Talk:Religious conversion

King Moab

"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.

Judaism (old material)

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 lessonsIZAK

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. 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 judge 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. JFW 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? 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.) JFW 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. Jdavidb 14:09, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thank you, Jdavidb, I totally agree. You will have noticed that I removed the link in question. JFW | T@lk 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. 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? 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. JFW 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. JFW | T@lk 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? Jdavidb 19:58, 14 Apr 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.

Reply-- But you must understand that Christianity and Islam are the only two religions that encourage evangelists and support converting so you will see much more questionable means when there is converting going on. So you must be impartial and see it in a neutral way. And Christianty is byfar one of the most converted religions and all of them weren't by peaceful means, and history provides us with ample proof of this, the many crusades that they used God as a simple excuse and the Vikings and much more. If you are to find an example that involves Islam then you might be able to keep it on both those two religions but it shouldn't be put under General because the questionable means doesn't refer to Hinduism or Buddhism at all. You should keep it under the headings to keep content specific.

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 username? 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! JFW | T@lk 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? JFW | T@lk 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? Jayjg ^(talk) 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 blue in the face. JFW | T@lk 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! JFW | T@lk 22:23, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

How do you explain 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. JFW | T@lk 00:38, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In that case, I'll merge sections 1 and 10.

Cool. Happy now? JFW | T@lk 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? 64.169.2.153 (talk · contribs)

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. JFW | T@lk 11:32, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)