Why do two of the three abrahamic religions give so many shits about converting others to their cause? CMIIAW but Judaism doesn’t try the whole convert the infidel thing by force if necessary, neither do the religions of the far east e.g. Hinduism, Buddhism and Shinto. So whats up with those two, do they just want a reason to fight and kill everybody?
One must do as one’s god demands.
Well…Buddhism at least must have been using prozelytism or else it wouldn’t have spread all over Asia.
Which explains Richard Dawkins.
In what way?
I expect its largely Darwinian. In order to grow from a minor cults into the two most popular religions, you need to have a strong proselytizing component, otherwise you stay a small cult or die out.
Well, the comment was intended ironically. Dawkins goes around proselytizing for atheism as vigorously as any religious person. One wonders why he even bothers, if we are all to end up as worm food anyway, what difference does it make?
But in reference back to the OP, if religions proselytize because “they just want a reason to fight and kill everybody,” then why would an atheist do so? This seems like special pleading to me. If religious people proselytize, that’s a bad thing, but when atheists do, it’s a good thing. In other words, atheists are presumed to have the truth, therefore spreading their message is good and spreading any contrary message is bad. Unfortunately, this is exactly the same reasoning employed by groups like Jehovah’s Witnesses, who presume essentially the same thing. When they criticize other religions, it’s a good thing, but anyone who criticizes them is hateful and a liar. It’s really a form of question-begging.
It’s also a bit fallacious to lump Islam together with Christianity as the OP does. Granted, both have had bad stuff in their history, but Islam’s primary means of conversion for hundreds of years was the sword. This was never the case with Christianity (though there were probably some isolated instances). In fact, all of North Africa was once a flourishing hotbed of Christianity, which was utterly destroyed by the Muslim advance. There’s a vast difference between conversion by persuasion and conversion by force. In the 20th century, you might also recall that atheistic governments developed their own considerable record of conversion by force.
Finally, the OP does not seem to allow for the possibility that religious people may actually believe that they have found something good, and wish to share it with others. It isn’t always necessary to find a negative ulterior motive, unless the specific purpose of doing so is to bring your opponent’s motives into question.
Have you ever read Dawkins? He only started after getting tons of poison pen letters from God-soaked nitwits about how evil he was for writing about evolution. Who else has he recruited to spread the word? Have they knocked on your door recently? Going on a book tour is not proselytizing. Neither is a few ads on buses saying God almost certainly not exist the same as missionary work.
Do the words “South America” mean anything to you at all? Or did all those Native Americans just line up to be Christians? Not to mention forcible conversion of Jews throughout history, which Christians were far more guilty of. Not that various Christian sects weren’t as guilty as doing it to each other. Catholics who came to Elizabethan England to preach wound up with their heads cut off.
Why are European countries so predominantly one religion or another (sometimes regionally, like Germany.) Was it a wave of conversion hysteria, or maybe the ruler kind of forced the subjects to convert. You are really blind about the sins of Christianity. aren’t you?
Who converted by force to atheism again? The Russians did convert people to Communism, but they mostly eliminated an alternate source of power, especially one so closely tied to the Tsars. (Those bastions of Christian virtues.) In Eastern Europe they didn’t even do that.
Free marketplace of ideas is fine. That isn’t how Christianity spread.
Christianity and Islam’s foundational documents call for spreading the faith throughout the world as The One Truth everyone has to follow or else. Judaism is focused on being the religion of the Jews, nobody else is expected to HAVE to follow it.
The American continents during the period 1492 to the 1800s being one major isolated instance, I suppose.
Also, there’s “the sword” as in directly forced convert-or-die, and then there’s “the sword” as in followers of the religion conquered the country/took over the crown and it just was obvious that it really improved your prospects to join along with how the New Boss rolled.
Islam’s primary means of conversion for hundreds of years was tax cuts. Less flippantly, most states ruled by Muslims didn’t forcibly convert non-Muslims. People converted because Muslims got preferential treatment (lower taxes, government jobs, etc), and because non-Muslims suffered low level harassment (forced to wear special clothing, engage in humiliating rituals, restrictions on things like riding horses.) Which is why Christianity in North Africa, for example, was not destroyed by the Muslim advance. Even though Egypt was invaded in the 7th century, for instance, it was still majority Christian until the 10th. In places like Southeast Asia and both East and West Africa, Islam spread mainly through trade contacts. So, in Indonesia, for instance, the Sultan of Malacca converted to Islam, and it became a center for Sufi groups, who sent missionaries out to the rest of the islands.
Huh? Muslims didn’t convert by force (except, as you said for Christians, “in some isolated instances”). There were even examples of them trying to prevent conversion (because it reduced the tax base). Christians in North-Africa converted willingly to Islam. So did Christians in Spain, while Muslims had to convert or leave after the Reconquista.
Speaking only for Christianity because I don’t know enough about Islam: No. That can’t be the explanation, because the earliest Christians who went around spreading the gospel were the persecuted, not the persecutors, and because throughout history and in the present day you can find groups of Christians who are particularly zealous for evangelizing & converting without showing any particular interest in force and violence.
That’s not to say there haven’t been other individuals and groups throughout history who seemed to enjoy a good fight, or had a mean streak, or otherwise were prone to violence, and used converting the heathens as their outlet/excuse. And plenty of people throughout history who had a very different attitude towards violence, war, killing, etc. than we do. Combine an earthly life that’s typically nasty, poor, brutish, and short with a genuine belief in eternity, and it’s not hard to see why some might think it was a good deal to risk violent death (yours or theirs) in hope of saving souls.
Not really true, they enthusiastically persecuted each other; the early Christian factions spent a lot of effort trying to destroy each other, including by turning each other in to the anti-Christian authorities. It’s just that early on they weren’t powerful enough to persecute anyone else.
Isn’t it because Christianity and Islam have well defined concepts of Heaven, Hell and the Immortal Soul?
I see you never heard of Charlemagne that fat Carolingian guy who fought and killed the Germanic tribes of Europe until they gave up their heathen gods for Jesus and his dad. I’m sure that was all very peacefully done. You also never heard of the northern crusades. Your ignorance is astonishing.
Because believing in imaginary things that give orders often results in people being oppressed or killed.
Actually, Judaism generally discourages conversion. The Talmud makes it very clear that a righteous gentile has just as much a place in whatever comes after we die as does a righteous Jew. The general idea is that a gentile just has to be good person (specifically, they are bound by the 7 laws of Noah). In order to be a good Jew, one must obey 613 commandments. As you can see, this makes it much easier to be a righteous gentile than to be a righteous Jew. Conversion is discouraged because unless the convert obeys all 613 commandments, they go from being a righteous gentile to a sinning Jew.
There are some Jewish groups that proselytize, but they target other Jews. Various Chasidic groups travel the streets of New York City in “mitzvah mobiles”. They ask passers by if they are Jewish. If you say no, they bid you good day and move on. If you say yes, they offer to teach you the proper way to lay tefillin, enroll you in Hebrew and Talmud classes and offer to make sure your kitchen is suitably kosher.
Are you implying that without an afterlife, a person’s beliefs are irrelevant? Or other people’s beliefs are irrelevant?
This bears repeating. It also explains why the 2 largest religions of the world proselytize and why Hinduism doesn’t expand outside of India except for sects like the Hari Krishna that proselytize.
The fittest religions grow the fastest. Proselytizing religions gain more adherents. You may as well ask why the most successful consumer companies tend to advertise.
BTW, Christianity is an Eastern religion.
I don’t know where you folks live, but I live in the “Bible Belt” in a suburban neighborhood. In the twenty-seven years I’ve lived in this house, we have had literature left at the top of the steps by one denomination one time. Another group of young people came by from the Mormon Church. They were pleasant and non-pushy. They did not come inside or ask to, but stood at the bottom of my front steps. When they learned that I was already affiliated with another church, nothing more was said about religion. We talked for a moment about the Wasatch mountain area of Utah. As they were about to depart, I wished them cordial receptions as they travelled.
Two non-disruptive visitations in 27 years. Not a problem.
Some television evangelists are a real put off. I change the channel everytime. I wonder if all atheists think all Christians are like what they see on TV.