Religious conversion is the adoption of new religious beliefs that differ from the convert's previous beliefs; in some cultures (e.g. Judaism) ''conversion'' also signifies joining an ethnic group as well as adopting that group's religious beliefs. Conversion requires internalization of the new belief system. ==The convert/proselyte== A person who has undergone conversion is called a ''convert'' or ''proselyte''. A proselyte (from the Latin word ''proselytus'' which in turn comes from the Greek language word προσήλυτος, ''proselytos'' meaning "someone who has found his/her place") is in general a title given to a person who has fully embraced a certain religion, world view, ideology, metaphysics, ontology et cetera. On the historical meaning of the Greek word, Acts of Pilate, roughly dated from 150 to 400, in chapter 2, has Annas and Caiaphas define proselyte for Pilate: :''"And Pilate, summoning the Jews, says to them: You know that my wife is a worshipper of God, and prefers to adhere to the Jewish religion along with you. ... Annas and Caiaphas say to Pilate: All the multitude of us cry out that he [Jesus] was born of fornication, and are not believed; these [who disagree] are proselytes, and his disciples. And Pilate, calling Annas and Caiaphas, says to them: What are proselytes? They say to him: They are by birth children of the Greeks, and have now become Jews"'' -Roberts Translation [http://earlychristianwritings.com/text/gospelnicodemus-roberts.html] In the traditional sense like in #proselytism this word signified people who have converted to Judaism, but is nowadays used in a wider meaning. ==Conversion to Judaism== ''See also the main article ger tzedek'' === Procedure === Halakha has strict guidelines for accepting new converts to Judaism (a process called "''giur''"). According to Jewish law, which is still followed as normative by Orthodox Judaism and most of Conservative Judaism, potential converts must want to convert to Judaism for its own sake, and for no ulterior motives. A male convert needs to undergo a ritual circumcision, and there has to be a commitment to observe the 613 mitzvot and halakha. A convert must accept Jewish principles of faith, and reject the previous theology that he or she had prior to the conversion. Ritual immersion in a small pool of water known as a ''mikvah'' is required, and the convert takes a new Jewish name and is considered to be a son or daughter (in spirit) of the biblical patriarch Abraham, and a male is called up in that way to the Torah. The Reform Judaism and Conservative Judaism movements are lenient in their acceptance of converts. Many of their members are married to non-Jews, and these movements make an effort to welcome the spouses of Jews who seek to convert. This issue is a lightning rod in modern day Israel as many immigrants from the former Soviet Union are technically not Jewish. === Conversion to Judaism in history=== : ''See the main article: List of converts to Judaism'' The most famous Jewish King, King David, was descended from the convert Book of Ruth (who, according to the Talmud and Midrash, was a Moabite princess). No formal conversion procedure is given in the text; modern critical historians generally hold giur, in its modern sense, to be an innovation of a later period. Joseph, the father of the most famous sage of the Talmud, Rabbi Akiva, was a convert. Christians were forbidden to convert to Judaism on pain of death during most of the Middle Ages. In the 1700s a famous convert by the name of Count Valentin Potoski in Poland was burned at the stake. He was a contemporary and a disciple of Rabbi Elijah, known as the Vilna Gaon. In Hellenistic and Roman times, some Pharisees were eager proselytizers, and had at least some success throughout the empire. Some Jews are also descended from converts to Judaism outside the Mediterranean world. It is known that some Khazars, Edomites, and Ethiopians, as well as many Arabs, particularly in Yemen before, converted to Judaism in the past; today in the United States, Israel and Europe some people still convert to Judaism. In fact, there is a greater tradition of conversion to Judaism than many people realize. The word "proselyte" originally meant a Greek who had converted to Judaism. As late as the 6th century the Eastern Roman empire (i.e., the Byzantine empire) was issuing decrees against conversion to Judaism, implying that conversion to Judaism was still occurring. ===Relationship with converts=== The Tanakh states that converts deserve special attention (Deuteronomy 10:19). The Hebrew language word for "convert", ''ger'', is the same as that for a ''stranger''. It is also related to the root ''gar'' - "to dwell'. Hence since the Children of Israel were "strangers" - ''geirim'' in Egypt, they are therefore instructed to be welcoming to those who seek to convert and dwell amongst them. Since around 300 CE, Judaism has stopped encouraging people to join its faith. In fact, in Orthodox Judaism and Conservative Judaism, converts are often discouraged from becoming Jews and warned that being a Jew entails special obligations, as well as, at least in certain places, the risk of anti-semitism. A Rabbinic tradition holds that a prospective convert should be refused three times. ===Differences between Jewish and Christian views=== Judaism does not characterize itself as a religion (although one can speak of the Jewish religion and religious Jews). The subject of the Tanach (Hebrew Bible) is the history of the Children of Israel (also called Hebrews), especially in terms of their relationship with God. Thus, Judaism has also been characterized as a culture or as a civilization. Rabbi Mordecai Kaplan defines Judaism as an evolving religious civilization. One crucial sign of this is that one need not believe, or even do, anything to be Jewish; the Rabbinic definition of 'Jewishness' requires only that one be born of a Jewish mother, or that one convert to Judaism in accord with Jewish law. (Today, Reform and Reconstructionist Jews also include those born of Jewish fathers and Gentile mothers if they are raised as Jews.) To Jews, Jewish peoplehood is closely tied to their relationship with God, and thus has a strong theological component. This relationship is encapsulated in the notion that Jews are a chosen people. Although some have taken this as a sign of arrogance or exclusivity, there are Jewish scholars and theologians who have emphasized that a special relationship between Jews and God does not in any way preclude other nations having their own relationship with God. For Jews, being "chosen" fundamentally means that Jews have chosen to obey a certain set of laws (see Torah and halakha) as an expression of their covenant with God. Jews hold that other nations and peoples are not required or expected to obey these laws, and face no penalty for not obeying them. Thus, as a national religion, Judaism has no problem with the notion that others have their own paths to God (or "salvation"), though it still makes claim as to the truth or falsehood of other beliefs, and as to whether Gentiles are allowed to hold them. Thus, for example, Maimonides believed that the truth claims of Islam were largely false, but he also believed that Gentiles were not sinning by following Islam; on the other hand, he regarded idolatry not just as false, but also as a serious sin, for Jew or non-Jew. In this respect, Rabbinical sources have usually classed Christianity with Islam, rather than with idolatry, though the use of icons in many denominations has raised questions as to whether they are, in fact, idolatrous. Christianity is characterized by its claim to universality, which marks a break with Jewish identity. As a religion claiming universality, Christianity has had to define itself in relation with religions that make radically different claims about Gods. Christians believe that Christianity represents the fulfillment of God's promise to Abraham and the nation of Israel, that Israel would be a blessing to all nations. This crucial difference between the two religions has other implications. For example, conversion to Judaism is more like a form of adoption (i.e. becoming a member of the nation, in part by metaphorically becoming a child of Abraham), whereas conversion to Christianity is explicitly a declaration of faith. Of course, conversion to Judaism also entails a declaration of faith, and, in Christian churches, conversion also has a social component, as the individual is in many ways adopted into the Church, with a strong family model. ==Conversion to Christianity== Telling non-Christians about Christianity has been seen as a duty of Christians since the time of Jesus. According to the New Testament, Jesus commanded his disciples to "go into the world and make disciples of all nations". Evangelism, or 'spreading the Good News' has been a central part of the life of Christians since that time. In Christianity conversion is properly seen as the work of God. Humans may preach and teach, but it is considered to be God who brings the convert to faith. In the times of Jesus, all of his disciples were Jews. On occasion, he performed miracles for Gentiles without requiring their conversion; in one conversation with a Samaritan woman, he downplayed the differences between Jews and Samaritans (John 4). Gentiles who sought to join the early Church were often required to undergo conversion to Judaism (or conversion to the practices of Jesus) first including circumcision for men. Some believe this requirement was later dropped entirely after Paul of Tarsus forced the issue. (See the "Incident at Antioch" of Galatians 2 where Paul publicly condemned Peter for Judaize.) The origin of Christian Baptism in water is derived from the Jewish law requiring a convert to submerge themselves in pure water (of a mikvah) in order to receive a new pure soul from God. In the first centuries there was a live debate with Jewish-Christians being labeled as Judaizers at one extreme and Marcionism at the other extreme with Gnosticism somewhere in between. Christianity and Islam are two religions that encourage preaching their faith in order to convert non-believers. In both cases, this missionary property has been used as a justification for religious wars (cf. Crusades, jihad) on other countries. This property encourages evangelism to convert people of other faiths, and history has shown that the motives were not always pure. Because of this, evangelism is sometimes viewed scornfully by post-modernism. In the year 1000, the Viking age parliament of Iceland decided that the entire country should convert to Christianity, and that sacrifice to the old gods, while still allowed, should no longer be made in the open. Similar mass conversions in other Scandinavian countries were not as democratic. ==Conversion to Islam== One becomes a Muslim by believing that Allah (Arabic for God) is the only God and that Muhammad is His messenger. A person is considered a Muslim from the moment he sincerely makes this witness, the shahada. Of course a new Muslim has to familiarize himself/herself with the religion, the belief, and the practices of Islam, but there is no formal requirement for that. It is a personal process; acceptance of all of that is taken to follow from the original statement, since all of Islam is considered to derive from either divine inspiration, in the form of the Qur'an, or prophetic example, in the form of the hadith and sunna of Muhammad. == Conversion to religions of Indic origin == Religions of Indic origin such as Hinduism, Sikhism and Buddhism do not believe in conversion as a form of religious expansion, even though they welcome anybody to join their faiths. The reason for this is the strongly held belief in these religions that "all religions are true and are only different paths to the same truth". The followers also believe that the religion you follow is to be chosen based on an individual's temprement, birth etc. Also, what would be very strange and foreign to non-indic origin faiths is that people can claim to be follower of multiple religions. For example in Japan which was influenced by the indic faith of Buddhism, it is easy to find people who follow both Buddhism and Shinto. It is also common to find people in India claming to be both Hindu and Buddhist or Hindu and Sikh etc. This inclusivism is in direct contrast to the belief that the ordained path in the book is the only true paths, found in exclusivistic belief systems. This inclusivism also makes any conversion unnecessary. It should be noted that the above does not apply for some sects of Indic faiths, like Soka Gakkai and ISKCON. ==Conversion to new religious movements and cults== Conversion to new religious movements (NRM's) is riddled with controversies. The anti-cult movement sometimes uses the term thought reform or even brainwashing, though the latter term has now become discredited, for this process. Often they will call certain NRM's cults. However, the definition of a cult has become so broad that in many instances it is almost meaningless and is used to define anything outside of Orthodoxy. NRMs are very diverse and it is not clear whether conversion to NRMs differs from conversion to mainstream religions. See also Brainwashing#Brainwashing_controversy_in_new_religious_movements_and_cults Research, both in the United States and in the Netherlands has shown that there is a Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient between the lack of involvement in main stream churches in certain areas and provinces and the percentage of people who are a member of a new religious movement. This applies also for the presence of New Age centers. [1],[2] The Dutch research included Jehovah's Witnesses and the Latter Day Saint movement/Mormonism to the NRM's. Research in the United States has shown that disproportionally many people of Jew descent join NRM's which worries some in the Jewish community. [3] Professor Eileen Barker believes that the Divine Light Mission#Psychological changes in converts can be generalized for other NRMs, however she has supplied no proof of such claims. ==Conversion of Catholics to Protestantism== Prior to Vatican Council II, Catholics who converted to protestantism were called perverts. ==Prohibition of conversion== Several ethnic religions don't accept converts, like the Yazidis, the Druze, and Zoroastrianism. The only way to become a Yazidi is to be born in a Yazidi family. Conversely, the Shakers and some Indian eunuch brotherhoods don't allow procreation, so every member is a convert. ==Proselytism== The English language word ''proselytism'' is derived ultimately from the Greek language prefix 'pros' (towards) and the verb 'erchomai' (to come). It generally describes attempts to convert a person from one point of view to another, usually in a religious conversion context. ===History=== In the Bible, the word proselyte denotes a person who has converted to Judaism, without overtly negative overtones. In our day, however, the connotations of the word proselytism are almost exclusively negative. Nonetheless, many people use the words interchangeably. An Orthodox Christianity writer, Stephen Methodius Hayes has written: "If people talk about the need for evangelism, they meet with the response, "The Orthodox church does not 'proselytize' as if evangelizing and proselytism were the same thing." Many Christianity consider it their obligation to follow what is often termed the "Great Commission" of Jesus, recorded in the final verses of the Gospel of Matthew the Evangelist: "Go to all the nations and make disciples. Baptize them and teach them my commands." The early Christians were noted for their evangelizing work. The difference between the two terms is not easily defined. What one person considers legitimate evangelizing, or witness bearing, another may consider intrusive and improper. Illustrating the problems that can arise from such subjective viewpoints is this extract from an article by Dr. C. Davis, published in Cleveland State University's 'Journal of Law and Health': "According to the Union of American Hebrew Congregations, Jews for Jesus and Hebrew Christians constitute two of the most dangerous cults, and its members are appropriate candidates for deprogramming. Anti-cult evangelicals ... protest that 'aggressiveness and proselytizing . . . are basic to authentic Christianity,' and that Jews for Jesus and Campus Crusade for Christ are not to be labeled as cults. Furthermore, certain Hassidic groups who physically attacked a meeting of the Hebrew Christian 'cult' have themselves been labeled a 'cult' and equated with the followers of Reverend Moon, by none other than the President of the Central Conference of American Rabbis". [http://www.religioustolerance.org/cult_art.htm] Views on the propriety of proselytism, or even evangelism, differ radically. Some feel that freedom of speech should have no limits and that virtually anyone, anywhere should have the right to talk about anything they see fit. Others see all sorts of evangelism as a nuisance and an intrusion and would like to see them proscribed. Thus, Natan Lerner observes that the issue is one of a clash of rights - the right of a person to express his views versus the right of a person not to be exposed to views that he does not wish to hear. From a legal standpoint, there do appear to be certain criteria in distinguishing legitimate evangelization from illicit proselytism: * All humans have the right to have religious beliefs, and to change these beliefs, even repeatedly, if they so wish. (freedom of religion) * They have the right to form religious organizations for the purpose of worship, as well as for promoting their cause (Freedom of Association) * They have the right to speak to others about their convictions, with the purpose of influencing the others. (Freedom of Speech). By the same token, these very rights exercise a limiting influence on the freedoms of others. For instance, the right to have one's religious beliefs presumably includes the right not to be coerced into changing these beliefs by threats, discrimination, or similar inducements. Hence a category of improper proselytizing can be discerned. * It would not be proper to use coercion, threats, the weight of authority of the educational system, access to health care or similar facilities in order to induce people to change their religion. * It would be improper to try to impose one's beliefs on a 'captive audience,' where the listeners have no choice but to be present. This would presumably require restraint in the exercise of their right to free speech, by teachers in the classroom, army officers to their inferiors, prison officers in prison, medical staff in hospitals, so as to avoid impinging on the rights of others. * It would not be proper to offer money, work, housing or other material inducements as a means of persuading people to adopt another religion. ===Issues involving proselytism=== Since the collapse of the former Soviet Union and the rise of democracy in the Eastern Bloc, the Russian Orthodox Church has enjoyed a revival. However, it takes exception to what it considers illegitimate proselytizing by the Roman Catholic Church, the Salvation Army, Jehovah's Witnesses and other religious movements [http://www.russian-orthodox-church.org.ru:83/ne207011.htm] in what it refers to as its ''canonical territory''. Greece has a long history of conflict, mostly with Jehovah's Witnesses but also with some Pentecostalism over its laws on proselytism. This situation stems from a law passed in the 1930s by the dictator Ioannis Metaxas. A Jehovah's Witness, Minos Kokkinakis, won the equivalent of US $14,400 in damages from the Greek state after being arrested repeatedly for the 'offence' of preaching his faith from door to door. In another case, Larissis vs. Greece, a member of the Pentecostal church also won a case in the European Court of Human Rights. ==See also== * Apostasy * List of proselytes * Missionary * Secondary conversion ==References== *1. Schepens, T. (Dutch) ''Religieuze bewegingen in Nederland'' volume 29, ''Sekten'' ''Ontkerkelijking en religieuze vitaliteit: nieuwe religieuze bewegingen en New Age-centra in Nederland'' (1994) Vrije Universiteit uitgeverij ISBN 90-5383-341-2 * 2. Starks, R & W.S. Bainbridge ''The future of religion: secularization, revival and cult formation'' (1985) Berkely/Los Angeles/London: University of California press *3. Barrett, D. V. ''The New Believers - A survey of sects, cults and alternative religions'' (2001) UK, Cassell & Co [http://www.thenewbelievers.com/] ==External links== * [http://www.law.emory.edu/EILR/volumes/win98/lerner.html "Proselytism, Change of Religion, and International Human Rights", by Natan Lerner, PhD] (legal aspects of defining illicit proselytism) Religious behaviour and experience
"King David was descended from the convert Ruth a princess from Moab". This may be a new idea for many readers. Is there any (extra-Biblical) tradition that Ruth was a ''princess''? - S. Hi, Let me quote you verbatim from the Artscroll commentary (Artscroll Inc. 1976) on Ruth, p.67: :"... The sages tell us that Machlon and Killion (married to Ruth and Orpah), were wealthy and distinguished, rose to such prominence while living in Moab that Eglon King of Moab, offered them his daughters' hands in marriage. Ruth and Orpah were the daughters of Eglon, as it is written in the book of Judges 3:19 ;(When Ehud came to Eglon to deliver God's message)'..and Ehud said:I have a message from God to you. And (Eglon) arose from his throne.' The Holy One , blessed be He,said of him:'You stood up from your throne in My honor, I will cause to emerge from you a descendent who will sit upon My throne' ..." MIDRASH. Now, ofcourse one can quible and say that the Midrash is not reliable. But what other records can be relied upon ? Since the books of the Bible, such as the Scroll of Ruth ( attributed to the prophet Samuel ) are the original and primary sources for this information, they are very reliable. After all we are talking here about religious and spiritual ideas..not just "commercial marketing" which is downright silly. Judaism has had the WORST marketing possible ("Buy this product and you are persecuted??? Makes no sense") So we can safely rely on the record as handed down thru the ages by the Jewish sages of the Torah who were meticulous in reporting and recording only the TRUTH. And it is not necessary for some archeologist to dig up an obilisk in Iraq and tell us wow, see what it says here guys...that too is downright silly. If it happens, nice! But we don't hold our breath waiting for a historian to confirm Jewish history in it's primary location, otherwise , why bother with these "stories" altogether?; just skip the sections on religion and move on to the science lessonsUser:IZAK ::I don't understand, the Midrash is not the Bible. The Bible is a primary source, and you have some nice arguments for the reliability of the Midrash as well, but the Midrash is still not a primary source. You quote the Midrash and then act as if you quoted the Bible. User:Jdavidb 21:58, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC) :::Midrash Ruth Rabba 2:9: "Ruth and Orpah were the daughters of Eglon, king of Moab." Eglon, when visited by the Judges Ehud, stood up from his throne. In reward, the Midrash states, his decendants (through Ruth, Obed, etc. to David) would merit the Holy throne of the Jewish people. :::Babylonian Talmud, tractate Nazir 23b: "Ruth was the daughter of Eglon's son". This was a reward to Bileam who, although his 42 sacrifices were insincere, he merited that Ruth should decend from him. :::Similar expressions on Sotah 47a, Sanhedrin 105b, Horiot 10b. This should do it, really, shouldn't it? :::I agree that Midrashic sources should be properly referenced, and not blended in with Biblical narrative. Although the section is on Judaism, and Jewish sources should have the last word there, it bears repeating that the words of the Bible can be understood on a number of levels (traditionally four). Midrashic interpretation is one of those. User:Jfdwolff 18:21, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC) --------------------- == Thought reform == What is the difference between thought reform and religious conversion? Is the only difference that thought reform is not desired and conversion a more neutral term? Or are there any objective standards, like religious conversion can never mean accpting a cult belief system but only a belief system of a mainstream religion. If the difference is only subjective then this should be stated. Shouldn't it be a reciprocal link? User:Andries :Andries, your message is insulting to all sincere converts. For the articles to have any parallels one would have to equate cults with established religions and the conversion process with the brainwashing that cults often have to resort to in order to ensnare impressionable people. Actually, I'm forcefully against the reciprocal link as well. Please reconsider your statement. (Yes, this was POV.) User:Jfdwolff 18:40, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC) ::Agreed, the comparison of conversion to thought reform is quite insulting. According to the article on thought reform, it occurs because of outside manipulation and is synonymous with brainwashing and mind control. The person who implied there was no difference is implying that there is never a single instance of a sincere religious convert who simply considered the issues and decided another religion was right and his former belief system was wrong. ::I recognize it's pretty hard for someone who is areligious to accept, but there are many people who belong to their religion because they sincerely believe it to be true. Thus people sometimes change religions voluntarily because they have been convinced. Religious conversions are not solely the result of what you would call brainwashing, and to imply otherwise is to imply that all religious converts are simpleminded and believe only what they are told. ::So, dignifying the question with an answer, the difference between religious conversion and thought reform is that conversion is voluntary while thought reform is coerced. User:Jdavidb 14:09, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC) :Thank you, User:Jdavidb, I totally agree. You will have noticed that I removed the link in question. User:Jfdwolff User:Jfdwolff | User_talk:Jfdwolff 15:03, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC) :I agree that a large number of conversions are voluntary, and in no way can be compared with thought reforms. But, what would some of the techniques that evangalists use in poor third world countries like allurement by money, faking miracles, i.e. fraud etc. to convert illiterate, poor people called? Would that be conversion, or would that be something else? Would that be any different from cultists preying on vulnurable people? If you agree, that they cannot be called conversions, I would encourage you to find out more about the work of any evangalist organization involved in thirld world countries that you may support. : I continue to disagree, thought reform is voluntary too. I added a NPOV message to the article. Unfortunately, it is difficult to know whether a conversion has been manipulated or not. If it weren't difficult to know then how come thousands of normal people join cults (or are recruited by cults)? I have no doubts both about about the sincerity of religious converts and about the people who are recruited by cults. Unfortunately I know all this from my personal experience. Andries 09:29, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC) I generally find this whole line of conversation distateful and condescending. Conversion is a spiritual process for the individual who obviously is seeking for additional truth, finding it, and implementing it into their lives. To even infer, as this article does, that all conversion to anything but orthodoxy is brainwashing. Who developed this hypothesis and who supports it? It is the type of drivel that cultists use to "scare the faithful" and to cause all to beware the evil missionaries/teachers of other faiths. And for goodness sake, if one is going to use the word cult, define it. Everytime I hear a cultist define cult it gets wider and wider so that everything is cult except their belief system. User:Storm Rider 20:39, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC) --------------------- == Tanakh on converts == :"The Tanakh (Hebrew Bible) states that converts deserve special attention." Can anyone offer a source on this? To my knowledge, the Tanakh does not address conversion directly (although Ruth is evidently an example of a convert, and there are statements about how to treat a stranger within the land of Israel). Is it possible the author meant the Talmud or some other source? User:Jdavidb 21:54, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC) :Hello Jdavidb. There is no specific instruction in Tanakh to give special attention to converts. Nor would they like that. However, it is mentioned in numerous places (starting with Exodus 23:9) that it is a sin to oppress the stranger (''ger'', generally taken to refer to converts), partially because the Jews themselves were strangers in Egypt. Maimonides is reputed to have said to his converted pupil Obadiah that there are 36 instances of this prohibition in Tanakh, although most conventional counts arrive at lower numbers. User:Jfdwolff 18:21, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC) :On second thought, I found a source of "loving the stranger" (Deuteronomy 10:19). In that respect, converts deserve special (loving) attention. User:Jfdwolff User:Jfdwolff | User_talk:Jfdwolff 15:07, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC) == Proselytism == Christianity? == Why is the article on Proselytism put under the Christianity heading? According to that article, proselytism referred orginally to Jewish converts. What does it have to do, specifically, with Christianity? User:Jdavidb 19:58, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC) ==Higer taxes for non-Muslims in Islamist states, give current examples== :"States controlled by Islamists sometimes practice a different set of laws for Muslims and non-Muslims. For example, taxation of non-Muslims may be higher to account for "protection" provided by Muslims. As such, a financial incentive may exist to convert to Islam." Are there any current examples? It used to be that way, I thought. Thanks User:Andries 20:15, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC) == Questionable means limited to Christinity? == Under the heading 'Conversion to Christianity' the following text is given: :"It [spreading the faith] is used even today as an excuse by evangelists to convert people of other faiths, on some occasions even by questionable means.". Are "questionable means" limited only to the spreading of Christianity? The example for today is a declaration made by Vikings in the year 1000. Perhaps other examples such as the USSR's (etc) decision to adopt Atheism (and prohibit all religions) should be included, and the peculiar role of religion in state politics could be moved to a general section. == Jfdwolff revert == What's the excuse for the revert on the definition of Proselyte found in Acts of Pilate? :It's completely out of context, and WP:NPOV. Information from the New Testament is only of interest in the Christianity section. Also, never preface a section with "interestingly" when you can be quite sure most readers will not find it interesting. User:Jfdwolff | User_talk:Jfdwolff 18:29, 30 May 2005 (UTC) ::It's a definition of Proselyte from the time period when the term was most used. How is that out of context? It's not from the New Testament. And true, you may not find it interesting, but since when are you "most readers". You my friend are the one with the non-npov. :Oh, pleased to hear we're friends. You may consider adding a section called "Etymology" or "Origins", and not insist that your addition becomes part of the article intro. This has nothing to do with POV, so I removed the tag you unwisely inserted. User:Jfdwolff | User_talk:Jfdwolff 13:26, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::Added definition of Proselyte section to end, happy now? I want to make sure you are happy because only you can determine what is and isn't npov. I certainly wouldn't want to mar the article intro because that belongs to you. ==I nominate this article for neutrality check, it clearly is under dispute, see above== from Wikipedia: "Often, authors can view their articles as being NPOV, while others disagree. That an article is in an NPOV dispute does not necessarily mean it is not NPOV, only that someone (with the tact and wit to properly link to this page from it) considers it to be not NPOV." :Aaargh, can't you even get a Special:Userlogin? I am certainly not doubting the veracity of the statement. My only concern was that you gave it too much prominence. That is not NPOV, that is a normal disagreement on emphasis. Before you go slapping POV tags on articles, just enter into a dialogue! User:Jfdwolff | User_talk:Jfdwolff 22:23, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC) :: What's the point of entering into a dialogue with someone who routinely deletes new additions and deletes requests for neutrality check? Do you understand that I don't want you to do a neutrality check (for reasons that should be obvious), I want others to do that. I request a neutrality check, why do you delete it? You feel you have that right? As far as you are concerned the article is neutral and not under dispute therefore no need for a neutrality check? Do you understand the word neutrality? Do you understand the Wikipedia position on neutrality? Do you understand POV? Do you understand the concept of neutral POV? :The only thing you have so far disputed was the inclusion of material on the history of proselytism, which has now been included. I think I understand the word neutrality better than you do, and I also understand that you are making a ridiculous fuss. What exactly strikes you as biased in this article? Unless you ''clearly'' delineate what bothers you, the POV check request is unfounded, and I shall have to remove your cherished tag. :Again I must encourage you to get a Wikipedia username. If you care for the project and its unbiased coverage so much, why should your edits remain anonymous? User:Jfdwolff | User_talk:Jfdwolff 13:22, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::I don't see any neutrality conflict here. The material has been included, what else is there to talk: about? User:JayjgUser_talk:Jayjg 15:57, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC) :::Fine, next issue then: The first section is called "The convert/proselyte" Wouldn't you expect to find definitions of proselyte in that section? If the word proselyte is so important to this article to be mentioned in section one, wouldn't the definitions also be important? I suppose, if you want to be technical, Acts of Pilate represents a Christian definition from the first couple of centuries. The first thing that jumps out at me is: why does the word have to be defined in Acts of Pilate? My answer to that question is that proselyte was understood in a Jewish context but not in the greater Greco-Roman context. Is the definition found in Acts of Pilate incorrect? I don't believe it is, perhaps others disagree, those who disagree should present their evidence. ::Conversion to Judaism obviously predates Pilate, and a Talmudic definition would be more appropriate. It is definitely useful as an extraneous source. How about you make some neutral edits and see if these hold out? I can't imagine you'd like to carry on arguing until we're all cyanosis. User:Jfdwolff | User_talk:Jfdwolff 00:31, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC) :::I initially placed it in section 1 "The convert/proselyte" and you deleted it, see discussion above. As for the Talmud, it didn't exist in Pilate's time. If you look up proselutos in Bauer you will find a number of early references: Apollon. Rhod., LXX, Philo, Roman grave inscriptions, Isis cult, Matt23:15, Acts 2:11,6:5. Related are the sebomenoi ton theon or God-fearers of Josephus, Acts 13:43 mixes both in sebomenon proseluton. ::Of course the Talmud was not around, but the oral traditions that form the Talmud go back to 200 BCE. Can you please tell me what is still bothering you? I haven't stopped you making additions to the page in any way! User:Jfdwolff | User_talk:Jfdwolff 22:23, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC) :::How do you explain [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Religious_conversion&diff=14452833&oldid=14424933 this] then. ::The last time I reverted you is a week ago. I have worked with you constructively. You appear to be seeking a conflict where there is none. End of discussion, as far as I'm concerned. User:Jfdwolff | User_talk:Jfdwolff 00:38, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC) :::In that case, I'll merge sections 1 and 10. ::Cool. Happy now? User:Jfdwolff | User_talk:Jfdwolff 04:13, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC) ==Mikvah== :''The origin of Christian Baptism in water is derived from the Jewish law requiring a convert to submerge themselves in pure water (of a mikvah) to cleanse themselves because Gentiles were considered ritually unclean.'' where does that come from? ::It is partially incorrect. All Jews immersed in a ritual pool before receiving the Torah at Mount Sinai, the event with "made" them Jews. The Talmud therefore requires this from a convert as well; the concept of uncleanliness, although this is the normal use of the ritual pool, is not actually invoked. User:Jfdwolff | User_talk:Jfdwolff 11:32, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
Words begining with Religious_conversion:
Religious_conversion
Religious_conversion
Religious conversion
Religious conversion is the adoption of new religious beliefs that differ from the convert's previous beliefs; in some cultures (e.g. Judaism) ''conversion'' also signifies joining an ethnic group as well as adopting that group's religious beliefs. Conversion requires internalization of the new belief system. ==The convert/proselyte== A person who has undergone conversion is called a ''convert'' or ''proselyte''. A proselyte (from the Latin word ''proselytus'' which in turn comes from the Greek language word προσήλυτος, ''proselytos'' meaning "someone who has found his/her place") is in general a title given to a person who has fully embraced a certain religion, world view, ideology, metaphysics, ontology et cetera. On the historical meaning of the Greek word, Acts of Pilate, roughly dated from 150 to 400, in chapter 2, has Annas and Caiaphas define proselyte for Pilate: :''"And Pilate, summoning the Jews, says to them: You know that my wife is a worshipper of God, and prefers to adhere to the Jewish religion along with you. ... Annas and Caiaphas say to Pilate: All the multitude of us cry out that he [Jesus] was born of fornication, and are not believed; these [who disagree] are proselytes, and his disciples. And Pilate, calling Annas and Caiaphas, says to them: What are proselytes? They say to him: They are by birth children of the Greeks, and have now become Jews"'' -Roberts Translation [http://earlychristianwritings.com/text/gospelnicodemus-roberts.html] In the traditional sense like in #proselytism this word signified people who have converted to Judaism, but is nowadays used in a wider meaning. ==Conversion to Judaism== ''See also the main article ger tzedek'' === Procedure === Halakha has strict guidelines for accepting new converts to Judaism (a process called "''giur''"). According to Jewish law, which is still followed as normative by Orthodox Judaism and most of Conservative Judaism, potential converts must want to convert to Judaism for its own sake, and for no ulterior motives. A male convert needs to undergo a ritual circumcision, and there has to be a commitment to observe the 613 mitzvot and halakha. A convert must accept Jewish principles of faith, and reject the previous theology that he or she had prior to the conversion. Ritual immersion in a small pool of water known as a ''mikvah'' is required, and the convert takes a new Jewish name and is considered to be a son or daughter (in spirit) of the biblical patriarch Abraham, and a male is called up in that way to the Torah. The Reform Judaism and Conservative Judaism movements are lenient in their acceptance of converts. Many of their members are married to non-Jews, and these movements make an effort to welcome the spouses of Jews who seek to convert. This issue is a lightning rod in modern day Israel as many immigrants from the former Soviet Union are technically not Jewish. === Conversion to Judaism in history=== : ''See the main article: List of converts to Judaism'' The most famous Jewish King, King David, was descended from the convert Book of Ruth (who, according to the Talmud and Midrash, was a Moabite princess). No formal conversion procedure is given in the text; modern critical historians generally hold giur, in its modern sense, to be an innovation of a later period. Joseph, the father of the most famous sage of the Talmud, Rabbi Akiva, was a convert. Christians were forbidden to convert to Judaism on pain of death during most of the Middle Ages. In the 1700s a famous convert by the name of Count Valentin Potoski in Poland was burned at the stake. He was a contemporary and a disciple of Rabbi Elijah, known as the Vilna Gaon. In Hellenistic and Roman times, some Pharisees were eager proselytizers, and had at least some success throughout the empire. Some Jews are also descended from converts to Judaism outside the Mediterranean world. It is known that some Khazars, Edomites, and Ethiopians, as well as many Arabs, particularly in Yemen before, converted to Judaism in the past; today in the United States, Israel and Europe some people still convert to Judaism. In fact, there is a greater tradition of conversion to Judaism than many people realize. The word "proselyte" originally meant a Greek who had converted to Judaism. As late as the 6th century the Eastern Roman empire (i.e., the Byzantine empire) was issuing decrees against conversion to Judaism, implying that conversion to Judaism was still occurring. ===Relationship with converts=== The Tanakh states that converts deserve special attention (Deuteronomy 10:19). The Hebrew language word for "convert", ''ger'', is the same as that for a ''stranger''. It is also related to the root ''gar'' - "to dwell'. Hence since the Children of Israel were "strangers" - ''geirim'' in Egypt, they are therefore instructed to be welcoming to those who seek to convert and dwell amongst them. Since around 300 CE, Judaism has stopped encouraging people to join its faith. In fact, in Orthodox Judaism and Conservative Judaism, converts are often discouraged from becoming Jews and warned that being a Jew entails special obligations, as well as, at least in certain places, the risk of anti-semitism. A Rabbinic tradition holds that a prospective convert should be refused three times. ===Differences between Jewish and Christian views=== Judaism does not characterize itself as a religion (although one can speak of the Jewish religion and religious Jews). The subject of the Tanach (Hebrew Bible) is the history of the Children of Israel (also called Hebrews), especially in terms of their relationship with God. Thus, Judaism has also been characterized as a culture or as a civilization. Rabbi Mordecai Kaplan defines Judaism as an evolving religious civilization. One crucial sign of this is that one need not believe, or even do, anything to be Jewish; the Rabbinic definition of 'Jewishness' requires only that one be born of a Jewish mother, or that one convert to Judaism in accord with Jewish law. (Today, Reform and Reconstructionist Jews also include those born of Jewish fathers and Gentile mothers if they are raised as Jews.) To Jews, Jewish peoplehood is closely tied to their relationship with God, and thus has a strong theological component. This relationship is encapsulated in the notion that Jews are a chosen people. Although some have taken this as a sign of arrogance or exclusivity, there are Jewish scholars and theologians who have emphasized that a special relationship between Jews and God does not in any way preclude other nations having their own relationship with God. For Jews, being "chosen" fundamentally means that Jews have chosen to obey a certain set of laws (see Torah and halakha) as an expression of their covenant with God. Jews hold that other nations and peoples are not required or expected to obey these laws, and face no penalty for not obeying them. Thus, as a national religion, Judaism has no problem with the notion that others have their own paths to God (or "salvation"), though it still makes claim as to the truth or falsehood of other beliefs, and as to whether Gentiles are allowed to hold them. Thus, for example, Maimonides believed that the truth claims of Islam were largely false, but he also believed that Gentiles were not sinning by following Islam; on the other hand, he regarded idolatry not just as false, but also as a serious sin, for Jew or non-Jew. In this respect, Rabbinical sources have usually classed Christianity with Islam, rather than with idolatry, though the use of icons in many denominations has raised questions as to whether they are, in fact, idolatrous. Christianity is characterized by its claim to universality, which marks a break with Jewish identity. As a religion claiming universality, Christianity has had to define itself in relation with religions that make radically different claims about Gods. Christians believe that Christianity represents the fulfillment of God's promise to Abraham and the nation of Israel, that Israel would be a blessing to all nations. This crucial difference between the two religions has other implications. For example, conversion to Judaism is more like a form of adoption (i.e. becoming a member of the nation, in part by metaphorically becoming a child of Abraham), whereas conversion to Christianity is explicitly a declaration of faith. Of course, conversion to Judaism also entails a declaration of faith, and, in Christian churches, conversion also has a social component, as the individual is in many ways adopted into the Church, with a strong family model. ==Conversion to Christianity== Telling non-Christians about Christianity has been seen as a duty of Christians since the time of Jesus. According to the New Testament, Jesus commanded his disciples to "go into the world and make disciples of all nations". Evangelism, or 'spreading the Good News' has been a central part of the life of Christians since that time. In Christianity conversion is properly seen as the work of God. Humans may preach and teach, but it is considered to be God who brings the convert to faith. In the times of Jesus, all of his disciples were Jews. On occasion, he performed miracles for Gentiles without requiring their conversion; in one conversation with a Samaritan woman, he downplayed the differences between Jews and Samaritans (John 4). Gentiles who sought to join the early Church were often required to undergo conversion to Judaism (or conversion to the practices of Jesus) first including circumcision for men. Some believe this requirement was later dropped entirely after Paul of Tarsus forced the issue. (See the "Incident at Antioch" of Galatians 2 where Paul publicly condemned Peter for Judaize.) The origin of Christian Baptism in water is derived from the Jewish law requiring a convert to submerge themselves in pure water (of a mikvah) in order to receive a new pure soul from God. In the first centuries there was a live debate with Jewish-Christians being labeled as Judaizers at one extreme and Marcionism at the other extreme with Gnosticism somewhere in between. Christianity and Islam are two religions that encourage preaching their faith in order to convert non-believers. In both cases, this missionary property has been used as a justification for religious wars (cf. Crusades, jihad) on other countries. This property encourages evangelism to convert people of other faiths, and history has shown that the motives were not always pure. Because of this, evangelism is sometimes viewed scornfully by post-modernism. In the year 1000, the Viking age parliament of Iceland decided that the entire country should convert to Christianity, and that sacrifice to the old gods, while still allowed, should no longer be made in the open. Similar mass conversions in other Scandinavian countries were not as democratic. ==Conversion to Islam== One becomes a Muslim by believing that Allah (Arabic for God) is the only God and that Muhammad is His messenger. A person is considered a Muslim from the moment he sincerely makes this witness, the shahada. Of course a new Muslim has to familiarize himself/herself with the religion, the belief, and the practices of Islam, but there is no formal requirement for that. It is a personal process; acceptance of all of that is taken to follow from the original statement, since all of Islam is considered to derive from either divine inspiration, in the form of the Qur'an, or prophetic example, in the form of the hadith and sunna of Muhammad. == Conversion to religions of Indic origin == Religions of Indic origin such as Hinduism, Sikhism and Buddhism do not believe in conversion as a form of religious expansion, even though they welcome anybody to join their faiths. The reason for this is the strongly held belief in these religions that "all religions are true and are only different paths to the same truth". The followers also believe that the religion you follow is to be chosen based on an individual's temprement, birth etc. Also, what would be very strange and foreign to non-indic origin faiths is that people can claim to be follower of multiple religions. For example in Japan which was influenced by the indic faith of Buddhism, it is easy to find people who follow both Buddhism and Shinto. It is also common to find people in India claming to be both Hindu and Buddhist or Hindu and Sikh etc. This inclusivism is in direct contrast to the belief that the ordained path in the book is the only true paths, found in exclusivistic belief systems. This inclusivism also makes any conversion unnecessary. It should be noted that the above does not apply for some sects of Indic faiths, like Soka Gakkai and ISKCON. ==Conversion to new religious movements and cults== Conversion to new religious movements (NRM's) is riddled with controversies. The anti-cult movement sometimes uses the term thought reform or even brainwashing, though the latter term has now become discredited, for this process. Often they will call certain NRM's cults. However, the definition of a cult has become so broad that in many instances it is almost meaningless and is used to define anything outside of Orthodoxy. NRMs are very diverse and it is not clear whether conversion to NRMs differs from conversion to mainstream religions. See also Brainwashing#Brainwashing_controversy_in_new_religious_movements_and_cults Research, both in the United States and in the Netherlands has shown that there is a Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient between the lack of involvement in main stream churches in certain areas and provinces and the percentage of people who are a member of a new religious movement. This applies also for the presence of New Age centers. [1],[2] The Dutch research included Jehovah's Witnesses and the Latter Day Saint movement/Mormonism to the NRM's. Research in the United States has shown that disproportionally many people of Jew descent join NRM's which worries some in the Jewish community. [3] Professor Eileen Barker believes that the Divine Light Mission#Psychological changes in converts can be generalized for other NRMs, however she has supplied no proof of such claims. ==Conversion of Catholics to Protestantism== Prior to Vatican Council II, Catholics who converted to protestantism were called perverts. ==Prohibition of conversion== Several ethnic religions don't accept converts, like the Yazidis, the Druze, and Zoroastrianism. The only way to become a Yazidi is to be born in a Yazidi family. Conversely, the Shakers and some Indian eunuch brotherhoods don't allow procreation, so every member is a convert. ==Proselytism== The English language word ''proselytism'' is derived ultimately from the Greek language prefix 'pros' (towards) and the verb 'erchomai' (to come). It generally describes attempts to convert a person from one point of view to another, usually in a religious conversion context. ===History=== In the Bible, the word proselyte denotes a person who has converted to Judaism, without overtly negative overtones. In our day, however, the connotations of the word proselytism are almost exclusively negative. Nonetheless, many people use the words interchangeably. An Orthodox Christianity writer, Stephen Methodius Hayes has written: "If people talk about the need for evangelism, they meet with the response, "The Orthodox church does not 'proselytize' as if evangelizing and proselytism were the same thing." Many Christianity consider it their obligation to follow what is often termed the "Great Commission" of Jesus, recorded in the final verses of the Gospel of Matthew the Evangelist: "Go to all the nations and make disciples. Baptize them and teach them my commands." The early Christians were noted for their evangelizing work. The difference between the two terms is not easily defined. What one person considers legitimate evangelizing, or witness bearing, another may consider intrusive and improper. Illustrating the problems that can arise from such subjective viewpoints is this extract from an article by Dr. C. Davis, published in Cleveland State University's 'Journal of Law and Health': "According to the Union of American Hebrew Congregations, Jews for Jesus and Hebrew Christians constitute two of the most dangerous cults, and its members are appropriate candidates for deprogramming. Anti-cult evangelicals ... protest that 'aggressiveness and proselytizing . . . are basic to authentic Christianity,' and that Jews for Jesus and Campus Crusade for Christ are not to be labeled as cults. Furthermore, certain Hassidic groups who physically attacked a meeting of the Hebrew Christian 'cult' have themselves been labeled a 'cult' and equated with the followers of Reverend Moon, by none other than the President of the Central Conference of American Rabbis". [http://www.religioustolerance.org/cult_art.htm] Views on the propriety of proselytism, or even evangelism, differ radically. Some feel that freedom of speech should have no limits and that virtually anyone, anywhere should have the right to talk about anything they see fit. Others see all sorts of evangelism as a nuisance and an intrusion and would like to see them proscribed. Thus, Natan Lerner observes that the issue is one of a clash of rights - the right of a person to express his views versus the right of a person not to be exposed to views that he does not wish to hear. From a legal standpoint, there do appear to be certain criteria in distinguishing legitimate evangelization from illicit proselytism: * All humans have the right to have religious beliefs, and to change these beliefs, even repeatedly, if they so wish. (freedom of religion) * They have the right to form religious organizations for the purpose of worship, as well as for promoting their cause (Freedom of Association) * They have the right to speak to others about their convictions, with the purpose of influencing the others. (Freedom of Speech). By the same token, these very rights exercise a limiting influence on the freedoms of others. For instance, the right to have one's religious beliefs presumably includes the right not to be coerced into changing these beliefs by threats, discrimination, or similar inducements. Hence a category of improper proselytizing can be discerned. * It would not be proper to use coercion, threats, the weight of authority of the educational system, access to health care or similar facilities in order to induce people to change their religion. * It would be improper to try to impose one's beliefs on a 'captive audience,' where the listeners have no choice but to be present. This would presumably require restraint in the exercise of their right to free speech, by teachers in the classroom, army officers to their inferiors, prison officers in prison, medical staff in hospitals, so as to avoid impinging on the rights of others. * It would not be proper to offer money, work, housing or other material inducements as a means of persuading people to adopt another religion. ===Issues involving proselytism=== Since the collapse of the former Soviet Union and the rise of democracy in the Eastern Bloc, the Russian Orthodox Church has enjoyed a revival. However, it takes exception to what it considers illegitimate proselytizing by the Roman Catholic Church, the Salvation Army, Jehovah's Witnesses and other religious movements [http://www.russian-orthodox-church.org.ru:83/ne207011.htm] in what it refers to as its ''canonical territory''. Greece has a long history of conflict, mostly with Jehovah's Witnesses but also with some Pentecostalism over its laws on proselytism. This situation stems from a law passed in the 1930s by the dictator Ioannis Metaxas. A Jehovah's Witness, Minos Kokkinakis, won the equivalent of US $14,400 in damages from the Greek state after being arrested repeatedly for the 'offence' of preaching his faith from door to door. In another case, Larissis vs. Greece, a member of the Pentecostal church also won a case in the European Court of Human Rights. ==See also== * Apostasy * List of proselytes * Missionary * Secondary conversion ==References== *1. Schepens, T. (Dutch) ''Religieuze bewegingen in Nederland'' volume 29, ''Sekten'' ''Ontkerkelijking en religieuze vitaliteit: nieuwe religieuze bewegingen en New Age-centra in Nederland'' (1994) Vrije Universiteit uitgeverij ISBN 90-5383-341-2 * 2. Starks, R & W.S. Bainbridge ''The future of religion: secularization, revival and cult formation'' (1985) Berkely/Los Angeles/London: University of California press *3. Barrett, D. V. ''The New Believers - A survey of sects, cults and alternative religions'' (2001) UK, Cassell & Co [http://www.thenewbelievers.com/] ==External links== * [http://www.law.emory.edu/EILR/volumes/win98/lerner.html "Proselytism, Change of Religion, and International Human Rights", by Natan Lerner, PhD] (legal aspects of defining illicit proselytism) Religious behaviour and experience
Religious conversion
"King David was descended from the convert Ruth a princess from Moab". This may be a new idea for many readers. Is there any (extra-Biblical) tradition that Ruth was a ''princess''? - S. Hi, Let me quote you verbatim from the Artscroll commentary (Artscroll Inc. 1976) on Ruth, p.67: :"... The sages tell us that Machlon and Killion (married to Ruth and Orpah), were wealthy and distinguished, rose to such prominence while living in Moab that Eglon King of Moab, offered them his daughters' hands in marriage. Ruth and Orpah were the daughters of Eglon, as it is written in the book of Judges 3:19 ;(When Ehud came to Eglon to deliver God's message)'..and Ehud said:I have a message from God to you. And (Eglon) arose from his throne.' The Holy One , blessed be He,said of him:'You stood up from your throne in My honor, I will cause to emerge from you a descendent who will sit upon My throne' ..." MIDRASH. Now, ofcourse one can quible and say that the Midrash is not reliable. But what other records can be relied upon ? Since the books of the Bible, such as the Scroll of Ruth ( attributed to the prophet Samuel ) are the original and primary sources for this information, they are very reliable. After all we are talking here about religious and spiritual ideas..not just "commercial marketing" which is downright silly. Judaism has had the WORST marketing possible ("Buy this product and you are persecuted??? Makes no sense") So we can safely rely on the record as handed down thru the ages by the Jewish sages of the Torah who were meticulous in reporting and recording only the TRUTH. And it is not necessary for some archeologist to dig up an obilisk in Iraq and tell us wow, see what it says here guys...that too is downright silly. If it happens, nice! But we don't hold our breath waiting for a historian to confirm Jewish history in it's primary location, otherwise , why bother with these "stories" altogether?; just skip the sections on religion and move on to the science lessonsUser:IZAK ::I don't understand, the Midrash is not the Bible. The Bible is a primary source, and you have some nice arguments for the reliability of the Midrash as well, but the Midrash is still not a primary source. You quote the Midrash and then act as if you quoted the Bible. User:Jdavidb 21:58, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC) :::Midrash Ruth Rabba 2:9: "Ruth and Orpah were the daughters of Eglon, king of Moab." Eglon, when visited by the Judges Ehud, stood up from his throne. In reward, the Midrash states, his decendants (through Ruth, Obed, etc. to David) would merit the Holy throne of the Jewish people. :::Babylonian Talmud, tractate Nazir 23b: "Ruth was the daughter of Eglon's son". This was a reward to Bileam who, although his 42 sacrifices were insincere, he merited that Ruth should decend from him. :::Similar expressions on Sotah 47a, Sanhedrin 105b, Horiot 10b. This should do it, really, shouldn't it? :::I agree that Midrashic sources should be properly referenced, and not blended in with Biblical narrative. Although the section is on Judaism, and Jewish sources should have the last word there, it bears repeating that the words of the Bible can be understood on a number of levels (traditionally four). Midrashic interpretation is one of those. User:Jfdwolff 18:21, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC) --------------------- == Thought reform == What is the difference between thought reform and religious conversion? Is the only difference that thought reform is not desired and conversion a more neutral term? Or are there any objective standards, like religious conversion can never mean accpting a cult belief system but only a belief system of a mainstream religion. If the difference is only subjective then this should be stated. Shouldn't it be a reciprocal link? User:Andries :Andries, your message is insulting to all sincere converts. For the articles to have any parallels one would have to equate cults with established religions and the conversion process with the brainwashing that cults often have to resort to in order to ensnare impressionable people. Actually, I'm forcefully against the reciprocal link as well. Please reconsider your statement. (Yes, this was POV.) User:Jfdwolff 18:40, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC) ::Agreed, the comparison of conversion to thought reform is quite insulting. According to the article on thought reform, it occurs because of outside manipulation and is synonymous with brainwashing and mind control. The person who implied there was no difference is implying that there is never a single instance of a sincere religious convert who simply considered the issues and decided another religion was right and his former belief system was wrong. ::I recognize it's pretty hard for someone who is areligious to accept, but there are many people who belong to their religion because they sincerely believe it to be true. Thus people sometimes change religions voluntarily because they have been convinced. Religious conversions are not solely the result of what you would call brainwashing, and to imply otherwise is to imply that all religious converts are simpleminded and believe only what they are told. ::So, dignifying the question with an answer, the difference between religious conversion and thought reform is that conversion is voluntary while thought reform is coerced. User:Jdavidb 14:09, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC) :Thank you, User:Jdavidb, I totally agree. You will have noticed that I removed the link in question. User:Jfdwolff User:Jfdwolff | User_talk:Jfdwolff 15:03, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC) :I agree that a large number of conversions are voluntary, and in no way can be compared with thought reforms. But, what would some of the techniques that evangalists use in poor third world countries like allurement by money, faking miracles, i.e. fraud etc. to convert illiterate, poor people called? Would that be conversion, or would that be something else? Would that be any different from cultists preying on vulnurable people? If you agree, that they cannot be called conversions, I would encourage you to find out more about the work of any evangalist organization involved in thirld world countries that you may support. : I continue to disagree, thought reform is voluntary too. I added a NPOV message to the article. Unfortunately, it is difficult to know whether a conversion has been manipulated or not. If it weren't difficult to know then how come thousands of normal people join cults (or are recruited by cults)? I have no doubts both about about the sincerity of religious converts and about the people who are recruited by cults. Unfortunately I know all this from my personal experience. Andries 09:29, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC) I generally find this whole line of conversation distateful and condescending. Conversion is a spiritual process for the individual who obviously is seeking for additional truth, finding it, and implementing it into their lives. To even infer, as this article does, that all conversion to anything but orthodoxy is brainwashing. Who developed this hypothesis and who supports it? It is the type of drivel that cultists use to "scare the faithful" and to cause all to beware the evil missionaries/teachers of other faiths. And for goodness sake, if one is going to use the word cult, define it. Everytime I hear a cultist define cult it gets wider and wider so that everything is cult except their belief system. User:Storm Rider 20:39, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC) --------------------- == Tanakh on converts == :"The Tanakh (Hebrew Bible) states that converts deserve special attention." Can anyone offer a source on this? To my knowledge, the Tanakh does not address conversion directly (although Ruth is evidently an example of a convert, and there are statements about how to treat a stranger within the land of Israel). Is it possible the author meant the Talmud or some other source? User:Jdavidb 21:54, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC) :Hello Jdavidb. There is no specific instruction in Tanakh to give special attention to converts. Nor would they like that. However, it is mentioned in numerous places (starting with Exodus 23:9) that it is a sin to oppress the stranger (''ger'', generally taken to refer to converts), partially because the Jews themselves were strangers in Egypt. Maimonides is reputed to have said to his converted pupil Obadiah that there are 36 instances of this prohibition in Tanakh, although most conventional counts arrive at lower numbers. User:Jfdwolff 18:21, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC) :On second thought, I found a source of "loving the stranger" (Deuteronomy 10:19). In that respect, converts deserve special (loving) attention. User:Jfdwolff User:Jfdwolff | User_talk:Jfdwolff 15:07, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC) == Proselytism == Christianity? == Why is the article on Proselytism put under the Christianity heading? According to that article, proselytism referred orginally to Jewish converts. What does it have to do, specifically, with Christianity? User:Jdavidb 19:58, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC) ==Higer taxes for non-Muslims in Islamist states, give current examples== :"States controlled by Islamists sometimes practice a different set of laws for Muslims and non-Muslims. For example, taxation of non-Muslims may be higher to account for "protection" provided by Muslims. As such, a financial incentive may exist to convert to Islam." Are there any current examples? It used to be that way, I thought. Thanks User:Andries 20:15, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC) == Questionable means limited to Christinity? == Under the heading 'Conversion to Christianity' the following text is given: :"It [spreading the faith] is used even today as an excuse by evangelists to convert people of other faiths, on some occasions even by questionable means.". Are "questionable means" limited only to the spreading of Christianity? The example for today is a declaration made by Vikings in the year 1000. Perhaps other examples such as the USSR's (etc) decision to adopt Atheism (and prohibit all religions) should be included, and the peculiar role of religion in state politics could be moved to a general section. == Jfdwolff revert == What's the excuse for the revert on the definition of Proselyte found in Acts of Pilate? :It's completely out of context, and WP:NPOV. Information from the New Testament is only of interest in the Christianity section. Also, never preface a section with "interestingly" when you can be quite sure most readers will not find it interesting. User:Jfdwolff | User_talk:Jfdwolff 18:29, 30 May 2005 (UTC) ::It's a definition of Proselyte from the time period when the term was most used. How is that out of context? It's not from the New Testament. And true, you may not find it interesting, but since when are you "most readers". You my friend are the one with the non-npov. :Oh, pleased to hear we're friends. You may consider adding a section called "Etymology" or "Origins", and not insist that your addition becomes part of the article intro. This has nothing to do with POV, so I removed the tag you unwisely inserted. User:Jfdwolff | User_talk:Jfdwolff 13:26, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::Added definition of Proselyte section to end, happy now? I want to make sure you are happy because only you can determine what is and isn't npov. I certainly wouldn't want to mar the article intro because that belongs to you. ==I nominate this article for neutrality check, it clearly is under dispute, see above== from Wikipedia: "Often, authors can view their articles as being NPOV, while others disagree. That an article is in an NPOV dispute does not necessarily mean it is not NPOV, only that someone (with the tact and wit to properly link to this page from it) considers it to be not NPOV." :Aaargh, can't you even get a Special:Userlogin? I am certainly not doubting the veracity of the statement. My only concern was that you gave it too much prominence. That is not NPOV, that is a normal disagreement on emphasis. Before you go slapping POV tags on articles, just enter into a dialogue! User:Jfdwolff | User_talk:Jfdwolff 22:23, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC) :: What's the point of entering into a dialogue with someone who routinely deletes new additions and deletes requests for neutrality check? Do you understand that I don't want you to do a neutrality check (for reasons that should be obvious), I want others to do that. I request a neutrality check, why do you delete it? You feel you have that right? As far as you are concerned the article is neutral and not under dispute therefore no need for a neutrality check? Do you understand the word neutrality? Do you understand the Wikipedia position on neutrality? Do you understand POV? Do you understand the concept of neutral POV? :The only thing you have so far disputed was the inclusion of material on the history of proselytism, which has now been included. I think I understand the word neutrality better than you do, and I also understand that you are making a ridiculous fuss. What exactly strikes you as biased in this article? Unless you ''clearly'' delineate what bothers you, the POV check request is unfounded, and I shall have to remove your cherished tag. :Again I must encourage you to get a Wikipedia username. If you care for the project and its unbiased coverage so much, why should your edits remain anonymous? User:Jfdwolff | User_talk:Jfdwolff 13:22, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::I don't see any neutrality conflict here. The material has been included, what else is there to talk: about? User:JayjgUser_talk:Jayjg 15:57, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC) :::Fine, next issue then: The first section is called "The convert/proselyte" Wouldn't you expect to find definitions of proselyte in that section? If the word proselyte is so important to this article to be mentioned in section one, wouldn't the definitions also be important? I suppose, if you want to be technical, Acts of Pilate represents a Christian definition from the first couple of centuries. The first thing that jumps out at me is: why does the word have to be defined in Acts of Pilate? My answer to that question is that proselyte was understood in a Jewish context but not in the greater Greco-Roman context. Is the definition found in Acts of Pilate incorrect? I don't believe it is, perhaps others disagree, those who disagree should present their evidence. ::Conversion to Judaism obviously predates Pilate, and a Talmudic definition would be more appropriate. It is definitely useful as an extraneous source. How about you make some neutral edits and see if these hold out? I can't imagine you'd like to carry on arguing until we're all cyanosis. User:Jfdwolff | User_talk:Jfdwolff 00:31, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC) :::I initially placed it in section 1 "The convert/proselyte" and you deleted it, see discussion above. As for the Talmud, it didn't exist in Pilate's time. If you look up proselutos in Bauer you will find a number of early references: Apollon. Rhod., LXX, Philo, Roman grave inscriptions, Isis cult, Matt23:15, Acts 2:11,6:5. Related are the sebomenoi ton theon or God-fearers of Josephus, Acts 13:43 mixes both in sebomenon proseluton. ::Of course the Talmud was not around, but the oral traditions that form the Talmud go back to 200 BCE. Can you please tell me what is still bothering you? I haven't stopped you making additions to the page in any way! User:Jfdwolff | User_talk:Jfdwolff 22:23, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC) :::How do you explain [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Religious_conversion&diff=14452833&oldid=14424933 this] then. ::The last time I reverted you is a week ago. I have worked with you constructively. You appear to be seeking a conflict where there is none. End of discussion, as far as I'm concerned. User:Jfdwolff | User_talk:Jfdwolff 00:38, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC) :::In that case, I'll merge sections 1 and 10. ::Cool. Happy now? User:Jfdwolff | User_talk:Jfdwolff 04:13, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC) ==Mikvah== :''The origin of Christian Baptism in water is derived from the Jewish law requiring a convert to submerge themselves in pure water (of a mikvah) to cleanse themselves because Gentiles were considered ritually unclean.'' where does that come from? ::It is partially incorrect. All Jews immersed in a ritual pool before receiving the Torah at Mount Sinai, the event with "made" them Jews. The Talmud therefore requires this from a convert as well; the concept of uncleanliness, although this is the normal use of the ritual pool, is not actually invoked. User:Jfdwolff | User_talk:Jfdwolff 11:32, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
R
RA | RB | RC | RD | RE | RF | RG | RH | RI | RJ | RK | RL | RM | RN | RO | RP | RS | RT | RU | RW | RX | RY | RZ |Words begining with Religious_conversion:
Religious_conversion
Religious_conversion
These materials are based on Wikipedia and licensed under the GNU FDL
YouTube.com videos better site than Turbo Tax 2007
