How come most religions don't try to convert?

[Bjorn]

Re: How come most religions don't try to convert?

Christianity, Mormonism, and and the Jehova's Witnesses are the only religions that I personally have ever been approached by. Christians seem to prefer the company of their own so they try to bring outsiders inside so they have power in numbers, whereas Mormons connect with each other all over the nation via the church and tend to their own members (seriously, my boyfriend is ex-Mormon from many states away and they just rang our doorbell asking for him by name), and the JW's tend to ring the doorbell, leave literature, and accept polite declines.

In Christianity, when you read the Bible and see clearly that Jesus calls his believers to be "fishers of men," you can sort of remove all surprise that the idea of evangelism and proselytizing are deeply rooted in the majority of fundamentalist believers. After all, the gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) are absolutely chock full of these disciples being punished for preaching and were later honored as icons for their unyielding faith even though it is not accounted for how they die. Kind of short-sighted, don't you think: live your lives in accordance with my greatest followers, even though they all were horribly persecuted and their deaths are a mystery EVEN TO THIS DAY. Uh, what? The Bible has the secrets of the cosmos except for that part?

Ahem. Anyway, yeah, if you look at the manual for Christianity, the Bible is brimming with the idea of suffering for the truth and trying to be good missionaries, make fishers of them, etc, etc. It's been like that throughout history, almost from the very inception of Christianity. By making it illegal, as it was for the first like, 2 centuries they made it taboo and then it spread like wildfire through the Byzantine empire, then the Crusades, the Inquisition, etc. Now we have missionaries in practically every country. They're just not killing the natives.

[MyValenwind]

Re: How come most religions don't try to convert?

Probably because some other religions believe faith is personal, and should be kept that way in order to retain a quality relationship with deity.
Well, that's what I think, anyhow.

[monsno_leedra]

Re: How come most religions don't try to convert?

I think a lot of it is that we do not recognize proselytizing from most non Christian or Abrahamic religions. We (collective use) base our opinion of it upon how we see it or view it against that criteria. Go to an airport and see how many Moonies or similar groups proselytize as they had out their pamphlets and ask for donations. It's just they tend not to go directly to our homes.

[Shahaku]

Re: How come most religions don't try to convert?

I just realized I never really answered the OP... kinda the opposite.

Hindu's and to an extent Buddhist and some other reincarnation based religions don't convert for a few different reasons. Generally, they believe you are born into the life you deserve and will follow the religion you are born to. It's pretty difficult for an outsider to convert to Hinduism because they are caste based and you have to be born into one of their castes in order to... have a place I guess. Generally, there is a belief that if you are righteous enough, for lack of a better phrase, you will find your way to the true path, or, more likely, be born to it. Also, if one believes in reincarnation, then they typically believe you have more than one shot at understanding the ultimate truth. Just because you don't understand in this life, doesn't mean you won't in the next. And there is no final, ultimate, unceasing punishment for nonbelievers, just perhaps a time in an uncomfortable place/atmosphere before you move on.

[Yazichestvo]

Re: How come most religions don't try to convert?

Almost any religion will claim a "higher" knowledge than other schools of thought, but Christianity is particularly clear that followers have a duty to save others. Regarding Islam, I don't have much experience with proselytizing, but there are many nations throughout history that have. Islam is not as different from Christianity as some people seem to think. In fact, I'm certain there were once Christian sects very similar to it in the Roman Empire (Christians who saw Christ as a human messiah, didn't eat pork, were circumcised, etc.)

Once you exclude these two very similar faiths, I agree with the OP- very few religions place the same emphasis on conversion. Of course, people can still occasionally decide to convert others without express commands from their scripture. However, with a book like the Bible or the Quran, you have a butterfly effect; the choice of a single word has the ability to drastically increase the frequencies with which certain inevitable behaviors will occur.

[dgirl1986]

Re: How come most religions don't try to convert?

I find that a lot of religions are happy to share if people are interested, but it isnt essential to their teachings or a part of their practices. They usually tend to be of the attitude that it is up to the individual to chose the approprate path.

[Louisvillian]

Re: How come most religions don't try to convert?

It actually occured to me that most religions aren't really big into converting. The only religions I can think of that really focus on that is Christianity and Islam.

Islam and Christianity share a common doctrinal point: both claim to be the only true religion. Regardless of actual populations, Christianity and Islam are outliers when you compare religions side-by-side on the basis of ideas. It is rare that a religion claims to be the only true path, and succeeds at surviving as long as they have. Most religions in the past, and most religions around the world, are ethnic religions; they are bound to the people and culture from which they spring. As such, they don't have any impetus to convert or proselytise. They're pluralistic, sometimes syncretic, and do not claim to represent the whole of universal truth.
When it comes to Neopagan religions, because they are revivals of the ethnic polytheism of antiquity, they often carry on that same mode of thought. Thus, they don't usually proselytise either.

Judaism was never into converting and neither was Buddhism or Taoism.

Judaism was, and is, the ethnic religion of the Jewish people. It is framed as the covenant between those people and their god. In this, it has a lot more in common with ancient paganism than it does with Christianity.
You could say much the same about Daoism in relation to the Chinese.
As far as Buddhism goes, though, you're very wrong. Buddhism in Eastern Asia has been a proselytising religion. It proclaims itself to be the only true path to enlightenment.

[nbdy]

Re: How come most religions don't try to convert?

I think it's more of a power thing. The ones that don't recruit are largely non-political.

This. Don't think anything could more clearly demonstrate the difference between religion and spirituality.

[SaintElvis]

Re: How come most religions don't try to convert?

I was approached by a group of Hare Krishnas once who tried to convert me. I told them that Tara was more to my liking. They nodded then left me alone.

[SilverSerenity]

Re: How come most religions don't try to convert?

One thing I've never understood. The Jehovah's Witnesses believe that only a certain number of people can go to Heaven (It's 144,000 according to Wikkipedia), and these people must all be Jehovah's Witnesses. There must have been far more than that number of Jehovah's Witnesses alone. So WHY do they still keep trying to actively convert people to their particular branch of the Christian Faith? It's not good enough for you to even be Christian of another denomination apparently.

On another note, A few years ago I was approached in the street by two Mormon missionaries from the US who were trying to convert people to their path. I politely told them I was pagan and happy to stay that way. I've never seen two people walk away from me so fast... Maybe they only want to convert Christians, Atheists and Agnostics to their denomination? Or maybe they recognised I was a lost cause.

[Alienist]

Re: How come most religions don't try to convert?

Islam and Christianity share a common doctrinal point: both claim to be the only true religion. Regardless of actual populations, Christianity and Islam are outliers when you compare religions side-by-side on the basis of ideas. It is rare that a religion claims to be the only true path, and succeeds at surviving as long as they have. Most religions in the past, and most religions around the world, are ethnic religions; they are bound to the people and culture from which they spring. As such, they don't have any impetus to convert or proselytise. They're pluralistic, sometimes syncretic, and do not claim to represent the whole of universal truth.
When it comes to Neopagan religions, because they are revivals of the ethnic polytheism of antiquity, they often carry on that same mode of thought. Thus, they don't usually proselytise either.


Judaism was, and is, the ethnic religion of the Jewish people. It is framed as the covenant between those people and their god. In this, it has a lot more in common with ancient paganism than it does with Christianity.
You could say much the same about Daoism in relation to the Chinese.
As far as Buddhism goes, though, you're very wrong. Buddhism in Eastern Asia has been a proselytising religion. It proclaims itself to be the only true path to enlightenment.

Actually you're incorrect. Buddhism did spread, but they don't make it a practice like Christianity or Islam. Buddhists don't get closer to Nirvana by converting others and Christians and Muslims think they get bonus points for converting. They say that theirs is the only path worth following, but if that was the case why are there Buddhists that also follow Taoism and vice versa. In some cases is kind of opposite to Buddhism since Buddhism tends to think that this life is suffering while Taoism believes that this life is good and isn't focused on the afterlife

[Bjorn]

Re: How come most religions don't try to convert?

One thing I've never understood. The Jehovah's Witnesses believe that only a certain number of people can go to Heaven (It's 144,000 according to Wikkipedia), and these people must all be Jehovah's Witnesses. There must have been far more than that number of Jehovah's Witnesses alone. So WHY do they still keep trying to actively convert people to their particular branch of the Christian Faith? It's not good enough for you to even be Christian of another denomination apparently...

Kathleen Madigan touches on this very idea in her standup. She says something along the lines of "it's fine if you believe that but then would you go around trying to get more people to sign up? Not me, I'd be keeping that a very big secret!"

[Sonku]

Re: How come most religions don't try to convert?

We are taking those two main religions at least they have a big number of followers, if you put it in a competitive way, they wrestle around for followers. If you find someone in another religions, you just know that that person is in it because of grand parents or parents and they don't really going into who is right and who is wrong.

[wildcat]

Re: How come most religions don't try to convert?

I tend to agree with some others, that the reason converting is most prominently seen in Christianity and Islam is that they view their religion as the one true religion, and the only way to reach the Divine. They believe that anyone that doesn't follow their religion is doomed to hell or not saved. So many believe it's their duty to convert as many people as possible. I don't know enough of the views of the Eastern religions in relation to how they view proselytizing, but from what I've read of their beliefs, it's much more fluid and doesn't "punish" people if they don't follow their religions. Do any Eastern religions send unbelievers to hell? There is no Taoist hell as far as I'm aware.

I can understand better why most pagans would not be the kind to try to convert people. Since most of us are neo-pagans, whether we are duotheists, hard or soft polytheists, panentheists, etc, we tend to believe that people reach the Divine on different paths, and don't necessarily believe that one path is inherently wrong than another. (At least, I haven't read or met any neo-pagans that exhibit that that type of thinking!). For me personally, I believe people have the gods revealed them to in different fashions, but one is not more "true" than another. Some might have had the Kemetic pantheon revealed to them, some have had the Hellenic pantheon revealed to them, but no one seems to exhibit the belief that one pantheon is right and one is wrong, but rather that people simply communicate with different gods, or different versions of the same kind of god (that's easy, when you're polytheist, imo). I am a naturalistic polythiest, that tends to believe that most gods are impersonal, so I don't follow a pantheon, but even then, I don't "disbelieve" in the pantheons, I believe all gods have the potential to be true gods.

When it comes to Abrahamic monotheists, I tend to have this suspicion that perhaps their god was originally from a pantheon from their region, that they ended up elevating over all the others. Perhaps some sort of jealous god, that they perceived that wanted his followers to refer to himself as the "one true god", since that reference seems to be used a lot by them. That's just a suspicion on my part though, definitely not an assertion. I guess I feel that way, because once someone told me that if I just try hard enough to open myself up to Jesus, that he would reveal himself to me. I responded back to him, that I had tried to open myself to Jesus/God, when I still believed that was the only religion available, and I ended up being approached by one of the pagan gods instead! He thought I was joking with him/making fun of him at first, since he didn't expect that response. And then he ended up saying to me that I must have been approached by a demonic spirit that was trying to lure me away from the "One True God". I just find that viewpoint to be so flawed, and really offensive to me. I really wanted to shoot back to him, that perhaps he's been led by a jealous god that tries to get his followers to ignore all the other "false" gods out there, but I refrained from doing so out of respect for his beliefs. But, ugh, that conversation got under my skin!

[Briar]

Re: How come most religions don't try to convert?

Religion can be used in a political way. This is usually because of limited resources that are being fought over. If you want someone else to fight for you to get more resources, you often need to resort to religion to make people fight for you. The more people you have in your religion, the more fighters you have to throw at the enemy. The Middle East is a place where many worlds come together so there has always been wars that need to be fought over resources.

People will often say that religion is why most wars happen. Actually if these wars are broken down to their base reason we can see that they are animal like wars over what territory has the best resources. Just like wolves fight over the best hunting grounds, people fight over the best resources, we just hide it behind silly stories about gods and goddesses. How would you get someone to fly an airplane into a building to their death by saying something like "if we get control over all the oil we can make our leaders rich!" Nope, you claim god likes martyrs and faith brings the suicide fighters out of the wood work.

If our world changes we might see our religions changing to try to bring a group together to try to survive. I hope we never have to see this aspect of human behavior.