why is it that religions feel the need to spread?

[melosh]

Nearly all religions wish for everyone to follow them. Because of this, there are crusades, and arguments for the religion.

You might say it is for their own good, but wouldn't it be better if they discovered that themselves? If it's so true, why won't science in time prove it? Until then, there is no need to force people into your religion. Anyone who does not believe will be fighting against science and facts, instead of the believers of today

 

[Quintessence]

Actually, relatively few religions wish for everyone to follow them. That's pretty much limited to certain branches of Christianity and Islam, plus maybe a few NRMs. Exclusivism is pretty much the purview of classical monotheisms.

 

[melosh]

Actually, relatively few religions wish for everyone to follow them. That's pretty much limited to certain branches of Christianity and Islam, plus maybe a few NRMs. Exclusivism is pretty much the purview of classical monotheisms.

Ah, but these are the largest religions in the world. And to most in those religions, those in other branches are not of the same religion. Also, everyone wishes to project their views. Though some religions are more subtle than others, they all do it. If it weren't so, there would be but one religion in the world.

 

[Vinayaka]

I agree with Quintessence. Relatively few religions wish to spread their beliefs. Even in the couple of religions that do, many people don't.

 

[LuisDantas]

Nearly all religions wish for everyone to follow them. Because of this, there are crusades, and arguments for the religion.

You might say it is for their own good, but wouldn't it be better if they discovered that themselves? If it's so true, why won't science in time prove it? Until then, there is no need to force people into your religion. Anyone who does not believe will be fighting against science and facts, instead of the believers of today

While there is a core worth addressing in your questions, I fear you may be jumping to conclusions a bit.

Humans are social animals. It is only to be expected that they like to have more people joining their groups. That alone did not cause the crusades, and arguments are hardly much of a problem in and of themselves.

Much of religion - in fact, many of the best parts - is simply beyond the current scope of science.

Pressuring people into a certain line of belief is of course wrong.

 

[Quintessence]

Ah, but these are the largest religions in the world. And to most in those religions, those in other branches are not of the same religion. Also, everyone wishes to project their views. Though some religions are more subtle than others, they all do it. If it weren't so, there would be but one religion in the world.

Number of adherents doesn't really tell us much about the story, but in this particular case, pointing out size serves more to support what I just said rather than refute it. Christianity and Islam are two of the largest world religious groupings precisely because they aggressively proselytize, while the other religions of the world don't. There are other factors involved, of course, like differential fertility rates, socioeconomic conditions, and whatnot, but they're global because they aggressively proselytize.

It also doesn't logically follow that if religions didn't proselytize, they'd go extinct. Wanting to "project" your views doesn't mean you want everybody else to do exactly what you do, or that you'll put people to the sword if they don't, and call them unequivocally wrong for being different.

 

[melosh]

While there is a core worth addressing in your questions, I fear you may be jumping to conclusions a bit.

Humans are social animals. It is only to be expected that they like to have more people joining their groups. That alone did not cause the crusades, and arguments are hardly much of a problem in and of themselves.

Much of religion - in fact, many of the best parts - is simply beyond the current scope of science.

Pressuring people into a certain line of belief is of course wrong.

The very fact that much of religion is beyond science just proves why the arguments can be harmful. A true constructive argument ends up with one person changing their opinion. However, religion cannot be proven correct or incorrect. Therefore, the arguments can go nowhere. That means that people will end with both their arguments reinforced; since neither side could win. This means people become more and more separated, and that is a problem.

When the separation gets to a certain point, then neither side accepts that the others are human. That means they feel they have the right to kill the others, as they are not people. For example, the orcs of middle earth. The more a religion tries to force itself on others, the quicker this progresses. This is why many of the less argumentative religions are more peaceful.

 

[Skwim]

why is it that religions feel the need to spread?

It's a money making enterprise. More 🙏 🙏 🙏 = More 💰 💰 💰

 

[columbus]

Ah, but these are the largest religions in the world. And to most in those religions, those in other branches are not of the same religion. Also, everyone wishes to project their views. Though some religions are more subtle than others, they all do it. If it weren't so, there would be but one religion in the world.

Greetings Melosh.
Glad you are still here. I was afraid I scared you off with my hearty approval of Silmarism

I think it is a mistake to confuse the behavior of the religious elite with the religion. It is like saying "France and England fought a war." No they didn't. Those are geographical areas. Even the bulk of citizens didn't really. It was the powerful elite of both nations tangling. The big majority of people didn't care.

Similarly the typical Catholic doesn't feel any need to change a Hindu, or vice versa. People who aren't accustomed to variety might be put off by the alien, but that is different.

I think what makes Islam and Christianity unusual is that they have been tools of the elite almost since they were invented. A case could be made that they were invented specifically to be tools. Most religions weren't, and most religious people aren't much inclined either.

Tom

 

[melosh]

It's a money making enterprise. More 🙏 🙏 🙏 = More 💰 💰 💰

I disagree. If it were only a money making business, none of the smaller religions like my own would exist. Less followers mean less money, yet here I am, making no money. Why is that if religion is just for money?

 

[Thana]

Nearly all religions wish for everyone to follow them. Because of this, there are crusades, and arguments for the religion.

You might say it is for their own good, but wouldn't it be better if they discovered that themselves? If it's so true, why won't science in time prove it? Until then, there is no need to force people into your religion. Anyone who does not believe will be fighting against science and facts, instead of the believers of today

They don't really force it on other people, Granted there are some religions that do, But most don't. And most don't really evangelize either, It's just typically some Christians and Muslims.

And some Christians do it because they believe it's their calling, they believe it's their duty and they believe they're saving people. That's why.

When the separation gets to a certain point, then neither side accepts that the others are human. That means they feel they have the right to kill the others, as they are not people. For example, the orcs of middle earth. The more a religion tries to force itself on others, the quicker this progresses. This is why many of the less argumentative religions are more peaceful.

Err.. This isn't really true. It can be, but it's definitely not the majority and doesn't really apply to Western Christians. I think the problems that you're pointing out are a lot more cultural than they are religious.

 

[melosh]

Greetings Melosh.
Glad you are still here. I was afraid I scared you off with my hearty approval of Silmarism

I think it is a mistake to confuse the behavior of the religious elite with the religion. It is like saying "France and England fought a war." No they didn't. Those are geographical areas. Even the bulk of citizens didn't really. It was the powerful elite of both nations tangling. The big majority of people didn't care.

Similarly the typical Catholic doesn't feel any need to change a Hindu, or vice versa. People who aren't accustomed to variety might be put off by the alien, but that is different.

I think what makes Islam and Christianity unusual is that they have been tools of the elite almost since they were invented. A case could be made that they were invented specifically to be tools. Most religions weren't, and most religious people aren't much inclined either.

Tom

But the people themselves fight the battles of the elite, because of the religion. That means that the people are willing to die for their religion, because of the elites. However, martyrs are present in all religions, not just Christianity and Islam. Thus, all religions appreciate sacrifice for their own sake. This means that even the smallest religions are as violent as the largest. They just don't have armies of martyrs. Why do you think nearly all people hail the soldiers of their countries?

 

[melosh]

They don't really force it on other people, Granted there are some religions that do, But most don't. And most don't really evangelize either, It's just typically some Christians and Muslims.

And some Christians do it because they believe it's their calling, they believe it's their duty and they believe they're saving people. That's why.



Err.. This isn't really true. It can be, but it's definitely not the majority and doesn't really apply to Western Christians. I think the problems that you're pointing out are a lot more cultural than they are religious.

As Tom said, it's not necessarily the people who do the forceful preaching. It's the leaders. The people, however, will follow the leaders. The leaders have to be wise, and those in the smaller religions don't have armies. Therefore, those in the smaller religions will tend not to argue as much, because that leads to violence.

Also, religion is a culture.

 

[Skwim]

I disagree. If it were only a money making business, none of the smaller religions like my own would exist. Less followers mean less money, yet here I am, making no money. Why is that if religion is just for money?

You misunderstand. The question wasn't about religion itself, but about "the need to spread" religion.

 

[columbus]

But the people themselves fight the battles of the elite, because of the religion. That means that the people are willing to die for their religion, because of the elites. However, martyrs are present in all religions, not just Christianity and Islam. Thus, all religions appreciate sacrifice for their own sake. This means that even the smallest religions are as violent as the largest. They just don't have armies of martyrs. Why do you think nearly all people hail the soldiers of their countries?

The little people only fight the wars because they are tricked or forced. What makes the larger jewish heresies so effective is the claims about heaven and hell. Great way to accomplish both. But there are a lot of Buddhists and Hindus. They fight too, but the premise that they are fighting for God doesn't work well for them.

And do you really mean to say that Silmarists are as violent as Muslims?:no:

Tom

 

[melosh]

You misunderstand. The question wasn't about religion itself, but about "the need to spread" religion.

I feel the need to spread my religion. Yet, not among those on earth. I don't make a penny. Why do I do that?

 

[melosh]

The little people only fight the wars because they are tricked or forced. What makes the larger jewish heresies so effective is the claims about heaven and hell. Great way to accomplish both. But there are a lot of Buddhists and Hindus. They fight too, but the premise that they are fighting for God doesn't work well for them.

And do you really mean to say that Silmarists are as violent as Muslims?:no:

Tom

The people want to be tricked, because they want to know that someone or something is looking over them. They choose to be tricked.

Also, Silmarists are only peaceful because nothing on earth needs fighting. That's why I am one.

 

[Thana]

As Tom said, it's not necessarily the people who do the forceful preaching. It's the leaders. The people, however, will follow the leaders. The leaders have to be wise, and those in the smaller religions don't have armies. Therefore, those in the smaller religions will tend not to argue as much, because that leads to violence.

Also, religion is a culture.

What leaders are you talking about?

Culture and religion aren't really the same thing... Religion can influence a culture, But it isn't a culture.

 

[melosh]

What leaders are you talking about?

Culture and religion aren't really the same thing... Religion can influence a culture, But it isn't a culture.

I'm talking about both leaders like Jesus, and the actual leaders like the pope. Those who men follow, and those who control the followed.

Religion is a culture, as it is exclusive. Not all cultures are religious, but all religions are cultures. They are a group of people who do things in a certain way, such as worship.

 

[Thana]

I'm talking about both leaders like Jesus, and the actual leaders like the pope. Those who men follow, and those who control the followed.

Religion is a culture, as it is exclusive. Not all cultures are religious, but all religions are cultures. They are a group of people who do things in a certain way, such as worship.

Religion is a part of culture, But as I said, It's not a culture.

The smaller religions do have leaders, If you want to include Jesus then you have to include the creators of all religions as leaders. Therefore, Smaller religions are no better than larger ones. They have leaders and followers too.