Are religious conversions pernicious?
I believe that religious conversions are pernicious because the understanding underlying conversions is, “My religion is right and your religion is false”. If we see that there are many ways to reach God, then converting to a religion to learn that there is one and only one way to reach God and that is through that particular religion is a bit of a let down. This is further so if that particular religion insists that we abandon our previous religion, lock, stock and barrel. Then it makes us fanatics. Therefore, religious conversions are pernicious. The correct approach would be not conversions but acceptance. “I accept your religion, of which you have been good enough to teach me, as yet another way to God.”
I believe that religious conversions are pernicious because the understanding underlying conversions is, “My religion is right and your religion is false”. If we see that there are many ways to reach God, then converting to a religion to learn that there is one and only one way to reach God and that is through that particular religion is a bit of a let down. This is further so if that particular religion insists that we abandon our previous religion, lock, stock and barrel. Then it makes us fanatics. Therefore, religious conversions are pernicious. The correct approach would be not conversions but acceptance. “I accept your religion, of which you have been good enough to teach me, as yet another way to God.”
It is quite possible that if one is interested, that there would be many ways in which GOD could reach the individual.
You've created a false dichotomy. The problem you pose does not exist if you convert and say "This works for me and what you do works for you."
.. and therefore, because both ways work - one for you and one for me - I accept that there is more than one way to God. This approach is the approach of acceptance, not the approach of "my way is the only true way for everybody". Properly speaking, therefore, it ought to be called "acceptance" and not "conversion".
Pernicious means to be injurious or destructive. I fail to see that you have made this point.
When you are part of the conversion mission, you are more interested in membership targets than spiritual growth. Then religion becomes mass exposition whereas it ought to be the unfoldment of our deeper-self in quite contemplation. Considering how we become more of activists than pilgrims, conversion changes the texture of religion. How pernicious, I would say.
I still don't see that you have made a case for this being either injurious or destructive or to state in what manner it is thus.
then go be Bahai', don't they teach that all religion is true?
Of course, for those who believe in one truth, growth in a spirituality not of their God would be pernicious...
Mike182
so you want a tolerant model of religion that is completely intolerant of absolutism?
Mike182
so you want a tolerant model of religion that is completely intolerant of absolutism?
The credo ought to be, "Live and let live."
Mr. Peanut
Hi!Jesus said, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.Cheers!
Hi!Jesus said, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.Cheers!
Krishna said, Abandon everything and take refuge in me. I shall save you from all troubles.When spiritual masters say "I", they are indicating life itself.
Mr. Peanut
Hi!Speaking of Jesus, the Bible says: Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.
What's in a name ...
And if we don't see it that way?
Conversions.
=============================
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sunstone
Do you think that can be a dangerous message that could lead to fanaticism and spiritual blindness, even if true?
This saying is probably what makes the missionaries zealous about conversion - hasn't Jesus said the heathens have no choice ...But I do not see it that way at all - it is an exclamation of Jesus' supreme spiritual confidence, where "I" is no longer the "I" of the ego, but "I" of supreme consciousness.
===================================
Guitar's Cry
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Peanut
Jesus said, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by K.Venugopal
Krishna said, Abandon everything and take refuge in me. I shall save you from all troubles.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Peanut
Jesus said, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by K.Venugopal
Krishna said, Abandon everything and take refuge in me. I shall save you from all troubles.
These both work because both provide structures--symbolic paradigms--through which reality can be viewed and interpreted in a way that "saves" or "protects" the individual from existential malaise.Advertising (proselytizing) for conversion is simply the belief that their is only one way. It's similar to saying "Pepsi is the only good cola!" It is forgetting that individuals have different tastes, be it soda or spirituality.Pernicious conversion would be forced conversion. The Spanish Inquisition, the Salem Witch Trials, the burning of religious idols in various parts of the world; that's pernicious.
=============================
Mister Emu
K. Venugopal,Would you consider it pernicious if one were to convert from believing in one truth to believing in many?
Brilliant question. The principle ought to be, live and let live. We can be as we want to be, believing in one truth or many. But let us not deny others their sacred space. This denial of sacred space is what is pernicious and this is what conversions that are planned with targets and zones of 'harvest' are all about. It is more organizational and less spiritual. God and Devil were walking along the beach. The Devil asks, "What did that man ahead pick up? God: Truth. He's going to be finished with you. Devil: No, I don't think so. I am going to make him organize it.
I did enjoy this post. Satan is the father of confusion, he doesn't want you to put things in their proper order because if you know the truth it is harder for him to maintain his grasp on you. so he will try to pervert the truth to keep you confused.
I'll assume that, acording to your way of percieving, that going to school is pernicious as well. After all, educators change people's minds.
Not at all, teaching is indeed the noble profession. But you better watch out if you are going to send your child to a school which says only what it teaches is true and there is no education beyond this school.
Ministry is a noble profession as well. you just object to the teaching of religion and refuse to accept that the idea of trying to convert another to one's way of thought is as common as sunshine. Have you ever watched a commercial?
Pernicious is only when you deny sacred space to others. You would have been wary of commercials in communist regimes of old, where only government stuff were peddled.
You're floating around now. Where is it that people who espouse their belief to another are denying sacred space (whater the heck that means) to someone else. Or for that matter that it is pernicious (which means to be dangerous or injurious to, a definition that you continue to skirt)?
I hope what I am saying will get clarified as we go along. I have all along talked of religious conversion. That is, the conversion of a person who has a set of believes about God to another set of believes about God. This activity goes on because the 'converter' believes that only his religion is true and convinces the converted so. Seems quite harmless enough. But at least now, after so many thousands of years of experience with religions, let us accept that all religions are manifestations of man's attempt to discover God. Is it difficult to accept that all religions are valid and choose whichever religion we wish to, instead of having missionaries exploit weaknesses with material help and preach that unless you pray to Jesus you are damned? I think this approach is pernicious and I use the word in its original sense – evil. Allowing for sacred space is allowing all religions to flourish.
And that is the flaw in your theory. Oh, by the way, I'll not accept that.
I may not agree with your reasons to reject what I say, but I shall defend with my life your right to reject whatever I say.
Quote:
Originally Posted by K.Venugopal
I think this approach is pernicious and I use the word in its original sense – evil.
Quote:
Originally Posted by K.Venugopal
I think this approach is pernicious and I use the word in its original sense – evil.
And where do you get this from?
Meaning of 'evil' for pernicious? Please try Dictionary.com
Wow, relying on obsolete meanings to use a perjurative because you can't make your point with words in common usage. Weak, baby, verrrry weak.
Dear Sandy, I got the following entry from WikiAnswers. Entry appears to have been made in 2007. Making a pernicious comeback? But believe me, I think the word as I have meant is apt for the type of conversions I have in mind.How do you use the word 'pernicious' in a sentence?First answer by R Harrison. Last edit by R Harrison. Contributor trust: 70 [recommend contributor]. Question popularity: 6 [recommend question]Answer The storm was very pernicious (Destructive) in strength. John was a very pernicious (Spiteful) person. He also had a very pernicious (Evil) nature. His words were pernicious (Malicious) in their content.
Wow, you and R. Harrison use obsolete meanings. You have a comrade. And who in the hell is R. Harrison?Now, how would I use pernicious in a sentence. Your pernicious use of the word pernicious is misplaced.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pariah
The right to convert and be converted falls under the category of the freedom to think as one does, if it does not harm others directly (pre-meditated murder/harm comes to mind of those things that should be looked into before it happens), or as it is usually specified, freedom of religion.If the missionaries have resorted to false tactics, such as passing out food and money or violence at its peak, then we have poor ethics.
Originally Posted by Pariah
The right to convert and be converted falls under the category of the freedom to think as one does, if it does not harm others directly (pre-meditated murder/harm comes to mind of those things that should be looked into before it happens), or as it is usually specified, freedom of religion.If the missionaries have resorted to false tactics, such as passing out food and money or violence at its peak, then we have poor ethics.
I quite agree with you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cardero
It is quite possible that if one is interested, that there would be many ways in which GOD could reach the individual.
Sure.
=================================
Quote:
Originally Posted by K.Venugopal
I think this approach is pernicious and I use the word in its original sense – evil.
Originally Posted by K.Venugopal
I think this approach is pernicious and I use the word in its original sense – evil.
Ok, just for fun I'll accede to your definition. So, are religious conversions evil? I think that position is full of crap.
The position that my religion alone is true and others' are crap is based on a lack of education, which is pardonable. But building an army of missionaries to convert the 'heathens' is pernicious. Missionaries are good folks. It’s only their activity of conversion that is pernicious. To educate the missionaries that there is truth in other religions might be an antidote to their pernicious activity. As Jesus said, hate not the sinner but the sin. May I quote Mahatma Gandhi on conversions:I disbelieve in the conversion of one person by another. My effort should never to be to undermine another's faith. This implies belief in the truth of all religions and, therefore, respect for them. It implies true humility. (Young India: April 23, 1931)It is impossible for me to reconcile myself to the idea of conversion after the style that goes on in India and elsewhere today. It is an error which is perhaps the greatest impediment to the world's progress toward peace. Why should a Christian want to convert a Hindu to Christianity? Why should he not be satisfied if the Hindu is a good or godly man? (Harijan: January 30, 1937)I believe that there is no such thing as conversion from one faith to another in the accepted sense of the word. It is a highly personal matter for the individual and his God. I may not have any design upon my neighbour as to his faith which I must honour even as I honour my own. Having reverently studied the scriptures of the world I could no more think of asking a Christian or a Musalman, or a Parsi or a Jew to change his faith than I would think of changing my own. (Harijan: September 9, 1935)I am not interested in weaning you from Christianity and making you Hindu, and I do not relish your designs upon me, if you had any, to convert me to Christianity. I would also dispute your claim that Christianity is the only true religion. (Harijan: June 3, 1937)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Victor
Obviously I'd say..........NO!But for people who are under the guise of tolerance, progressiveness, and all those other fancy guises they use, it's seen as oppressive because they want to do what they want to do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Victor
Obviously I'd say..........NO!But for people who are under the guise of tolerance, progressiveness, and all those other fancy guises they use, it's seen as oppressive because they want to do what they want to do.
There is nothing wrong in doing what we want to do provided we do not transgress others' sacred space.
No comments:
Post a Comment