which is written in Latin, and translated to English, the difference is extremely significant because the etymology of the two words is completely different and demands that the reader recognize the actual difference, and not simply rely on some online dictionary to incorrectly fill in the gaps for them.

MrMD ... while I respect your allegiance to the Vatican, I suggest that they are not the keepers of the English language.

Be that as it may, I'm still waiting for the distinction. Who, other than ISIS is forcing conversions?

If you want to know what a word actually means, particularly when you're dealing with a translation, you need to go to the etymology of the word.
As I said, proselytize means "to make a convert," or more specifically, a "proselyte."
A "proselyte" is a derivative of the word "proserkhesthai" which means "to surrender."

It absolutely is not the same as "evangelize," which translates directly from evangelizare, which very simply means to preach the gospel.

These are not the same thing.

And it also seems you're trying to go too far in the other direction as well. Proselytize, as I mentioned above, is a step below "forced conversion," and therefore can't be confused with what ISIS does.
You're conflating three separate concepts.

MrMD ... you continue to avoid answering the question. Who is forcing anyone to convert! This tempest in a teapot is interesting, but in the end, of little value.

As for the etymology, the submission is the act of the converted. The act of the converted not the converter. We are asked to submit to Him, and it requires a willing heart.

So this has nothing to do with loyalty to the Church. It has to do with clarity of terms as a necessary prerequisite to understanding what the church is actually saying here.
The article skinner posted makes the same mistake you're making here.
I suggest you start with the article I posted and then move on to the actual text of the letter, here
en.radiovaticana.va/news/2015/12/10/vatican_issues_new_document_on_christian-jewish_dialogue_/1193274

You're still not getting it.
Evangelizing is simply sharing the gospel.
Proselytizing is an assertive, persistent effort to convince someone to convert.
Does that help?
Tell you what, I'll find a few articles that explain the difference. Then you'll see that this is a well understood difference in the two terms.

For the record, this distinction is also clarified in the actual letter the Vatican released.

beforeitsnews.com/christian-news/2013/05/so-what-is-the-difference-between-evangelizing-and-proselytizing-2474202.html

www.preachingtoday.com/illustrations/2003/october/14625.html

touchstonemag.com/merecomments/2013/05/difference-evangelization-proselytization/

And even the US military understands the difference, as they prohibit proselytization but permit evangelization
www.deseretnews.com/article/865579514/Pentagon-says-military-personnel-can-evangelize-but-not-proselytize.html?pg=all



Do you understand now?

MrMD ... I'll try just once more and then stop. You may reverence the Vatican as both the source of inspiration and definition. I don't share that view. I suggest that they've chosen to hijack the words.

Let's go with their unorthodox definitions. Who's forcing anyone to listen to the gospel?

I'd suggest that this tempest has now moved to a chocolate teapot.

I believe that the Savior expected His disciples to share the gospel to all people. I also believe that He would not want us to force the gospel onto anyone.

I'm still baffled at the necessity to carve this distinction without a difference as I've seen no examples of force used in conversions, since maybe the Inquisitions.

MrMD ... I value the fact that we agree on many topics. Interpretation of the gospel is not one of them.

I suggest that you've missed my point if you think I didn't comprehend what you said in the very beginning. I did understand. In addition, your condescending comments do not clarify what I already understood. I simply respectfully disagree with your (and the Vatican's) definitions.

I see no evidence of forced conversions, therefore see no need to differentiate between the two words.

Peace.

Read the document. It's clear you haven't, as all of your concerns are addressed in it.
I've explained that the two words are not the same. The Church is not telling us not to evangelize people, it's telling us not to proselytize them.
I understand that you have an irrational predisposition to want to challenge and upend everything the Church stands for, so for you resisting this simple distinction feels like you're fighting a holy war. But the reality is that you just don't understand the terms being used, and so any argument you build on that broken foundation will be flawed.
So read what the Vatican actually said, if it doesn't turn your stomach too much to listen to the words of the Church Christ founded.
Until you do, there's nothing else for us to discuss on this topic.

And yes, I am being condescending. I tend to take offense at people spouting off with a half baked understanding of what the Church is saying without actually having read what the Church said in the first place.
There is a long history of animosity between the Catholic Church and the Jewish people, and it is marked by a spirit of proselytization. The Vatican had gone to great lengths to correct their mistakes in this regard, and this letter is just the latest in a decades long dialogue.
If you don't know the history you have no right to come here and tell me what my Church is saying. You should be asking me what they're saying and making an effort to learn more because you clearly don't understand it.

This isn't about missionaries, chim. Missionaries can compel, proselytize, or evangelize.
The church is simply clarifying that it rejects anything beyond evangelization.

MrMD ... I understand your view, and it's clear you have little patience for any other views on the topic. I understand that as well, I just don't agree.

It appears that your dogmatic responses are based on your firm belief in the status of the Catholic Church as Christ's church. I respectfully disagree. So, when you say things, and use as your punctuation of those things that "the Church" said something, please understand that there are followers of Christ who believe that the Catholic Church has lost its way, and by so doing as lost its authority to declare the doctrine.

I think no less of you, and hope that we can continue to agree where possible and remain civil (as I believe the Savior would expect) where we disagree.

All the best!

This isn't a theological disagreement.
This is a disagreement on terms.
If you notice, I posted non-Catholic sources to demonstrate that I am correct about the distinction between proselytization and evangelization.
The fact that you're unable to accept that you're wrong in your understanding of basic terms, and that you insist on going a step further to apply your incorrect understanding to a document you haven't even read, and then make a judgment about a Church you don't even respect, pretty much sums up everything I dislike about the evangelical and fundamentalist communities.
We'd be better off not discussing religion.

MrMD ... you're wrong. I'm not an evangelical.

MrMD ... I'll read the articles that attempt to distinguish between the terms if you can give but one relevant example of the need to distinguish between them.

Chimama ... and if you'll read the posts above, you'll see that Oxford defines the terms as synonyms.

Why do we need the distinction without a difference?

Think, if you need me to provide examples in Christian history to distinguish between proselytization and evangelization then you aren't very familiar with Christian history. As I said before, Catholics and Jews have struggled with this for most of our history at every level and only recently (100+ years) have begun to correct this.

The fact that you're willingly admitting you didn't even look at any of the evidence I posted speaks volumes about your openness to the facts on this.
I'm done.

MrMD ... so you wave your hands and offer no relevant prof of the need to distinguish.

I agree that there were problems in the past. Is that what we need to focus on at this moment?

I believe that it is our responsibility to share the gospel with all who are able to hear it. And to those who refuse to hear, there must be no force.

MrMD and Chimama ... this is absolutely a chocolate teapot. I've stated my position, substantiated it with the Oxford dictionary definition. I've committed to read the several articles if there were relevant examples of the need to differentiate. No were offered.

I then declared my view of what I believe the Savior requires.

I wish neither of you harm and bid you both a good night.

Milk dud is a worthless troll

Logic ... I disagree. I think MrMD brings insight to the table. We don't have to agree to respect.

Logicman has me on ignore because I embarrassed him in a protracted debate almost a year ago. Then I had to put him on ignore because he would take me off ignore just long enough to read my comments and make jabs like that. It's ironic because that's pretty much the definition of trolling. I took him off ignore a couple of days ago and he's already starting up again.
Drama drama drama.

Did you peruse those articles, think?

If not, here's a video from Liberty university, which is also not a very pro-Catholic resource, explaining the difference again.
www.godtube.com/watch/?v=KDWYWWNX

We can agree to disagree. To me, milk dud is a vile piece of monkey shit

MrMD ... I haven't read all of the above. I read some and watched the video of the Liberty U blogger.

If you listen to his comments, you'll see that there's no relevant difference. He tried to "personalize" evangelize to be uniquely Christian, but in the end he said that the objective of evangelization is to help people change their ways.

That is precisely what proselytizing is about! It is helping individuals change their lives by accepting the gospel.

I'm still waiting for examples of modern forced conversions to Christianity that would make relevant this entire discussion.

In the absence of those examples, I see no value in the distinction. This becomes simply an exercise in semantic gymnastics.

Again, I wish you all the best and hold no grudge for the differences. Peace.

You're still conflating proselytization with forced conversion.

Either way, the evidence that I'm correct is clearly available to you. You're welcome to look at it any time.
Have a nice day. I'm sure we'll be on the same side of the next political debate we find ourselves in.

Milkdud = douche

Milk dud is a libertarian

I'm not a libertarian, logicman. I'm an independent. I agree with libertarians on a lot of stuff, but I'm not as socially liberal as most libertarians.
Pro-tip: You should either take me off ignore permanently, or leave me on ignore without constantly peeking in on my comments. I still get notifications that you're commenting when you take me off ignore for a few minutes to peek in on my comments.

Logic ... ignore is a function for bubble wrapped leftists who can't handle opposing views. Grow up!

I don't have anything against the ignore function. I use it when it's necessary. But I took most people off last week when I did that poll about it. This app is supposed to be fun, and some users suck the fun right out of it.

MrMD ... I never use ignore. Even with the most obnoxious leftists.

I don't use it because of politics.
I use it because of personality.

I agree milk dud is a bubble wrapped idiot

It's not because of opposing views. It's because of spam. I don't block for opposing views, but it's funny that piece of shit spammer milkdud is whining haha I love it

It's arrogant to have something that brings joy and fulfillment to your life that you don't share.

For those who profess to be disciples of Christ, sharing the Gospel is a directive. Jesus was clear about His mission, and His expectation of those who follow Him.

Yeah? And if I'm perfectly happy without Him, who are you to tell me your happiness is better than mine?
My penis is a source of great joy for me, and you don't see me sharing it with unwilling members of the public.

JJJ ... I'm sorry you don't get it.

As am I that you're unable to explain it.

JJJ ... I explained, you choose not to accept it. That's your choice. Have a happy life.

Well yeah, if you meant what you explained then I did get it, I just chose not to defer to your argument, as per my counterpoint. If you have no response to that then I suppose we've reached an impasse. Have a good one.

Think is trolling again I see.

If you believe folks are going to hell if they don't convert, and they don't want to convert, wouldn't that make you a horrible person if you didn't force them to convert, according to your argument? Wouldn't any act be justified if they were intended to prevent someone from going to an eternal hell? Isn't that a slippery slope?

I see you're point but I think that history has taught that the harder you lean into people to try and make them convert, the less likely you are of actually changing their heart. I think the church knows this

You can't force someone to convert. At least not to Christianity. It has to be a free choice.
But I agree with Dan. How much would you have to hate someone to believe that everlasting paradise is possible, and not tell them about it?

If you don't believe in Hell, avoiding it is not much of an incentive to change religions.

Even voluntary conversions?

Nah. That's fine.