“I am an orthodox Druid. Please be careful of the tree as you leave.”
Or there’s the approach that my wife encountered when she was knocking on doors for a political campaign. Next to the front door was a glass case that contained a shotgun. It was clearly labeled “Break glass in case of Jehovah’s Witness”
I don’t think it’s rude to invite them in a challange thier beliefs. They came to your door univited to share them didn’t they?
I don’t think it’s productive to do so but you never know how informed or interesting they are until you make the attempt. It would get rude if you brought them in to ridicule them rather than discuss.
<snip>
If witnessing isn’t essentially the same as praying in public, I don’t know what is. Going around telling other people how your are saved and they could be too, if they acted like you …seems like what the passages are aimed at. Go to your room and pray quietly, not door-to-door. Or you forfeit your reward.
If I feel like wasting time, I will actually engage any sort of fundie in conversation. I will not only ask them about Matthew 6 1-8; but also ask them to point out exactly those spots in the New Testament that says they should not practice kosher anymore.
And for the Mormons, I tell them they can’t come in to talk unless they have a household recommend. I’ll talk to them outside, but they can’t come in without proper training.
The passage means if you’re praying just for show, for the recognition of other people, and to appear religious or pious, then you’re reward will be only that. The *appearance *of being spiritual and the attention of men rather than any heavenly reward.
It’s not an injunction against witnessing and/or proselytizing. It seems clear Jesus did that and asked his followers to do the same. I’d say he asked them to witness by example first and foremost.
The one time I was confronted by JWs I told them I’m sorry, but I am a strict Mixolydian.
I asked if they knew what that was, they said no. I wrote it down for them and said, “look us up online.”
At least they got a little music lesson.
I’ll add I think it’s nice you want to welcome them, not join them, but not offend them.
A better thing to do than just slamming the door.
I don’t think i’d agree with that. The message is not the method of getting the message across.
And even if you’re correct it still doesn’t have any effect on the offensiveness of the act. That would be an answer, perhaps, to “Why have they selected this method?” but not “How is this method the least offensive?”. I think you may be too eager with an answer you like.
FWIW that’s not a nice thing to do to the person who has now been assigned your old phone number. I get lots of calls asking for the person who previously had my new cellphone number, (her old number). And it’s not fun. I also have wondered if she is still presently giving out her old number, just because she doesn’t want to say “no.” :dubious:
BTW once I printed out a tiny sign that simply says NO JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES, stuck it on the door, and I haven’t been bothered anymore. In fact, it’s been years.
JW’s believe that Jehovah is the one and only god but Jesus is another god but he’s not Jehovah but Jehovah is the one and only god but Jesus is another god but he’s not Jehovah but Jehovah is the one and only god…ad infinitum.
No. JW’s believe that Jehovah is the one and only God but Jesus is a god, the Word/Image/Son of Jehovah God, but not Jehovah God.
I totally disagree with them, being a Trinitarian & believing that Jesus & the Holy Spirit are fully YHWH God with the Father, but I do understand their theology & don’t feel the need to caricature it. In fact, I’ll admit my own theology is more vulnerable to similar caricaturization.
I could be accused, I’ll also admit, of employing the same tactics in describing LDS theology. But some stuff Smith & Young said make it WAY too vulnerable, moreso that Russell & Rutherford did.
When I was in the Navy I lived in Vallejo CA for a few years. My roommate & I had snakes as pets, including a 15’ reticulated python named Rex. Nothing was less welcoming to those who came to witness to us than the sight of Rex over one of our shoulders as we answered the door.
Now though, I just say no and close the door. I used to waste their time arguing, but now I figure they have their beliefs, I have mine, and rather than waste their time and mine, I just say no thanks. I get far more Baptists at the door than JWs here in the South.
True, the message and the method are different things. But, the fact remains that Christ and his peeps used proselytizing-----evangelizing----as their preferred method.
In fact, it wasn’t just preferred. It was commanded. Comments like BrandonR’s seem routinely unaware that this is exactly the way Christianity was spread.
Apparently it was offensive enough to get Jesus Christ crucified, and his direct followers routinely beaten, jailed and martyred. There is no shortage of secular history that speaks to first century and later Christian proselytizing that involve sundry unpleasantries for Christian evangelizers. In spite of this, Christianity did grow.
Because of this, the question of ‘what is least offensive’ is rendered moot. It is the model practiced by Christ and his followers. As to it’s true effectiveness, JWs have learned that the greatest response is benign apathy. Some small percentage will be ‘offended’ (with a larger portion on internet message boards experiencing this) and a small portion showing genuine interest.
In any event, they care about matters like this, but in the end they choose to follow the Christian Model. (fully aware that Christ himself stated that carrying the message about him would be unpopular in some quarters)
Does this generation’s proselytizing somehow become less annoying because they come from a long line of proselytizers? If not, I don’t see what your point is.
That’s unfortunate, because that is, in fact, the correct answer. It is also the polite answer. If your roommate wants to talk to them let her, but it doesn’t oblige you to let them in if you answer the door.
“Thank you, but I am not interested. Good day,” or some form thereof is the correct response.
Regarding the OP I also remembered Voyager mentioned something in another thread. We were discussing proselytizers, including JWs, and Voyager wrote this…
[bolding mine]
I was very intrigued about how to make JWs “run away,” and when asked more about it he wrote this…
IOW the simplest solutions are often the most effective ones.
My point is twofold (which was apparent in my last post, frankly). First, they do it because (among a couple other reasons) Jesus himself did it, he commanded it, and his followers did also.
Secondly, not all are annoyed. Many are not annoyed at all, and others welcome their visits.
In any event, while popularity is a wonderful thing, (and they would like it as much as anyone) it is [necessarily] subordinate to the command to talk to people about Jesus Christ.
But proseylatizing doesn’t necessarily mean going door to door with the Word. Jesus seems more the “gather an interested crowd” type of guy. I am sure your command of the Bible is much greater than my own, so when I say the only time I can recall doors being mentioned in this kind of context is in the marking of some during the plagues I could have missed out a “And then Peter and James went down the street, knocking on all the doors in turn to speak to the residents”, but in all honesty, I think it’s pretty fair to say that door-to-door evangelizing was not Jesus et al’s preferred method.
I was under the impression that it was supposed to be more a fear of power being lost to this popular gentleman, rather than actual offense at the words.
Might I ask why you put “offended” in quotation marks? And where you have gotten the impression that internet message boards and offense are correlated?
Going door-to-door is not the Christian Model. And it being declared unpopular does not mean that all steps should be taken to make sure it’s as popular as possible.