Religious Missionaries

[Aupmanyav]

But what is the most ethical / logical way? Should religions send out missionaries?

Send missionaries to explain views of religion. Do not entice or coerce people. That is cheating.

Some people are searching for answers and if one doesn't share our answers, how can they make a decision for what they are searching?

Let them find their own answers. Can you provide even one bit of evidence for what you say? Don't fool and fetter them with your answers.

 

[Fool]

Many religions, such as Christianity and Islam, have a long history of sending out missionaries to convert people to their faith. Others, such as Hinduism and Judaism, do not. But what is the most ethical / logical way? Should religions send out missionaries?

Almost all religious or belief systems proselytize

 

[Fool]

Yes... it starts there. But one can be convinced by your life and still not know how to get there.

it's called fishing. A bait is used to land a catch.

Gotcha

3. To seek something in a sly or indirect way: fish for compliments.
v.tr.

 

[idea]

2-way conversations in which each person is open to change, and both seek to better understand and be understood are wonderful. If a religious or political, or any community group is open to change, with primary goals of learning and finding better ways to support local community - those groups are fine.

Anyone who does not listen, is not interested in changing their own beliefs and changing their own groups - that is where problem areas arise.

 

[stvdv]

Many religions, such as Christianity and Islam, have a long history of sending out missionaries to convert people to their faith. Others, such as Hinduism and Judaism, do not. But what is the most ethical / logical way? Should religions send out missionaries?

Ethical means:
"Do not lie"
"Speak the truth"

Hence it is unethical to proselytize and/or convert, because it is based on the assumption "my way is the highway", arrogance, which is violence, thereby violating the first two Great Commandments in the Bible (e.g. Love thy neighbor as thyself)

Another "proof" is that converting has been done using violence and murder, going against the first and second Great Commandments in the Bible

So, for Christians it is Adharmic, unethical to do so

 

[firedragon]

Many religions, such as Christianity and Islam, have a long history of sending out missionaries to convert people to their faith. Others, such as Hinduism and Judaism, do not. But what is the most ethical / logical way? Should religions send out missionaries?

It's true that Hindus dont have missionary movements. Hinduism is one of the most stable groups as a whole around the world. They dont grow much, but they don't decline as well. They prevail somehow. They don't convert. I mean as a whole.

I guess the same applies for Judaism but just that statistically they don't show up much so it's not in my personal radar. But Jews also seldom proselytise and seldom convert. That is as far as I know but I don't know the data.

Islamic missionary movements predominantly have been within the Islamic community. They try to bring muslim to participate in Islamic prayer and mosque environments. It is a recent phenomena that Muslims have these proselytisation movements trying to convert non-muslims. So I don't know much about this "long history". Christianity in the beginning I doubt were heavy on missionary activity. Just that their theology was very different and those who converted to Christianity did not convert back to other religions during that time.

I don't know about "ethical", because that is such a loose word arbitrarily applied. But my personal opinion is behaviour in society.

 

[blü 2]

Many religions, such as Christianity and Islam, have a long history of sending out missionaries to convert people to their faith. Others, such as Hinduism and Judaism, do not. But what is the most ethical / logical way? Should religions send out missionaries?

Πορευθέντες εἰς τὸν κόσμον ἅπαντα κηρύξατε τὸ εὐαγγέλιον, says Mark 16:15. Go into all the world and preach the good news. Much the same at Matthew 28:19. Get out there and SELL!

So many of them do. But as you know, in the Western world, Christian numbers are dropping, and audiences are harder to find, and the product competes with a lot of more modern designs when it comes to How to Live.

So should they do it anyway? I'd be glad if they didn't, but I'd be slow to support laws making it illegal. Well, maybe make door-knocking illegal, but round my way that hasn't been much of a problem for some years now.

 

[AlexanderG]

Many religions, such as Christianity and Islam, have a long history of sending out missionaries to convert people to their faith. Others, such as Hinduism and Judaism, do not. But what is the most ethical / logical way? Should religions send out missionaries?

I mean, historically "sending out missionaries" meant sending colonial forces with steel, guns, and zealots to distant shores, where the natives where beaten, tortured, enslaved, and had their children stolen away to indoctrination schools and their traditional beliefs and languages outlawed until most agreed to become Christians. Islam was also spread by the sword and conquest.

Is this "ethical"? Heck no. But it makes sense that the largest religions today were the most coercive ones for the longest periods in history.

I think missionaries are fine in theory. Why not spread ideas all around and see which ones gain the most traction? However, even today it seems like missionaries will offer food or aid to hungry people, on the condition that they listen to proselytizing. While not as bad as violence, I think this is still a form of coercion.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Only Hare-Krishnas and some new cults among the Hindus are in to proselytization. People, only a few, come to Hinduism on their own. That is OK with us.
I would like quality rather than quantity,

 

[Glaurung]

I see nothing inherently unethical about seeking to convince others to join your religion.

 

[rational experiences]

The church. Legal position against king lord government science plus the first man designer.

Designer civilisation rich man was first greedy man king status governing by lords.

Rich legal stand against them as men said I'm the hypocrites who realised it was mans original human crime. The criminality of how the rich man evolved takeover.... rich men scientist who owned attack of life on earth.

Were legally termed criminals.
Testimony proof....
From earths base a sink hole caused opening to every type of body in nature attacked and sacrificed.

Taught a new legal human rights teaching. So yes it was needed. Christ teachings on behalf of earth as legal. CH gases being earths only.

No other spirit term in thesis allowed.

As rich men are greedy men and power mongers who trade for wealth by governing...why evil was sought.

Those men eventually over ruled the legal system. Changed past legal comments and documents whenever they felt like changing them.

So we know that humans in the past fought for a world community of gained and fought for....human rights legal system by its teachings.

Plus the introduction of churches building type for Phi resonance for human healing. No pulpit then and no science preachings. No seats. Humans laid on shawl or rugs they brought.

For healing. Music singing chanting praying for brain entrainment. Reduction of evil thoughts introduced by conscious brain attacked....hearing of voices was everywhere.

It owned a real healer medical legal and human rights teaching. And it was accepted. As wise men taught and travelled to teach about their witness. From wandering holy star to Satan's star fall.

Why any organisations legality changed was by the rich man's manipulation.

The truth of human life on earth.

Taught realised stated fought for....lost.

 

[Jedster]

it's called fishing. A bait is used to land a catch.

Gotcha

3. To seek something in a sly or indirect way: fish for compliments.
v.tr.

Remember Flirty Fishing

 

[Five Solas]

Many religions, such as Christianity and Islam, have a long history of sending out missionaries to convert people to their faith. Others, such as Hinduism and Judaism, do not. But what is the most ethical / logical way? Should religions send out missionaries?

Discipleship is at the heart of Christianity. That is how the Christian church became a worldwide church.
The apostles of Jesus were originally chosen in order "that they should be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach” (Mark 3:14,15). Later, after Jesus rose from the dead, he charged the apostles, "Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature" (Mark 16:15), and, "Go ye therefore and teach all nations" (Matthew 28:19). He plainly told them, "That repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name, beginning at Jerusalem" (Luke 24:47).

Just before Jesus ascended to heaven He told the apostles, "But ye shall receive power after that the Holy Ghost comes upon you, and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth" (Acts 1:8). The task of the apostles was plain: tell the good news of Jesus Christ to every person on the planet earth.

 

[1213]

...Should religions send out missionaries?

It depends on what is the message and motive and the way of teaching. If the message is good, I think it is good to tell it to others and let them decide what to do with it.

 

[Kenny]

it's called fishing. A bait is used to land a catch.

Gotcha

3. To seek something in a sly or indirect way: fish for compliments.
v.tr.

That is a matter of the heart which God is the judge of. I call it a sincere and heartfelt desire along with obedience born from a life that has been changed. Seeing the destruction going on in the lives of other, love demands to try to do something about it.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It depends on what is the message and motive and the way of teaching. If the message is good, I think it is good to tell it to others and let them decide what to do with it.

And accept that it is not good to them and then let it be.

 

[Fool]

That is a matter of the heart which God is the judge of. I call it a sincere and heartfelt desire along with obedience born from a life that has been changed. Seeing the destruction going on in the lives of other, love demands to try to do something about it.

people in hell love company


matthew 23:15


or misery loves company


freeing someone from suffering doesn't bind them to some other burden to maintain

 

[Kenny]

people in hell love company


matthew 23:15


or misery loves company


freeing someone from suffering doesn't bind them to some other burden to maintain

What is there to maintain?

 

[Fool]

What is there to maintain?

a religion isn't necessary to know god. people put their faith in religion and exclude god; when the religion, becomes more important than the ideal. the search failed. love/light isn't a religion.


those who wonder and wander endlessly are lost and never having found god. they have a religion that they maintain to the letter and miss the spirit.

 

[Kenny]

a religion isn't necessary to know god. people put their faith in religion and exclude god; when the religion, becomes more important than the ideal. the search failed. love/light isn't a religion.


those who wonder and wander endlessly are lost and never having found god. they have a religion that they maintain to the letter and miss the spirit.

I agree totally ... .but I have been talking about a relationship.