I ran into a sort of debate on the issue of using force to win converts. My view is that –in general - we should not use force when winning converts. I however used an analogy of father forcing his child to take medicine. Was this analogy appropriate?
Re: Help! Confusion.
by Abdul Baqi Sharaf - Wednesday, 30 May 2007, 09:20 AM
I think I can understand both Robert and Dan on the issue of "go out and win converts" for the teachings of Jesus and Mohammad both advocate that - however, Judaism might differ in this respect.
I was thinking that it is an inherent nature of human being that anyone with an idea which one is convinced of (like pantheism) that he wants to rejoice this idea by having others to get convinced by this idea. He/she would feel happy that others are joining him in this idea. However, the problematic part appears when using force to gain converts. I would think the best way is to throw the idea in the most logical and rational way..the opponent being a rational person would either buy the idea or reject the idea, and hence no need for coercion.
One however can justify coercion in the same way as to justify coercing a child to take a bitter medicine for the purpose of curing disease. It might be the case that a certain "religious" practice is necessary for gaining salvation, and that the reasoning of a certain individual rejects this practice, then a preacher would force this man to accept the religious idea and get converted justifying that in a way that the father would justify forcing the child to take medicine. This preacher would add that after conversion and after practicing this religion the refusing man would get convinced one day and would thank this preacher that he had forced him to convert, as the child would thank the father one day that he forced him and saved his life.
This kind of apparent coercion I can understand, however that does not mean to torture a person. The father -whose intention is to cure the disease- would not break the neck of his child - and cause greater disease- because the child is not taking medicine.
Abdul
Re: Help! Confusion.
by Robert Matzken - Wednesday, 30 May 2007, 02:34 PM
Abdul, I think we are agreeing on your second paragraph, but we clearly part ways on your third.
The idea to compare a father coercing a child to take medicine is entirely at odds with the Christian idea of evangelism, although I must admit I do not know whether it conforms to Islam.
The Christian idea (which, admittedly, is much, much perverted) is to witness. Not to convert others. If it were to convert - by methods analogous to your father-child example - it would contradict the Christian ethic of free will of every human being to decide for himself/herself and the essential doctrine that belief is a free choice.
No one has the right to impose his/her religion on someone else. How would anyone on earth know which one religion (considering that many contradict each other and cannot all be right) is the proper one? And if no one on earth has the apparent right to make that call, so it can never be right for one person with one religion to impose this religion upon someone else.
There is only the guarantee of free will when the choice of religion is an excercise of that free will, which contradicts conversion by coercion or initimidation or pressure or blackmail or whatever.
Biblical commands to Christian believers therefore instruct them to witness and to teach and to be prepared to answer questions people may have about their hope regarding everlasting life.
The evangelical group Daniel noticed singing and reading from the Bible were what I would call witnessing. If they were actively trying to persuade listeners to start believing in Jesus Christ, or if they would have been forcing people to stand still and listen until they had completed their message, I would concede they were trying to convert.
This is my defintion: if a person is standing on a street corner reading from the Bible, but not making any effort to arrest people or to otherwise force them to listen, he/she is witnessing. People are completely free to either stand still and listen, or walk on. Only if zealous Christians are forcing others to listen to them, or are arguing strongly, or threaten, or are otherwise being a nuisance, then we could say they are trying to convert. Personally, I would question their behaviour.
I should always be prepared to offer people good reasons to believe in God and accept Jesus Christ as the mediator between man/woman and God. But I should not force the issue. The reasons in themselves persuade, not my reasoning.
Robert
Re: Help! Confusion.
by Robert Matzken - Wednesday, 30 May 2007, 03:38 PM
Just a few more words on this issue of why the father-child coercian example does not convince. With a father and a child, there is a relationship. This relationship is characterised by the fact that one is older/wiser than the other and (depending on culture) this justifies the father to act in the best interest of the child even though this acting in the best interest involves some measure of coercion or dicipline.
In the case of a believer and a stranger, this relationship is altogether absent. There is no justification based on hierarchy or relationship for any believer to coerce any stranger. At least not in Christianity. That is why the Bible is adamant (and remarkably consistent) to instruct believers to discipline within existing hierarchies and/or relationships: Fathers discipline your sons; teachers dicipline your students; believers instruct/warn your fellow believers (always stated as 'one another'). Never, however, calling believers to coerce strangers.
Robert
Re: Help! Confusion.
by Abdul Baqi Sharaf - Thursday, 31 May 2007, 11:14 AM
Thanks Robert for your comments..
I was using the father-child-medicine analogy in somehow lose format and not in the strict sense. I used just one aspect of the analogy, that is that father has better reasoning than child. I did not use other aspects of the analogy between father and child like for example that: average age difference between the two is say 25 years, or that the father is married to the mother of the child, or the issue of respect which you mentioned.
I agree with you on free will, and my second paragraph was confirming that. In my third para (where I used father-child-medicine analogy), I was referring to a particular type of case, where the subject clearly lacks the power to decide himself. I think you will agree with me that you grow your child teaching him the Christian religion and will not leave him alone. you choose so because you are convinced that it is the right religion. you never stop teaching your child Christianity based on some distant possibility that Christianity might be false. I think I used the word coercion in wrong way (because of my poor English I guess), because I believe religion is something that starts from heart and mind and then appears on physical outside behavior in terms of rituals. If that is the case, then no one can coerce a free man to accept a particular religious form his/her heart and mind. He/she can be coerced to practice the physical rituals being under pressure but he/she will not be convinced.
thus I think using words like discipline, instruct, teach, etc would be more appropriate..
Abdul
Filter
No comments...
Write Comment
Please keep the topic of messages relevant to the subject of the article.
Personal verbal attacks will be deleted.
Please don't use comments to plug your web site.. Such material will be removed
Indeed, We have sent down for you (O mankind) a Book, (the Qur'ân) in which there is your reminder (and Honor). Will you not then understand? [Quran al-Anbiay (21):10]
Philo-Hikmah Vs Philosophy