What is the opposite to a religious proselyte?

Old Man Gordon wrote:

Here's my question:  Is the opposite of a proselytizer (actually the correct term we're talking about) a person who keeps his (dis)beliefs to himself: a. deliberately for a good reason b.  deliberately for a bad reason c.  unintentionally for a good reason d.  unintentionally for a bad reason or e. something else? By reason, I really mean motive, but I'm too lazy to go back and change it.  If the proselytizer shares his beliefs deliberately with a good motive, then I'll stick with d as the best opposite.

So if a proselytiser shares said beliefs for a selfish reason what do you call an anti proselytiser who does not proselytise for a good reason/motive?

Old Man Gordon wrote:

Sure, my initial words were harsh, but I had been pretty sure that my colleague Stannum was up for a mental workout, and we were only engaged in a logical/philosophical/linguistic discussion, not a personal one.

Funny that you should bring this up.

What gave you the impression that I asked this question seeking a mental workout.  I have tried to engage in debate on other topics and you did not seem interested in engaging me in a harsh mental workout.  As it happens I had not really noticed you until you came in at me with most of the Seven Deadly Sins on this thread.  As an introductory debating tool it minds me to not ask you to teach me to swim.

Could you point me to one thread that has been asked out of purely logical/philosophical/linguistic nature in this Controversial Subjects Forum?

I am of the opinion that every question posed has been done so with personal involvement of the poster including all of the life experiences of the poster of the always personal questions.  I have seen questions couched in the third person but I do not believe these for a moment.  All questions posed here are personal questions and to initially respond to such questions with self admittedly harsh words is very difficult to process.  A baptism of fire for any potential relationship.

OMG you are sadly wrong.  I am not your colleague yet, at best I am an apprentice to your tradesman or even master.  You are a well entrenched member of these forums and are free to post your harsh words to my gentle question and suffer no censure but I am so heavily metamoderated here that I have just about thrown in the towel and will leave because I am not free to respond to you or to anybody here as nobody seems to be considered to be able to withstand any type of, how did you put it, logical/philosophical/linguistic mental workout.

I feel as though any member is free to kick me in the ribs as they wish and I am deleted for responding, "Thank you sir/ma'am.  May I have another?" and you make noises like you can treat me rough because I am a colleague.  Colleagues are equals and we are most certainly not treated as equals.

I will probably be deleted or bounced but I will e-mail this to you and you can do with it as you wish.

If you want to win the debate by censure, so be it.  The call is entirely that of Old Man Gordon.

Stannum

Morgan Le Fey wrote:

I'm tired of being told that the road to salvation lies somewhere else and that I must go somewhere else.

It is not for nothing that there is an ancient saying well known to all literate English speakers although I doubt that many have considered the multiple ramifications of the saying.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Morgan Le Fey wrote:

A proselytizer, for me, is always bad.

What about the born again agnostic who can see a good friend living a life of sorrow trying desperatly to cling to a failed lifestyle by praying to little baby Jesus to restore an impossibility?

Stannum

I'd say that for a me a proselyter is bad unless one of the following conditions is met:

(1) The proselyter and I are in the middle of a conversation in which the p's ideas are relevant.
(2) I'm in a life situation in which I'm searching for something (or in "a life of sorrow") and therefore I might be open to whatever the proselyter is selling.

Unless one of those two conditions are met, I would probably be rather annoyed at the proselyter. I might understand the p's motives; I may even think those motives are somewhat noble, but that doesn't make me anymore open to their message. And, Stannum, I think you were addressing MLF, but in Seattle there are plenty of agnostic proselyters (probably more than Christian proselyters) and, yes, I sometimes find them annoying.

However, I suppose we're all proselytizing to some extent; we're all trying to sway people to our way of thinking. So I suppose that if I really hated proselyters, I'd have to go live in the forest and talk to the animals.

-Andrew

Stannum wrote:

Old Man Gordon wrote: Thanks, Sara, for enlightening my obviously jaded sense of morality.  Now that I know that euphemisms are lies, I will be sure to never use them.  Is sarcasm still ok? omg Old Man Gordon,  I think that sarcasm is always highly overrated and potentially the final straw in every war or conflict in our history. If everybody on this forum simply decided to stop being sarcastic what would happen? Stannum

World peace, I guess.  (That was intended to be sarcastic and humorous, not offensive.)

So much for intentions.  I'm fairly certain that an end to sarcasm wouldn't produce world peace, but I'm willing to try.