Practices as you describe have nothing to do with teh idea God would be in need of humans, it has to do with the idea to follow instructions/cammands of a certain religion.
And as for my comment “making people believe”.
It is exactly what proselytizers want to do. They want to convince people to believe what they believe.
So the question :
if God is so mighty… why have humans doing his PR job (to say it with the words of Rashak Mani)…
That has little to do with “making children for Abraham who believe in God”. (In contrast with the Islamic " God chooses who He wants" )
Sorry, but merely the expectation that “C” should listen to you is depriving him of his free will to refuse to listen to you.
All good and well, yet that is exactly what I refer to.
Why “sending” anyone if it is not because you aren’t able to bring the message yourself.
If you follow me around with your witnessing then you cross the line of my free will, because if I don’t want to listen to you, I still have to hear you since I’m not deaf.
If God finds this free will so important, then why bother me with sending people to me I don’t want to listen to?
No, it does not remain unanswered, it remains unanswered to your satisfaction. These are two wholly different things. It has been said in seven different ways by seven different people. To put it as plainly as possible, God has people “doing his PR” because that’s what he wants, and since he is so mighty, he gets what he wants.
You can accept that answer or not, but you’re not likely to get another one.
No it wasn’t needed for God to be known by the preaching of the Prophet. If you read Al Qur’an you shall discover that immediately.
But since a prophet is chosen to bring the Message of God to the world, he did what God asked him to do: bring the Message of God = talk about the way people can come in contact with God and finally meet the Creator in the afterlife.
Do you claim that every proselytizer is a prophet? (some weeks ago I met a Christian proselytizers who claimed he was a prophet of God).
Furthermore, using your definition of prophet, Christians may argue that yes, in fact, they were chosen by God to bring His message to others (IANAC, those who are can back me up or refute me as appropriate…).
Proselytizing is not about converting someone into believing about a ghod of any kind, but rather converting them into being an adherant to a specific religious cult.
The goals of all organized religions are control of the lives of their adherants and the accumulation of wealth. The more adherants, the more wealth and the bigger the “fiefdom” held by the cult.
Ignoring the former post that is a bit weird… Yet since nothing surprises me on message boards let us g on as if nothing happened
Maybe this is the US way… I wouldn’t know, but where I live we don’t have “TV preachers” who claim that God ordered their followers to fill their bank accounts.
(By the way: what are the requirements to become such a TV preacher?)
Well seen the rather incoherent way the so called prophet “witnessed” I think that I can be sure about it that he wasn’t any. He didn’t even know a thing about Christianity although he claimed to be a Christian and a prophet of God.
(We leave out here the fact that most muslims adhere to the believe that after Muhammed there wont be any new prophet… Which I personally don’t defend, yet I don’t proclaim to be the “average Muslim”).
But can you answer the question why God would make of every new Christian a prophet? Do you know how many Christians there are born every new day?
I certainly can’t tell you the motivations of God, or possible motivations of God. However, I can ask you a parallel question:
How did Islam spread to Indonesia, Morocco, Spain, Bosnia… after the death of Muhammad? Obviously the message of Islam was carried by people who convinced other people to convert to Islam (by whatever means, which in the OP you opted not to discuss). Surely this was Islamic proselytizing, right?
The answer, of course, is not that God need us to persuade others to follow Him but that, in sharing our love for Him, we have the opportunity to learn more about Him, to learn more about others, and to serve others in that sharing.
You assume that, in sharing His story, we are serving God, and that if we did not, God would suffer somehow. That is not so. If we did not share what we know of God, it is not God who would miss out, but His people — not just the ones who did not hear about Him, but the ones who did not share His word. True, they already know, but they discover more as they share — more about His word, more about the people they share with, more about how He works in their lives.
You assume that the primary purpose of the proselytizing is the sharing of information and the gaining of converts. I suggest to you that this is a very narrow view. If not a person were converted God’s will might still be done, and positive things might still come out of the action of the proselytizing.
The “former post” that Alderbaran calls “weird” was worse than that, and has been removed for more offenses than I could list. When you see something like that, ignore it and alert the Mods, and we’ll invisibilize it.
No, it was conquering an Empire, with in many cases Islam as a tool, but not always a direct goal. In many case not even a goal at all. But that is an other discussion.
One can say there was proselytizing mixed with all of that.
That doesn’t mean I agree with it, does it?
There are still Muslims who think they have to “witness”. Especially among converts in the USA, from whom some seem to have adapted the proselytizing business, most probably as left-over of an earlier Christian education.
Perhaps. but for argument’s sake I’ll leave that for now.
No, and it’s good to be ecumenical about it. If you don’t accept it in any religion, that’s perfectly reasonable.
But what constitutes proslytizing to you? If a private religious school solicits new students, does that count? Does somebody handing out free copies of the Baghavad Gita count? Or Gideon’s Bibles in hotel rooms? IIRC, the newly proposed French laws consider headscarves, yarmulkes and large crosses to be proselytizing. Where do you draw the line?
At Baptism, Catholics (I don’t know if other Chrsitians) are annointed, so they become Kings, Prophets and Priests (à la Ancient Israel), so in a way ALL Catholics are prophets. Of course, “prophet” here only means spreading God’s words, not predicting the future…
God needs us as much as we can say He "needed to make the Universe, He didn’t need to.
No, I didn’t mean that God needs proselytizers to convince other to “follow him”. (Who can ever “follow” God?)
I meant that God doesn’t need humanity to be known by humanity, so why would there be a command to go around and advertize for God.
By the way: How can you “learn more about God” when talking to others?
I agree that you can learn from others and that you may think you “serve” them with your talking without being asked for it. (I disagree on that point).
I also don’t assume that God would “suffer” if you didn’t proselytize. I say that with doing that, you act as if God depends on you to be known.
So the question is:
How can God be God if He depends on humans to be known.
And when you say that you learn more about God while proselytizing on people who didn’t ask you to do that, I think you are saying that in fact you abuse those people for your own good (sorry).
You claim that proselytizing isn’t done to gain converts.
Then why is it done? And why do proselytizers hide behind the “excuse” that what they do is a command of God.
I could give you some very nasty examples of very nasty proselytizing methods (which I call criminal) to refute your claim and about the extreme arrogance of these people, but I said in the OP that this is not the goal of this topic.
And for the will of God to be done, no human effort is needed.
Proselytizing is for me every attempt to try to get time and attention of people who didn’t ask you to bother them with your religious talks.
There are rather harmless forms, like for example handing out free copies of religious works or Holy Books, on condition that this goes without any pressure or verbal attempt to “convince” and leaves it to the receiver if he wants to accept it or not.
One could also count Bibles in hotelrooms among that. Although when done in a secular nation I wouldn’t recommend this and I find it rather irritating, seen the fact that no other religious works are put available at the same time. Yet it is done. I have even seen it in Belgium.
As for schools advertizing, I guess the only target public are student who adhere to the particular religion, so you can hardly call that proselytizing.
From what I have as information on that remarkable foolish French decision, you have a wrong perception of it.
They don’t sell it to the population as being attempts to proselytize. They sell it as a violation of the pure secularism of the State.
Salaam. A
Well, I happen to know Al Qur’an. Which says, among others:
“Let there be no compulsion in religion”
and also
“God chooses who He wants”.
What is permitted and even a command in Islam is to inform people who come to you for information about Islam. And if you can’t inform them yourselves, not knowing the right answers, to send them to someone who can.
Yesss… Couldn’t help myself despite the fact that I have the impression that this sort of harmless lunaticism - commonly called “humour” - is considered to be a Mortal Sin on the SDMB.
I know… So I just had my face newly ironed to be sure that every smile or beginning of a smile is impossible for some time to come.
By the way: Did you ever read Multatuli… He had a great sense of humour.
