Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Results found: 2

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

Search:
in the keywords:  Evangelism
help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
EN
The transmission of the apostolic faith determination are directly or indirectly pointing to the first, on the one whom the Apostles taught the new religion and he is the new religion. In Sacred Scripture, the words clearly indicating the primacy of Jesus Christ and belong to them, determine from the words „first”. Referring to the Greek text of S. Pisarek proves that it is reasonable to use the title „Jesus evangelizing”. In view of the Person of Jesus Christ is justified to use the title, which literally does not exist in the New Testament - „Jesus evangelizer”. The logical connection of words indicating the priority of Jesus Christ with the title „Jesus evangelizer” results in another title spoken by Pope John Paul II - „The first evangelizer”. As a result, one can assume that it is reasonable to use the two are not contained in the Bible, but growing out of the Scripture titles Jesus of Nazareth – „First evangelizer and catechist”.
EN
Critics of Christianity in India have frequently accused Christianity of being a predatory, imperialistic religion with absolutist tendencies, and have framed Christian evangelism as an aggressive, uncouth act. More recently, however, and in an idiom that resonates with many contemporary Indians, Swami Dayananda Saraswati (1930-) has made the more controversial claim that the attempt to convert another person is itself an act of violence. In three parts, the paper 1) describes Dayananda’s claims, while bringing them into conversation with the arguments of earlier critics of Christianity (e.g., Mahatma Gandhi, Sita Ram Goel, Ashok Chowgule, Arun Shourie), 2) analyzes and critique Dayananda’s use of the term “violence,” and 3) demonstrate how the claim that conversion is an act of violence blurs somewhat easily into a justification of acts of violence against those who attempt to convert others. In the end, I argue that whether Dayananda’s claim that proselytization is a form of violence makes sense depends not only on one’s definition of “violence,” but also on one’s definition of “religion.”
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.