Why do Christians and Muslims feel a need to proselytize?

Is there a reason why Christians (especially the evangelicals) and the Muslims have a need to proselytize non-believers, especially people who already believe in non-Abrahamic religions?

Do they feel insecure about their faiths? Or is there somewhere in their religious books that commands them to proselytize non-believers?

Finally, what exact benefits do they believe they gain out of proselytization?

Discuss.

July 12, 2010, 3:09 pm: System Notice: This thread has been automatically renewed after reaching a post limit. Most of its content has been moved to this thread for reference purposes.

September 10, 2010, 3:13 am: System Notice: This thread has been automatically renewed after reaching a post limit. Most of its content has been moved to this thread for reference purposes.

Quote from kharvel : Is there a reason why Christians (especially the evangelicals) and the Muslims have a need to proselytize non-believers, especially people who already believe in non-Abrahamic religions? Do they feel insecure about their faiths? Or is there somewhere in their religious books that commands them to proselytize non-believers? Finally, what exact benefits do they believe they gain out of proselytization? Discuss.

Several places in the New Testament tells Christians to proselytize. No they don't feel insecure. Particularly many of those evangelicals that walk around and proselytize to strangers on the streets. It takes an exceptional amount of faith to be willing to walk up to complete strangers and share your faith with them.

Benefits to be had are knowing you're doing your part to spread God's word. Often times evangelicals who proselytize on the street say that God tells them who to talk to and what to say, and that taking that step of faith and obeying brings them much more in-tune with God's will.

I have no idea, but its annoying.
This Wiccan ain't changing.

Quote from SilentDeth : Several places in the New Testament tells Christians to proselytize. No they don't feel insecure. Particularly many of those evangelicals that walk around and proselytize to strangers on the streets. It takes an exceptional amount of faith to be willing to walk up to complete strangers and share your faith with them. Benefits to be had are knowing you're doing your part to spread God's word. Often times evangelicals who proselytize on the street say that God tells them who to talk to and what to say, and that taking that step of faith and obeying brings them much more in-tune with God's will.

It is understandable if they proselytize those who were born into families that already follow one of the Abrahamic faiths. However, it is puzzling as to why they would feel a need to proselytize individuals that already believe in non-Abrahamic faiths. This is especially apparent in the evangelical and Catholic missions to places like China, India, and other Third World countries where the Abrahamic faiths have weak presence. Did their god tell them to convert heretics and pagans as well?

Quote from lemontart68 : Also wanted to say, this topic came up today when I found out about a young guy that is a friend of the family. This young guy (in his 20's) was arrested for marijuana, he has a wife and a son, 2 yrs old. That child will go without his father for 5 yrs because of the war on drugs. You tell me who has done the evil here, the state or this young father? If anything can be criminalized, then we could all be criminals. This guy is polite and respectful, would give you the shirt off his back but yet he is a criminal, according to the war on drugs. The injustice breaks my heart. Sigh....more bad news from the world today.

Quote from lemontart68 : I think a pound, yeah its insane for a pound of a plant.

If the poor, polite and respectful criminal would have obeyed the law, he would not have placed himself in the position that he is in now. It was his choice.

If you can't do the time... Don't do the crime....

Quote from nobama : If the poor, polite and respectful criminal would have obeyed the law, he would not have placed himself in the position that he is in now. It was his choice. If you can't do the time... Don't do the crime....

Imagine that. A retired LEO seeking blind obedience to authority, regardless of the underlying legitimacy of that claim of authority.

If America would have created reasonable, evidence-supported laws, she would not have placed herself in the position that she is in now. It was her choice to starting locking people up for smoking a plant.

Quote from smegalicious : Imagine that. A retired LEO seeking blind obedience to authority, regardless of the underlying legitimacy of that claim of authority. If America would have created reasonable, evidence-supported laws, she would not have placed herself in the position that she is in now. It was her choice to starting locking people up for smoking a plant.

Imagine that. A future lawyer seeking to defend a criminal in their disobedience to authority, and seeking to deny the underlying legitimacy of that authority.

So if a person decides that they want to rob banks and they (and their lawyer) believe that the law against such action has no legitimacy in their opinion, then it's OK? Same for any other law?

Why not claim that using heroin, meth, hash, cocaine and other drugs are OK, since to refrain from using those illegal substances is "blind obedience to authority, regardless of the underlying legitimacy of that claim of authority"? A user of those substances could equally claim that If America would have created reasonable, evidence-supported laws, she would not have placed herself in the position that she is in now. It was her choice to starting locking people up for possessing and using a chemical substance.

Once again, it is the individual's choice to break the law, and in doing so, they must be willing to accept the consequences if caught.

Quote from nobama : Imagine that. A future lawyer seeking to defend a criminal in their disobedience to authority, and seeking to deny the underlying legitimacy of that authority. So if a person decides that they want to rob banks and they (and their lawyer) believe that the law against such action has no legitimacy in their opinion, then it's OK? Same for any other law?

Where has anyone argued that laws against bank robbery (or any theft for that matter) are unjust? You are misapplying the concept that is being discussed.

Our country was founded on the principle that unjust laws sometimes need to be broken in order to challenge the legitimacy. Our history is filled with examples of civil disobedience.

When nearly half of our adult population can be considered criminals under our current marijuana laws, including many lawmakers and US presidents themselves, you have to wonder if it maybe there is a problem with the law.

Quote from darkfrog : Our country was founded on the principle that unjust laws sometimes need to be broken in order to challenge the legitimacy. Our history is filled with examples of civil disobedience.

One can feel free to break the law to challenge legitimacy or whatever reason they choose to rationalize their actions if one wants, but one should not whine and cry when one is arrested and jailed when caught. One makes a conscious choice to break the law and one must be prepared to accept the consequences of their choices.

Again, if you can't do the time, don't do the crime....

Quote from darkfrog : When nearly half of our adult population can be considered criminals under our current marijuana laws, including many lawmakers and US presidents themselves, you have to wonder if it maybe there is a problem with the law.

Hmm... "Nearly half of our adult population" are dopeheads???? Do you have "data" or "statistics" that backs up that statement (not from a dopehead organization such as NORML - they don't count).

Perhaps nearly half of the adult population in your circle are dope users, but in my circle that is absolutely not the case, and I highly doubt if one half of the US adult population nationwide are dopers.

Quote from shifty1981 : A firework maker builds something for the sole purpose of destroying it. If people know he made it and are wowed by it, does that not bring him glory. I'm not equating God to a fireworks maker, just giving an example that destruction of something doesn't mean it's impossible for the creator to be glorified. In any case, the destruction was to make the power known. The mercy was to gain glory.

Smeg never claimed that the destruction of a thing should preempt glory but rather that the act of destruction itself is not glorious. The purpose of a firework is not to be destroyed. It is to produce, by way of its destruction, a beautiful display of light. The beautiful display of light is what brings that firework maker renown. Were the fireworks sentient creatures that would endure tremendous suffering by the act of their destruction, however, the faculty of compassion, of which we are possessed by virtue of the social tendencies and philosophies which guide western culture, prevents glorification of the act.

Quote : Can't read his mind so not sure if your reasoning is right. His reasons are not known as specific as you'd like.

To what degree, then, can he be understood? It seems as though whenever a Christian is brought up against a dilemma with regard to predicting the metaphysical condition of God, the popular answer is simply that we cannot know God. Extension of this belief, however, must be limited, or else the full extrapolation of the idea must mean that you cannot know that God is God. How is it, then, that you know that God is God in absence of a thorough understanding of what God is? A better question might be: What meaning is there to calling God good if the word "good" as it applies to God does not mean what we understand it to mean? Further, what meaning does any descriptor we apply to God have when that descriptor, as it applies to God, does not mean or likely does not mean what it is commonly understood to mean?

Quote from Mixels : Smeg never claimed that the destruction of a thing should preempt glory but rather that the act of destruction itself is not glorious. The purpose of a firework is not to be destroyed. It is to produce, by way of its destruction, a beautiful display of light. The beautiful display of light is what brings that firework maker renown. Were the fireworks sentient creatures that would endure tremendous suffering by the act of their destruction, however, the faculty of compassion, of which we are possessed by virtue of the social tendencies and philosophies which guide western culture, prevents glorification of the act.

When God bombarded cities with fire and brimstone back in the day, I'm sure it made lots of pretty colors and that he found the sight glorious. Sure, most humans would find roasting an entire population alive rather repulsive and cruel..but this is God we're talking about remember? His ways are beyond us. And since everything he does is defined as perfect, that means all the horrible diseases and natural disasters he sends to earth, along with the billions of people ("vessels") he has created for the sole purpose of sending to hell all qualify as glorious acts. If none of this makes sense to you, that just means your puny brain (that god designed) is unable to comprehend the majesty behind it all.

Quote from shifty1981 : How is a fool one when he is not a fool?

Trick question. One never is a fool. One is judged a fool--an evaluation which, in hindsight, may be vindicated or overturned.

Quote from Libertarian : When God bombarded cities with fire and brimstone back in the day, I'm sure it made lots of pretty colors and that he found the sight glorious. Sure, most humans would find roasting an entire population alive rather repulsive and cruel..but this is God we're talking about remember? His ways are beyond us. And since everything he does is defined as perfect, that means all the horrible diseases and natural disasters he sends to earth, along with the billions of people ("vessels") he has created for the sole purpose of sending to hell all qualify as glorious acts. If none of this makes sense to you, that just means your puny brain (that god designed) is unable to comprehend the majesty behind it all.

Now you've got it. Reason #8,762 to always keep sunscreen handy.

Quote from talgot : And you didn't? Calling anyone a clown is not a personal attack? Calling others a liar (not just mart) in some case over opinion is not a personal attack? You are being way to hard on shifty. He was taking no side but rather a general stance for peace and a more civil debate. He should get your thanks rather than your wrath. You ask for admonishment several times, yet you have yet to admit ever of being wrong or just saying sorry for your actions on here.

Just wanted to be clear on something:

Calling someone who is a liar is fair game if that person knows the truth about something and is blatantly selling another version. I have no qualms with that (though I'm not saying that's the case here necessarily).

Someone who believes something is true and shares it yet others think Scripture is clear about an opposing view is not a liar. They are mistaken, misinformed, confused, etc. But not a liar. Liar implies intent.

A false teacher or heretic? That is debatable. You can teach false truths and either be aware or not be aware. Thus I see no issue with calling someone a heretic if you feel they are teaching falsely. However these words should be chosen carefully because someone who is a brother or sister in Christ but is mistaken about other nonessential parts is not a heretic. I venture to say every single Christian who ever lived has at one point or another had a false understanding of some aspect of Scripture and probably shared that with others. It goes back to the saying: "hate the sin not the sinner".

When we call someone a name, if that name accurately describes the sin they are purposefully living in, there is no issue. All throughout scripture God's people called people names, but those names always describe the sin. When we start calling people names that are about something else that's where "Raca" or "fool" in the NT sense come into play. That's why I had no problem with Lemon sharing her strong belief that some of Camping's teachings were not truths at all. I can tell me wife she's a liar if she lies to me about something. But if I call her an @$$H0L3 or ID10T then it's quite a different thing.