• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Why Do Religions Recruit ?

rhinefire

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2007
Messages
13,302
Reaction score
5,139
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
I was talking with my neighbor yesterday and she asked if I wanted to go play bingo with her. I said no and asked where is was. She said it was cat a church and I responded with humor that I am not a church guy. Well, BANG! Now it was "you're not religious"?! type questions and I said no there are too many. She said but they are all correct and I said I believe in a higher deity but I will not let another person tell me what it is. So she asks me top go to church with her! Sensing this is going to get nuts I ended it with a polite "no thanks". So the question is or maybe it's a complaint, why do religious people believe they should change non-believers, or as I like to call them people that are NOT like them? Why not just enjoy your faith and not try to coerce others in to believing like you do? Again, I am not an atheist but I believe in letting everyone just pursue something this important on their own.
 
if faith adds to your life, then you will want others to enjoy what it gives to you as well.
 
Some people feel that they are obligated to recruit others ("spread the Gospel") and some people just want to include others in something that is good for them. People's reasons for "recruiting" others for their religion aren't much different than people's reasons for "recruiting" others to other things from clubs to fun outings.
 
I'd imagine there are a few reason. First, is to spread whatever message the church preaches. Second, for the church to grow in member which can have a bigger impact on the community. Third, in terms of donations that allow the church to do more.
 
I would surmise that religions recruit for the same reasons atheists recruit, whatever those are.
 

It is a subconscious need to feel validation in one's own beliefs - recruiting and convincing people to believe as you do bolsters your faith in your own beliefs. This often occurs when one is not entirely comfortable with their own beliefs, and / or does not truly believe them.
 

Translation:
I think she likes you and wants to share a social event, and that you're going way over board.
 
Last edited:
With 12-step programs, it's about attraction, not promotion, and adhering to that tradition keeps the program true to its recovery principles.

But with some religions, it's about promotion, not attraction, whererby the religion must grow in numbers to be effective in its tasks.

Some promote their religion because they fear if they don't and don't recruit a number of converts they'll be punished, like by God, like going to Hell, or they won't make deacon, or the like.

Others promote their religion because there's an underlying insecurity about aspects of their religion, and the more they recruit the less insecurity they imagine they'll experience.

And there are those who simply adhere to the tenets that might state that you can't be friends with or marry an "outsider", so they recruit people they like, perhaps also being concerned that they don't want to suffer emotional grief if the person they like dies "without God" and thus goes to Hell.

Some religions just make practicial everyday social life difficult for their practitioners in exchange for a ready-made system of "solving" the existential angst fundamental fear of death experienced by consciously aware intelligent living beings.
 

Because it's human nature.
 

I think you're overgeneralizing a little here. One neighbor-lady isn't necessarily representative of any religion. But you'd already said no--why wasn't that enough? Why did you ask her where the game was being played and then say you're not a "church-guy"? Maybe on some level you wanted to "engage"? And that I play, but wherever the game's held, isn't bingo just bingo?
 

Christians want everyone to be saved thus they spread the good news. If one is not truly interested, all he has to do is say, "no, thank you." This shouldn't be a problem since Christians are not supposed to force their belief to anyone.

There are non-believers and skeptics though, who truly want to seek information but do not wish to do the initial approach.
 
I have no problem with religions spreading their ideology, as long as it is not done through donation money meant for charity and humanitarian aid. Spread the good word on your own dime.
 
Well some seem to think pushing one's religion is acceptable and I don't have a big problem with it other than it is presumptuous. I know it starts at childhood but don't come up to an adult with the assumption that they need you religion. It is not the same as some post here as recommending a car they are delighted about or a political group they feel is vital. We have all heard the proverbs about discussing politics and religion, etc. So what started as a nice neighborly chat turned in to her yacking about religion. Maybe I should have levetated myself off the ground and breathed fire on her face but I have not done that in years.
 
Amadeus said:
I have no problem with religions spreading their ideology, as long as it is not done through donation money meant for charity and humanitarian aid. Spread the good word on your own dime.
Click to expand...

An interesting thought experiment would be to imagine a group of secular atheists going door to door through the southernmost states asking, "Hello, do you have a moment to talk about science and reason?"
 
I'll let the other religions speak for themselves.

Christian perspective: this is the truth, and Jesus told his followers to spread the message before the 'end of the system' when the human run political system is overturned, and the 'kingdom' Jesus spoke of takes hold of the earth.

So as Christians we're seeking the 'first fruits' of mankind who will be a part of the government in that kingdom.

All the other humans (E.G. the 'righteous and unrighteous') will be resurrected to live under that kingdom and learn about the truth from those who come out of this system 'without stain from this world'.

Disclaimer: the Roman-ized churches don't teach this, instead opting to teach the Greek conception of 'heaven/hell' VS the biblical conception described above.
 
Last edited:

Maybe the reason some religious recruit (Christianity) and others do not (Judaism or Hinduism) is because some have religious texts commanding their followers to "make disciples and baptise them" and others do not .... It's really as simple as that.
 
RGacky3 said:
Maybe the reason some religious recruit (Christianity) and others do not (Judaism or Hinduism) is because some have religious texts commanding their followers to "make disciples and baptise them" and others do not .... It's really as simple as that.
Click to expand...

It's really not.

When others do not believe as you do (you in general, not you personally), it subconsciously applies a bit of doubt to your own beliefs. When you are able to convince someone to believe as you do, beliefs are reinforced. If everyone on the planet believed in the same thing, all doubt would be erased and no one would preach to anyone.
 
Amadeus said:
I have no problem with religions spreading their ideology, as long as it is not done through donation money meant for charity and humanitarian aid. Spread the good word on your own dime.
Click to expand...

Christian charity organizations are supported by mostly Christians (donation money for charity and humanitarian aid), and one of the main reasons they are financially supported by Christians is as a way of helping spread the gospel. I think most Christian Charity groups identify themselves as Christian groups.
 

Have you tried changing the subject when she started talking about religion? Have you done anything to let her know that you'd rather not talk about it?
 

It really is, if not then why are the only religions that proselatize the ones whose religious texts command them to proselatize?
 
I was at a family gathering. I am known for my non religious stance. I do not remember how it went but one time an analogy came like "...just like you who do not go to a mosque." I was being positioned as that of an ignorant atheist hence I replied:

Me: Who do you think I am? I use to go to the mosques! I use to be a 5 timer (i.e., 5 time praying a day)! I have read the Qur'an (BTW we call it Kur'an with a "K" for "Quran" means turkey in Albanian)!

Him: (surprised) So why don't you believe it then?

Me: Well somehow it just does not adds up!

(Hold on for a recruiting line now. Wait for iiiit, it is comiiing!)

Him: (laughs) What is a shoe to a shoe seller?

This is what I have to deal with guys. The analogy is that we humans are mere shoes whom can never understand God the seller of us! Such untasteful, human life degrading, groundless, stupid analogies, that are probably designed and would not even work with children even!

Yet they think that they are right, correct, and are a "promoting" cool, grand, people with such BS. I look at him, and instead of just continuing with a mere "Well, everyone to themselves then!" I open up more hoping that there just might be some sense in them:

Me: Well I do not believe that which I do not understand.

Him: You "scientists" (I omit the real profession of mine that he called me with here) are very complicated.

Me: That stands! (and laugh my way out of it).

What do you guys think though? Should I have distanced at that point with my "Each to themselves" cold statement? Or did I do well by opening up more?
 

If all would think the same we would be highly weak at perceiving developments from other ends. Not to say that we would be highly susceptible to: group think, freeze think, and would generally lose freedom to think with that.
 

It depends on who you're talking to, or who you're discussing/debating with. It's the same old saying you can't paint everyone with the same brush.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…