Consideration of a subject by a group; an earnest conversation.
A formal discourse on a topic; an exposition.
There's discussion, and there's prosletysing in any form. Proselytizing is by definition an attempt to persuade or influence someone to change their point of view to your own. Of course this can be achieved either through debate or more forceful means (which I would not advocate at all). One of the main methods of persuading someone to come around to your point of view is through debate - tell them what you believe and why you think that is true (or more true) than what they believe on that subject. It is their decision whether they agree or not.
As I remarked on my own journal, I have no problem at all with discussing and even disagreeing, with respect; this does not, to my mind, amount to a conversion attempt. The difference is whether you intend to change the other persons view point in that discussion. If I were to intend to enter a debate for the purpose of changing someones point of view that is by definition an attempt at conversion, if however I were to enter a debate purely for the purpose of investigating the issue together then that would not be an attempt at conversion. I think its fair to say that in most situations one does not sit on either of the extremes, there is a mixture of both.
It may be that you have a broader definition of "conversion" than the one that is currently in my mind. The word, to me, connotes something quite one-sided, rather than the notion of a respectful discussion. As I said above I think conversion can be very one sided in terms of choice (for instance 'forced conversion' through violence etc) but in the context in which I meant it (i.e. in modern english society) it is not. By definition an attempt at conversion has to be 'one sided' as you intend to change someones point of view. It is however their choice as to whether or not they change that point of view.
It is also worth noting that one can believe that the belief that a person holds is not true yet tolerate (allow without prohibiting or opposing (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=tolerate))their belief and respect (avoid violation of or interference with (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=respect)) the person.
Just out of interest, who is being converted and to what belief here? While replying to Paul I didn't say that anyone was being converted to any belief.
Some people act to convert because of love and care for their fellow man, some because they are forced or coerced into doing so. Some acts of conversion are open to be rejected, others are not. The former I applaud, the latter I despise.
no subject
Dictionary.com: Induce (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=induce)
Dictionary.com: Discussion (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion)
There's discussion, and there's prosletysing in any form.
Proselytizing is by definition an attempt to persuade or influence someone to change their point of view to your own. Of course this can be achieved either through debate or more forceful means (which I would not advocate at all). One of the main methods of persuading someone to come around to your point of view is through debate - tell them what you believe and why you think that is true (or more true) than what they believe on that subject. It is their decision whether they agree or not.
As I remarked on my own journal, I have no problem at all with discussing and even disagreeing, with respect; this does not, to my mind, amount to a conversion attempt.
The difference is whether you intend to change the other persons view point in that discussion. If I were to intend to enter a debate for the purpose of changing someones point of view that is by definition an attempt at conversion, if however I were to enter a debate purely for the purpose of investigating the issue together then that would not be an attempt at conversion. I think its fair to say that in most situations one does not sit on either of the extremes, there is a mixture of both.
It may be that you have a broader definition of "conversion" than the one that is currently in my mind. The word, to me, connotes something quite one-sided, rather than the notion of a respectful discussion.
As I said above I think conversion can be very one sided in terms of choice (for instance 'forced conversion' through violence etc) but in the context in which I meant it (i.e. in modern english society) it is not. By definition an attempt at conversion has to be 'one sided' as you intend to change someones point of view. It is however their choice as to whether or not they change that point of view.
It is also worth noting that one can believe that the belief that a person holds is not true yet tolerate (allow without prohibiting or opposing (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=tolerate))their belief and respect (avoid violation of or interference with (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=respect)) the person.
Just out of interest, who is being converted and to what belief here?
While replying to Paul I didn't say that anyone was being converted to any belief.
Some people act to convert because of love and care for their fellow man, some because they are forced or coerced into doing so. Some acts of conversion are open to be rejected, others are not. The former I applaud, the latter I despise.