Is conversion good or bad?

[Prebe]

From the list:

29. You cannot be a cheerleader

That's it! I'm NEVER joining the JW!

[Xar]

From the list:

29. You cannot be a cheerleader

That's it! I'm NEVER joining the JW!

You want to be a cheerleader?

[sgt.null]

hell is living apart from God's love.

[Xar]

hell is living apart from God's love.

Well, that's certainly one of the many interpretations of Hell given throughout the centuries. However, the more I think about it and the more I come to the conclusion that while Hell may be indeed living apart from God's love (rather than the more prosaic fire-and-brimstone place), it is not something forced on souls at death as much as something souls choose for themselves after death - consciously choosing not to have anything to do with God, so to speak. It makes more sense to believe that an infinitely merciful God would not cast out any of his children, regardless of their failings. Rather, these unrepentant souls would choose to distance themselves from God, unwilling to accept forgiveness, to submit, or whatever, choosing to "rule in Hell" rather than to "serve in Paradise", so to speak. This concept is very similar to what may happen when a son who has committed a terrible act refuses to go to his parents, who would forgive him anything, because he's ashamed, or because he can't stand the thought of "being forgiven", or because he doesn't want what, in his eyes, would be to be pitied. Imagine the unrepentant murderer who dies and finds that God forgives him; it might be the ultimate "test of repentance", so to speak, where the murderer either acknowledges there is something to forgive and that he has done something dreadful, and accepts forgiveness by going back to God, or he refuses forgiveness (because accepting it means admitting you did something that requires it) and goes to "sulk" as far as possible from God's forgiving Presence. So, if Hell is indeed infinite distance from God, it makes far more sense to think that it's the soul's choice (whether conscious or unconscious) to go there.

It is intuitive that, if the above is true, then whatever religion one follows would have no influence whatsoever on what happens after death; only your actions, and your willingness to face them and acknowledge whatever "sins" you performed (to go back to the sins discussion), but above all only your choice, conscious or unconscious, has anything to do with what will happen to your soul. Thus, if the above is correct, even our resident unrepentant atheist Prebe would need not roast in the metaphorical fires of Hell only because he chooses another way

[Fist and Faith]

sarge, I'm not sure how you define God's love. I can love the tree in the back yard, and that love can be completely passive. The tree will never know I have been loving it all along. If this is the kind of love God has been giving me all along, then that's all fine and dandy. I can't say I have been living without it, but nothing has come from it anyway, so it's a moot point.

OTOH, I can show my love for the tree by watering it, fertilizing, pruning, etc. If God has been actively loving me, I'm not aware of it. But, of course, if it was withdrawn, I might immediately notice something. I'm imagining severe depression, and other psychological/existential problems, though you may have other types of ideas. Mind you, I have some thoughts for a God who would do such a thing.


Regarding the topic in general, I'm surprised if someone who thinks they have the (or even a) sure path to Truth, Happiness, Salvation, and all that stuff doesn't try to make others see that path. The real question is the teaching method. If Furls Fire hasn't changed my mind by describing what I consider a wonderfully beautiful faith, then you can be sure no idiot spouting damnation is going to. But I guess that works on many people. As Av might say, *shrug*.

[Cybrweez]

No, I'm saying that while the addict may have a problem, and while he maynot see the problem, the "sinner" as you so delightfully describe him, may not actually have one.

And you certainly can't prove that he does.

Indeed, one might say that the "sinner's" problem is only in your perception.

--A

But that's true w/a drug addict. He may not see the problem. And what determines the "proof"? Maybe the average person can see the affects, but the average drug addict can't. So, in reality, only my perception matters. If I think the addict has a problem, I feel moved to do something. I may not ask around for a consensus, or seek to "prove" it to him or anyone.

SoulQuest, that's nice the temple was a warm, inviting place. But believe it or not, there are churches that people say the same thing about. My point, the people that actually form a temple or church determine the atmosphere, but that may be separate from the actual belief. And, I would say Christianity isn't about religion, its about a relationship. Hence, good works aren't good enough.

Xar, speaking about good works, most people would agree with you, b/c we like to earn our way. That's what all other religions talk about. That's a big diff w/Christianity, its what God has done for you, despite you.

[sgt.null]

faith without works is dead. read James.

I don't like to go about condemning people for any reason, as we have no idea what God's mind is.

the biggest problem with converting is the converse, driving people away from God. I don't want my aactions/words/deeds to be the deciding factor in someone not seeking God.

[Xar]

faith without works is dead. read James.

I don't like to go about condemning people for any reason, as we have no idea what God's mind is.

the biggest problem with converting is the converse, driving people away from God. I don't want my aactions/words/deeds to be the deciding factor in someone not seeking God.

The main problem is that you never know how the other person might take even the slightest hint of "evangelizing"... even among close friends, religion (or lack thereof) is often a personal and deeply felt issue, which in many cases people do not want to discuss openly. Sadly enough, this is especially true nowadays, and especially among the younger generations, who often discover that saying "I go to church" is almost like calling oneself a weirdo and a freak, as far as most other people of the same age are concerned. Even those who do believe in something tend to keep their beliefs to themselves, because they don't want to be picked on by their classmates and so on. Similarly, nowadays the thought of somebody trying to persuade you to believe in something tends to be considered rude at best, and horrifyingly annoying at worst. And this regardless of how slight or heavy-handed the attempt is...

[duchess of malfi]

Yes, Jehovah's Witnesses are pretty much everywhere... and given that one of their duties is proselitize, and that they're notorious for their stubbornness when trying to do so, they sort of stand out. As a short off-topic, here's a page I found that lists all sorts of strange practices they should follow: www.geocities.com/Heartland/2919/reasons.html

One of my friends discovered a gerat way to deal with these folks when they repeatedly came pounding on her family's door. She mentioned that she and her family were Satanists and invited them in to pray with her. They left and no one from that group has ever come to knock on her door again (she and her family are staunch Catholics, by the way).

[Prebe]

the biggest problem with converting is the converse, driving people away from God. I don't want my aactions/words/deeds to be the deciding factor in someone not seeking God.

That is beautifully put sgtnull; and probably the best reason I have heard yet, why a good christian shouldn't push his goods to much, even if the salvation of others is important to him.

[sgt.null]

thank you. the nicest thing anyone has said to me in a bit.

[Prebe]

You'r welcome sarge.
The reason it struck a chord with me was that I once felt I needed to believe in something irrational. I managed to suppress my natural inborn scepticism and embrased Jesus-based faith for about a couple of years.

Then along came Da Witness of Jah and tried to push religion using pseudo-scientific arguments; and the quality of those arguments made me realise that I could not keep fooling myself. Hence I dropped my belief (it was never really strong, since it required a lot of denial) because of people trying to convert me. The next time they came, I told them to get out of my face, because THEY had taken my faith in god away. I swear the woman had a tear in her eye when they walked down the stairs.

[sgt.null]

sorry to hear. i wonder how many people have turned away because of some bad conversion attempt?

[Xar]

Heh, judging from all these reports here, we should start a thread called "How to chase Jehovah's Witnesses away when they come knocking"...

Prebe, in reference to the evangelizing discussion, there's also another thing to consider: it's entirely possible that the whole drive to evangelize is a leftover of a time when the more people a given religion had, the more temporal power it had. Consider for example the Dark Ages; at its peak, the Catholic Church held most of Europe in thrall, so to speak, thanks to its power over the common people and even the rulers of various countries. Sure, a string of puppet Popes and struggles for dominance started to end that, but there was a time in which the Church had enormous temporal power - either directly or indirectly - because of the faith of Europeans, especially the common folk. In such a situation, it's easy to see why they pressed on with the evangelizing; even if it wasn't the only reason, a reason surely was that of increasing the Church's power. Nowadays the Church has little temporal power (which I think is for the best - the Church is supposed to be a center of spiritual power, and temporal power both distracts and corrupts this), and as a result, the drive to evangelize, while still present, seems to start dwindling. It won't disappear any time soon; but the Church now accepts that salvation can be achieved by members of other faiths (or even of no faith at all), and it is works rather than blind faith that bring a soul closer to Heaven. This is a simple statement of fact: if the Church thought otherwise, its behaviour towards other religions (such as Islam and Judaism) would definitely be different.

When I speak of the Church, of course, I make a general statement; missionary orders exist and their drive to evangelize continues. But, overall, the message the Church sends to most of its worshipers is no longer "go forth and convert", but rather, if you will, "lead by example".

[Avatar]

Some excellent posts folks. Some things I agree with, some things I do not. But they're all good posts.

I'm not sure about the majority view, Av... at least, not over here. It may be that somehow I have never had a chance to meet an European Christian fundamentalist (or a fundamentalist of other denominations), but I don't think so; rather, my feeling is that most believers here in Europe share the view that actions, and not belief, are what God cares most about.

I certainly hope that you're right, although it hasn't been my personal experience in many of the discussions I've had on this topic, some of them right here. Admittedly, not one I've had with many Europeans either though.

In any case, "sin" is just a word, Av... humankind needs words to distinguish and categorize, and that's all it is, really.

Very true, and I'll certainly accept that "sin" is not always a crime by legal standards, and vice versa. I suppose that for me, "sin" has too many religious connotations. I could use the word "injustice" for example, to describe those "sins" which are not also crimes.

It makes more sense to believe that an infinitely merciful God would not cast out any of his children, regardless of their failings.

Christianity isn't about religion, its about a relationship. Hence, good works aren't good enough.

As Fist guessed, *shrug*

To carry on from his post, (I'll get back to you in a moment 'Weez), I have to agree that, as far as I'm concerned, I am living without gods love. (Or at least, I don't perceive it or its effect.)

But that's true w/a drug addict. He may not see the problem. And what determines the "proof"? Maybe the average person can see the affects, but the average drug addict can't. So, in reality, only my perception matters. If I think the addict has a problem, I feel moved to do something. I may not ask around for a consensus, or seek to "prove" it to him or anyone.

But you can prove it in the case of an addict. You might point to physical deterioration, you might point out social problems, behavioural ones. But you can't show me how not believing in god is causing me any problems at all, can you?

Xar, speaking about good works, most people would agree with you, b/c we like to earn our way. That's what all other religions talk about. That's a big diff w/Christianity, its what God has done for you, despite you.

See, here's another point where we have to part ways. What exactly has god done for me despite me? And how do you know he's done it?

She mentioned that she and her family were Satanists and invited them in to pray with her. They left and no one from that group has ever come to knock on her door again

I've used variations of that myself, always with good effect.

--A

[Xar]

Xar, speaking about good works, most people would agree with you, b/c we like to earn our way. That's what all other religions talk about. That's a big diff w/Christianity, its what God has done for you, despite you.

See, here's another point where we have to part ways. What exactly has god done for me despite me? And how do you know he's done it?

Good question, Av... there are many different answers you could receive, depending on what religion does the answerer belong to; however, for discussion purposes, I'd like to refer to the Qabbalah this time. It is a fascinating theological and philosophical tool, as well as a truly intriguing read; I've been reading about it extensively in the recent past, and I find it extremely thought-provoking.

One of the main points on which the Qabbalah is based is that of a panentheistic God; that is, the Qabbalah posits that everything that exists is part of God, but (differently from pantheistic views) that God is more than just everything that exists. Now, apart from the inevitable consequence of this concept, which strongly suggests that though we are part of God, God is essentially unknowable for our limited perceptions, the Qabbalah posits another interesting consequence:

Everything exists, as part of God, only because God watches it. Should God's gaze ever turn away from Creation, all that exists would disappear.

I won't go into detail as to the theological explanations of how God can watch Himself, or any other such complex problems (if you're interested, try reading some divulgatory essay on the Qabbalah), but according to this view, of course, God is constantly doing something for you - He is giving you existence and free will. Should God's gaze turn away from you, you'd simply cease to exist - thus, according to the Qabbalah, if you need proof that God cares for you, it is in your continued existence. As the proverb says, "you may not believe in God, but God still believes in you."

I'm not saying of course that this is the ultimate answer; most religions would take another approach, pointing out the various blessings of your life as demonstrations of God's love towards you. Ultimately, however, no one can persuade you that any given thing is a sign of God's love unless you yourself acknowledge it could be so: this is akin to a teenager who has been told not to drink by his parents, and can only realize they told him so because they love him if he's willing to acknowledge that drinking is bad. Similarly, one could say that you could only acknowledge that a given thing is a sign of God's love if you're willing to acknowledge that not having that thing would be painful to you. And these need not be great or momentous signs; it's often the smallest ones that are the most meaningful. Ultimately, looking outside is the wrong way to go.

[Avatar]

A fine post Xar. Unfortunately of course, it doesn't offer any kind of answer for me at all.

Every possible answer is predicated on the faith that there is a god of some sort in the first place.

It's not possible to demonstrate that god provides either life, love or free will to anybody.

As you point out, first you have to accept not that it could be so, (I can easily accept that it could be), but that it is.

I certainly agree that the place to look is inside yourself, but I don't find evidence of the external in the internal. I find affirmation of the internal being all that there is.

--A

[Cybrweez]

sarge, I love James. You put it perfectly, faith w/o works is dead. However, that does not mean works save you.

Av, you probably know my answer to what has He done for us.

[Avatar]

I'm pretty sure I can guess.

I'm not convinced though. Of course, as I said to Xar above, I can't ever be, really. (Or at least, it's unlikely. )

--A

[Fist and Faith]

As you point out, first you have to accept not that it could be so, (I can easily accept that it could be), but that it is.

Exactly. As I've said from time to time, Conversations With God and Eknath Easwaran - in his introductions to his translations of the Upanishads and Bhagavad Gita - both offer logical, beautiful faith systems. But I don't have reason to believe either (which could actually fit together easily, and count as one) is true. For me, it seems faith is not going to come because of finding something I like, or appreciate, or can't prove wrong. I guess it will come if I feel it.