Is it selfish to convert others?

[scorpia]

Continued from here

Question is as the title says; Just how is those who think someone should be converted or whatever is selfish?

Well no, I don't believe accusing someone of self-righteousness is self-rightous in the same sense,

Why not? Self-righteousness is self-righteousness.

but if it was, then ALL accusations, debates, opinions etc are self-righteous, hence YOU are too for debating me and this whole forum is filled with self-righteous people! Hence, why debate at all? Let's all become inert and humble. Excuse the sarcasm.

And that it is. And that I am. I accept that. I am not going to worry about how I look, whether self-righteous or otherwise, in order to get a point across that I feel needs telling.

And going back some time to the conversion of the natives (be they American or Australian) most of these missionaries did it for THEMSELVES, so put their own souls in good light and to gain favour with God etc.

Maybe, but why does it matter why they do it, so long as it gets done? What's more important; whether the doctor saved someone's life for his own gratification or not, or the fact that he saved a life and got the job done?

So he does it to make God happy? So what? It is either that, or decide not to do it in order to make other people happy. Either way what the person does would be so that he may gratified by others.

Sure some would have done it as a self-less act, but does not make it any more right. Who are they to dictate what's right and wrong? The natives had their own religion, so by trying to convert was a sign of disrespect and self-rightousness. Why should Christianity be the prevailing religion?

I am sure all of these other religions are very interesting. But what's more important, keeping a variety of cultures, or having people safe?

Let everyone go to hell? Some people don't BELIEVE in hell and are happy with their own god. Some people don't believe in a deity full stop. Why should someone impose their beliefs on someone in order to save them from something that is NOT in their beliefs in the first place

I can see how those others should be respected, for their loyalty at least, but try to keep in mind that the converter is trying to save souls., which can be more important than anything else. And it is a hard thing to do to respect another's person's beliefs when it is fact in the converter's eyes that hell exists and they have to save them?

They are simply doing what they feel is right. How can anyone be angry at a person for simply doing that? Would you rather people just ignore what they know is right or wrong and just do nothing, when something may very well be needed to be done, just so that they don't appear selfish or self-righteous?

[ENIGMA]

Your argument seems to be coming close to contradicting itself at times:

Maybe, but why does it matter why they do it, so long as it gets done? What's more important; whether the doctor saved someone's life for his own gratification or not, or the fact that he saved a life and got the job done?

They are simply doing what they feel is right. How can anyone be angry at a person for simply doing that? Would you rather people just ignore what they know is right or wrong and just do nothing, when something may very well be needed to be done, just so that they don't appear selfish or self-righteous?

So which is more important, the end result or the intention?

I am sure all of these other religions are very interesting. But what's more important, keeping a variety of cultures, or having people safe?

How does conversion to Christianity guarantee people being safe? I daresay it does nothing of the kind.

[micatala]

One can be self-less and also misguided.

If A is convinced that my cat poses an imminent and serious threat to me, and in order to save me, hurls himself off a cliff with the cat in his arms, he has performed a self-less act with the purest of intentions.

He has also done essentially no good.


Now if A has been looking for just such an opportunity in order to earn his way into heaven as a martyr, then he is not being self-less. On the other hand, the harm he has caused by prematurely ending my cats life is not a huge problem in the larger scheme of things.

On the other hand, if A decides he has to rip my arms out to keep me from petting my cat because it would be evil to do so, then he is causing rather grave harm, even if he does it with the purest of intentions.


Now, with respect to 'converting' people, there is no universal agreement as to whether this is necessary or good. Obviously many Christians believe it is so imperative that it outweighs all possible harm. The combination of such Christians acting with less than pure motives, and causing harm in the attempt at conversion, IMV, means we should not necessarily buy into this imperative.

[scorpia]

How does conversion to Christianity guarantee people being safe? I daresay it does nothing of the kind

*shrugs* Depends on what you want to be safe from.

So which is more important, the end result or the intention?

I don't know.

Aren't they both equally important?

Now, with respect to 'converting' people, there is no universal agreement as to whether this is necessary or good. Obviously many Christians believe it is so imperative that it outweighs all possible harm. The combination of such Christians acting with less than pure motives, and causing harm in the attempt at conversion, IMV, means we should not necessarily buy into this imperative.

I know that, and conversion at all costs isn't really the best idea, but if someone does it all the same, can you really blame them? Once you see why they do what they do, can't a person forgive them at least?

As the saying goes, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." (or something like that). And while that is a point, what should one do while knowing that? Give up on good intentions?

[micatala]

Now, with respect to 'converting' people, there is no universal agreement as to whether this is necessary or good. Obviously many Christians believe it is so imperative that it outweighs all possible harm. The combination of such Christians acting with less than pure motives, and causing harm in the attempt at conversion, IMV, means we should not necessarily buy into this imperative.

I know that, and conversion at all costs isn't really the best idea, but if someone does it all the same, can you really blame them? Once you see why they do what they do, can't a person forgive them at least?

Know, I don't really blame anyone for thinking evangelism is a good thing to do, and I can certainly forgive people for being overzealous about it. I would agree that some people are overly sensitive about evangelism. If someone is evangelizing 'politely' and not coercively, and the person is not interested, I think simply saying this should be enough. One should not expect the evangelizer to apologize or totally desist from evangelizing simply because people do not want to respond.

I do think it is worth trying to dissuade those who might engage in inappropriate behavior in attempts at conversion from doing so. I do think we, especially Christians, should point out when abuses do occur and acknowledge them as abuses.

[bernee51]

I know that, and conversion at all costs isn't really the best idea, but if someone does it all the same, can you really blame them? Once you see why they do what they do, can't a person forgive them at least?

As the saying goes, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." (or something like that). And while that is a point, what should one do while knowing that? Give up on good intentions?

A religion of conversion is a religion of violence. A religion of conversion is based on the assumption that only it is right and all else wrong. It encourages a 'us and them' view of life. It encourages labels. Until the label sayers have no influence we will have no peace.

The purported ends (intentions) do not justify the means.

[The Persnickety Platypus]

Wrong to evangelize?


Don't kid yourself. Each and every person here has come with the intention of indoctrinating as many other people as possible. Those pushing the idea that it is wrong to evangelize are, as irony would have it, evangelizing themselves.

Evangelization (both within and beyond the religious sense) is how knowledge is spread. In an open forum such as this, we may learn from and/or adopt each others ideas. Great ideas will stand the test of time, allowing truth to abound.

For example, why are oppressive totalitatian societies (e.g. Medieval Europe, Communist Russia) so ignorant, inefficient, and culture-less? Because speech (and consequently, good ideas) are stifled.

Don't stifle evangelical Christians. They could possibly have something worthwhile to say.

[bernee51]

Wrong to evangelize?

Don't kid yourself. Each and every person here has come with the intention of indoctrinating as many other people as possible. Those pushing the idea that it is wrong to evangelize are, as irony would have it, evangelizing themselves.

Perhaps then thre has not been an agreement on the term 'evangelize"?
One dictionary definition is:

1. To preach the gospel to.
2. To convert to Christianity.

Evangelization (both within and beyond the religious sense) is how knowledge is spread.

Or misinformation

[scorpia]

The purported ends (intentions) do not justify the means.

When deciding how you want to act, I agree it wouldn't, yet the intentions matter when attempting to understand a person.

Sidenote: Does conversion necessarily have to do with self-righteousness? Maybe with religion. Then again, looking outside of that, a person may not necessarily think something is so right that everyone else must be like that. They may think that this something may be wrong but others should be like that for other reasons (i.e. to be cool, because it is fun and everyone else is missing out, etc). This is just a side note though.

[The Persnickety Platypus]

Perhaps then thre has not been an agreement on the term 'evangelize"?
One dictionary definition is:

1. To preach the gospel to.
2. To convert to Christianity.

So an athiest is doing something different when trying to convert others to athiesm?

Point is, if you wholeheartedly believe in something, it is only natural to want to recruit other's into your line of thinking; whether your a Christian, Athiest, Buddhist, ect.

This forum is called Debating Christianity. Fat chance of that ever happening if Christians arn't allowed to promote their views.

Evangelization (both within and beyond the religious sense) is how knowledge is spread.

Or misinformation

And are you going to be the one to decide which opinions are unspeakable "misinformation"?

I wouldn't hold my breath if you expect people to magically stop expressing their views. You want to stop the spread of falsities? Do it the old fashioned way- prove them wrong.