Is spreading your religion correct?

[gnostic]

I would say it is morally wrong to go out there, to deliberately seek to convert someone.

Telling people to convert or burn in hell is truly immoral for many different reason. Eg. painting false pictures of what hell is like; deluding the people into thinking that, once converted, is automatically free ticket to heaven. You can't guarantee that person's salvation even after the person convert, because isn't that God's choice in judgment and not your own? Basically you're telling a lie, and you're then no better than shifty car or insurance salesman.

Withholding food, water or shelter from poor African people unless they convert is also morally wrong, and there have been such Christian missionaries known to use exactly that tactics to gain new followers in poor countries.

 

[Starfish]

Is spreading your religion correct?

For Christians, yes. It's a commandment from Christ. However, no one is obligated to listen.

Is introducing a vaccine to a third world country, an imposition? When you have something you see as life-saving, are you morally obligated to share it? Or at least offer to? Even if it violates their customs?

 

[IF_u_knew]

Is spreading your religion correct?

For Christians, yes. It's a commandment from Christ. However, no one is obligated to listen.

Is introducing a vaccine to a third world country, an imposition? When you have something you see as life-saving, are you morally obligated to share it? Or at least offer to? Even if it violates their customs?

Introducing is one thing.. except that vaccinations have their own harmful side effects which ultimately are unnatural and more harmful. Thus is morality forced upon people with methods such as fear, guilt, shame, and/or reward. Vaccinations being introduced seem to have a funny way of becoming vaccinations being mandatory for life in society; as does morality. Just my thoughts.

I do not think morality is really moral unless it is chosen in true freedom.

 

[Kcnorwood]

You'll never find me going out of my way to tell someone about my belifes, if they ask then that's fine by me. I do not believe in preaching to someone who doesn't care to ask in the first place. It gives all religions a bad name.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Is converting non-believers into believers of your religion OK? Let's say you were 100% sure of your religion, would you think it morally correct to go and convert a bunch of African tribes to your religion? The fact that some people are 100% sure about their religion is the real problem with this. If you were 100% sure wouldn't you go and tell others of the truth, so they could be sure too?

Other posters brought up concerns about conversion in general, but I think it also depends on the specific beliefs involved. I remember a post by gnomon in another thread a while back:

Eskimo: "If I did not know about God and sin, would I go to hell?"
Priest: "No, not if you did not know."
Eskimo: "Then why did you tell me?"

Is spreading your religion correct?

For Christians, yes. It's a commandment from Christ. However, no one is obligated to listen.

Does "mandatory" necessarily equal "correct" or "moral"?

Is introducing a vaccine to a third world country, an imposition? When you have something you see as life-saving, are you morally obligated to share it? Or at least offer to? Even if it violates their customs?

Going by the range of beliefs that are proselytized, I think some are closer to pushing narcotics than handing out vaccines.

 

[Dezzie]

It depends entirely on how it's done. I babble on about my theology to anyone who'll listen, but I don't do it to convert. If someday, someone were to decide I was right and had faith in my vision of God, that would be cool, I guess. But I'm not going to go around telling people that their vision is wrong.

I agree with this as well... It does completely depend on how it's done. I don't believe anyone should try and convert another person into believing their religion. It's just not right. I know people want to spread the word but there are morally better ways of doing that. This forum is morally correct when it comes to spreading the words of religion. People are open and understanding. No one should try to change anybody. I think it is great people are set on a belief. I think it is also great that a person doesn't change it for anyone's liking. It means they have true Faith.

 

[Caladan]

It is naive to believe that the grand conversion processes of our history have taken place because of a moral belief in bringing the truth to indigenous people.
it has always been part of a process of spreading a politicial sway, to expand an empire, or in the worse case scenario to sabjugate 'primitive' tribes and erase their native cultural identity while stealing their national treasures and geographical resources, most of these cases procude a hybrid of native spirituality and a major religion, where ancient deities are worshiped side by side with the now white Jesus.
conversion has never been a process derived from purity of heart.

Today religious bodies, like corporations still try to increase their numbers, sometimes using their people like salespeople walking door to door.

 

[3.14]

yes it is correct like spreading a diseace is correct, its its purpose

 

[Starfish]

Going by the range of beliefs that are proselytized, I think some are closer to pushing narcotics than handing out vaccines.

Have you seen this first hand? I have 3 sons who served missions in countries with high poverty rates. They saw lives changed. They saw men give up alcohol and devote themselves to their families. They saw marriages improve. They saw improvement in cleanliness and living standards. They saw a happier people, and all of this was simply through conversion to God and His religion. They saw this first hand.

There are studies that show that people who attend church regularly, tend to live longer. Seems worth spreading to me.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Have you seen this first hand?

Yes, I have.

I have 3 sons who served missions in countries with high poverty rates. They saw lives changed. They saw men give up alcohol and devote themselves to their families. They saw marriages improve. They saw improvement in cleanliness and living standards. They saw a happier people, and all of this was simply through conversion to God and His religion. They saw this first hand.

If you and your sons made a positive impact on the world through your religion, great. I didn't say that all conversions were like pushing drugs, but some definitely are. If the conversions you and your family have been part of don't fall into this category, I'm glad.

There are studies that show that people who attend church regularly, tend to live longer. Seems worth spreading to me.

Actually, those studies say that active participation in a community as a senior citizen correlates with longer life. And there's a few things that they don't say that are key to remember:

- they don't say that religious worship or belief correlates with longer life, only that active participation in some community, any community, correlates. This doesn't necessarily have to be a church.

- they don't say which direction the causality in this correlation works. Seeing how it's very plausible that the causal relationship goes the opposite way to what you're implying, I don't see the need to take the conclusion you do. It's probably more plausible to say "if your health makes it difficult to get around (and are therefore more likely to have a condition that will kill you sooner), you're less likely to go to church" than saying that church somehow makes you healthy.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

If by "correct" you mean "annoying and creepy", then yes, it is absolutely correct.

 

[danny vee]

And how will you determine if an action is "right" or "correct"? What standard or meter will you hold actions to that you can make a judgment of "right" or "wrong"? Or, is this notion of "right"/"wrong"/"correct"/"incorrect" merely a matter of human emotional feeling that has no grounding in facts?

I think it is quite obviously the latter.


How can anyone answer this question in seriousness? By what process have you determined that spreading your religion is or is not "correct"?

Can you say that knowledge between right and wrong needs grounding in facts? Not everything needs grounding in facts, and this is just one of those instinct things. Is it right to you that someone kills someone else, just because it cannot be proven to be a fact that killing is evil and bad?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Can you say that knowledge between right and wrong needs grounding in facts? Not everything needs grounding in facts, and this is just one of those instinct things.

If you don't know whether you're right or wrong, then why bother try to sway other people to your way of thinking?

Is it right to you that someone kills someone else, just because it cannot be proven to be a fact that killing is evil and bad?

Except killing (or homicide, rather) can be proven to be bad for all practical purposes.

 

[danny vee]

Nobody is 100% sure that their religion is true, if they were then they would not need faith. I know many people say that they are 100% sure, but obviously these people are either lying or they are dangerously deluded and imo, should be locked up.

Anyway, like others have said, it depends. Of course we should all be allowed to tell each other about our beliefs and then maybe let them decide for themselves. But for example, converting though lies, threats or converting young children is absolutely vile. People all over the world are converting young children by claiming absolute truth. Some parents don't tell their kids what their beleifs are and then let them decide for themselves, they tell them that their beleifs are definitely true. They are taking advantage of the fact that children tend to believe their parents. I would say, that this is a form of child abuse.

However, if you honestly believe that by converting this person you will make their life better, then I'm not sure. But converting simply because you have faith something is true is wrong and pointless.

No, I don't think converting people just because you have some measure of faith is wrong. Why would it be? I think it's just important that every person is able to see all sides of the argument, from a believer's perspective and a non-believer's perspective, and then make a decision for themselves. If someone wants to convert someone else then why not? Why not give the subject of the conversion something more to think upon, another choice to either be accepted or discarded?

 

[Caladan]

I think it's just important that every person is able to see all sides of the argument, from a believer's perspective and a non-believer's perspective, and then make a decision for themselves. If someone wants to convert someone else then why not? Why not give the subject of the conversion something more to think upon, another choice to either be accepted or discarded?

So, it doesnt matter to you if its a Muslim, a Wiccan, a Satanist, or a Christian who is doing the conversion?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No, I don't think converting people just because you have some measure of faith is wrong. Why would it be? I think it's just important that every person is able to see all sides of the argument, from a believer's perspective and a non-believer's perspective, and then make a decision for themselves. If someone wants to convert someone else then why not? Why not give the subject of the conversion something more to think upon, another choice to either be accepted or discarded?

I think it depends on what you mean by "convert someone". That phrase can cover a wide range of things from a friendly discussion about religion through "sure, starving person, I'll feed you... right after you come to my church" to "if you don't swear to follow my gods right now, I'll kill you where you stand".

 

[GiantHouseKey]

Can you say that knowledge between right and wrong needs grounding in facts? Not everything needs grounding in facts, and this is just one of those instinct things. Is it right to you that someone kills someone else, just because it cannot be proven to be a fact that killing is evil and bad?

Killing isn't evil. Killing is not, however, productive to the survival of our species, and because we need to survive, I guess you can prove that it's not a good idea to go around killing people.

GhK.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

I don't think it's OK. I think it's deeply ignorant and neurotic. I also don't think it's the sort of thing people do when they are "100 % certain" they are right. It's more the sort of thing people do when, deep down inside, just below the surface of their consciousness, they are quite certain they are completely wrong, and every person who believes something different poses a threat that this metaphorical monster in their psychological closet will escape and wreak havoc in their nicely ordered mind. Therefore the unbelievers must be disinfected to ensure the continuing suppression of one's own dangerous doubts and uncertainties.

As a matter of fact I am 100 % certain in my own faith, but I've never tried to convert a soul. Granted, I do try to nudge my friends in the direction of contemplation, self-knowledge and introspection whenever they are in distress, but there's no doctrine to impart.

Nice psychobabble.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Correct is what it means, right, the truth, correct.

Is that subject to other people's view of what is right?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Taoish is a word I made up so I would have something to put into that field when I joined the forum. I'm not a Taoist, but most of my views are closely aligned (by coincidence, not design) with Taoist philosophy. So, I'm Tao-ish.

I believe that Taoism and true Christianity have a lot in common.