Which religions seek to actively convert people (besides Christianity & Islam)?

[Blue3]

Which religions seek to actively convert people (besides Christianity & Islam)?



Judaism is basically a religion only for Jewish people. Jews acknowledge most of Jewish law doesn't apply to outsiders, and that outsiders can still find favor with God without converting (law of Noah). And many Jews don't believe in an afterlife for anyone, Jew or Gentile, or believe in a day of resurrection for everyone.

Hinduism has very different branches, and some of its ideas may be universal. But it's still basically a religion only for Indian people. For those that take reincarnation literally, there's no rush because you'll eventually get it right, even if it's not in this lifetime. I could be wrong, but its factions never seemed to feel the need to spread their beliefs outside India by mass conversion or conquest (and if they've tried it seems they've never been successful).

Buddhism doesn't believe in an afterlife, or any god(s), or even an eternal soul (reincarnation in Buddhism is usually misunderstood in popular culture)... at least in mainstream Buddhism. It preaches a methodology to ending your personal suffering, more of a philosophy than a religion. It has a few weird sects but I don't think any ever sough mass conversion or conquest.

Sikhism (5th largest religion in the world), like Hinduism, has some ideas that may be universal, but it preaches that Sikhism is not the only way, and I remember hearing that (like Judaism) it discourages new converts.

Jainism I don't think has ever done anything.

Shinto I don't think has ever done anything.

Confucianism is much more of a moral and political and social philosophy, definitely not a religion seeking new converts or conquests.

Taoism is much more of a moral and political and social philosophy, definitely not a religion seeking new converts or conquests.

Zoroastrianism, where is still survives, seems to highly discourage new converts.

Baha'i is all about how there is truth in all religions, no need to convert, and preaches nonviolence and world peace... not conquest.




Am I missing any?

Am I misunderstanding any?

Or when we talk about how "religion" always seeks to convert people, or conquer/colonize new places, or believe its way is the only true way... are we really only talking about Christianity and Islam?

[DC Al Fine]

Can I include historical examples?

Manichaeism was very widespread and actively seeking converts in the first millennium A.D, to the point of rivaling Christianity but eventually died out.

Am I missing any?

Am I misunderstanding any?

Or when we talk about how "religion" always seeks to convert people, or conquer/colonize new places, or believe its way is the only true way... are we really only talking about Christianity and Islam?

Any religion that didn't evolve out of a culture/nation's paganism would have had to seek converts at some point or they wouldn't be the size they are today. Sikhism, Buddhism, Bahai and probably Zoarastrianism would fall into this category. Hellenistic Judaism was also fairly convert friendly IIRC.

[they don't love you like i love you]

Jews actually did prosyletize and seek converts up until about the 15th century.

[Blue3]

Can I include historical examples?

Yes as long as you specify that it's only historical.

Any religion that didn't evolve out of a culture/nation's paganism would have had to seek converts at some point or they wouldn't be the size they are today. Sikhism, Buddhism, Bahai and probably Zoarastrianism would fall into this category. Hellenistic Judaism was also fairly convert friendly IIRC.

Are you saying those religions still seek converts, or that conversions have been a main part of these religions now or in the past?

Or did it just happen organically?

[RaphaelDLG]

Buddhism is evangelical.  It's not a cultural religion like Hinduism is.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

Buddhism is evangelical.  It's not a cultural religion like Hinduism is.

Yeah, Buddhism is absolutely a proselytizing religion.

And absolutely a religion. I love how something Sir Monier Monier-Williams said disparagingly in 1889 has gone on to become the sound bite of choice for sophomoric #analysis of Buddhism well over a hundred years later. Two important points: 'Buddhism doesn't believe in an afterlife' is a downright bizarre statement, and people who point out that the doctrine of anatman means that reincarnation is widely misunderstood are absolutely right but don't provide any account of why that means it's misunderstood, largely because 'what is the reincarnating substance?' is widely acknowledged to be an incredibly tough paradox in (most forms of) Buddhist thought. It's a paradox to which there's no pat, barista-with-a-soul-patch-friendly answer. Google 'alaya-vijnana' for one actual Buddhist attempt at resolving this theologically.

[RaphaelDLG]

Buddhism is evangelical.  It's not a cultural religion like Hinduism is.

Yeah, Buddhism is absolutely a proselytizing religion.

And absolutely a religion. I love how something Sir Monier Monier-Williams said disparagingly in 1889 has gone on to become the sound bite of choice for sophomoric #analysis of Buddhism well over a hundred years later. Two important points: 'Buddhism doesn't believe in an afterlife' is a downright bizarre statement, and people who point out that the doctrine of anatman means that reincarnation is widely misunderstood are absolutely right but don't provide any account of why that means it's misunderstood, largely because 'what is the reincarnating substance?' is widely acknowledged to be an incredibly tough paradox in (most forms of) Buddhist thought. It's a paradox to which there's no pat, barista-with-a-soul-patch-friendly answer. Google 'alaya-vijnana' for one actual Buddhist attempt at resolving this theologically.

I didn't totally follow what you wrote, and my knowledge of world religions is woefully impoverished compared to yours, but my impression as an admirer and semi-practictioner is that

1) the realization that there isn't any essential "thing" that can cycle on is vitally important to understand to shatter your mental fictions of a self and that

2) taken from 40,000 feet, the religion as a whole is agnostic as to whether the "rebirth" alternative presented to reincarnation means that some kind of (very crucially:  non-essentialized) consciousness can indeed pass on or whether rebirth is just an accurate way of conceptualizing the world vis-à-vis Mufasa's "our bodies become the grass, the antelope eat the grass," and that the former is much more prevalent in areas closer to the indian subcontinent. 

But I'm heavily biased because my experiences with Buddhism are extremely philosophical and western-Japanese and therefore probably not a very accurate understanding of the religion as a whole.

To your other point, there's some professor I read from somewhere in the Northeast that defines religion in terms of a set of beliefs about and institutionalized practices leading toward an ultimate goal of some form of salvation, and under that definition at least, Buddhism is incontrovertibly a religion.  I think that's a much more coherent, parsimonious way of conceptualizing religion than vaguer or more Eurocentric definitions.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

Buddhism is evangelical.  It's not a cultural religion like Hinduism is.

Yeah, Buddhism is absolutely a proselytizing religion.

And absolutely a religion. I love how something Sir Monier Monier-Williams said disparagingly in 1889 has gone on to become the sound bite of choice for sophomoric #analysis of Buddhism well over a hundred years later. Two important points: 'Buddhism doesn't believe in an afterlife' is a downright bizarre statement, and people who point out that the doctrine of anatman means that reincarnation is widely misunderstood are absolutely right but don't provide any account of why that means it's misunderstood, largely because 'what is the reincarnating substance?' is widely acknowledged to be an incredibly tough paradox in (most forms of) Buddhist thought. It's a paradox to which there's no pat, barista-with-a-soul-patch-friendly answer. Google 'alaya-vijnana' for one actual Buddhist attempt at resolving this theologically.

I didn't totally follow what you wrote, and my knowledge of world religions is woefully impoverished compared to yours, but my impression as an admirer and semi-practictioner is that

1) the realization that there isn't any essential "thing" that can cycle on is vitally important to understand to shatter your mental fictions of a self and that

2) taken from 40,000 feet, the religion as a whole is agnostic as to whether the "rebirth" alternative presented to reincarnation means that some kind of (very crucially:  non-essentialized) consciousness can indeed pass on or whether rebirth is just an accurate way of conceptualizing the world vis-à-vis Mufasa's "our bodies become the grass, the antelope eat the grass," and that the former is much more prevalent in areas closer to the indian subcontinent.

Wait, that which is more prevalent in areas closer to the subcontinent? The way I'm reading the sentence, that seems inaccurate, but I could be reading what you're saying wrong. (The rest of it is accurate; it's just that 'from 40,000 feet' has struck me throughout my academic career as the wrong way of understanding a religion. It's a massive, massive problem that I have with comparative religions as a discipline.)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Absolutely agreed (and I think I might know who the professor you're talking about is, and that he might teach at my university and have an office next to one of my professors'. Is it Stephen Prothero? I'll feel incredibly silly if I'm wrong but whatever). My other main problem with the more Eurocentric definitions is their absolute uselessness and obvious paltriness when faced with the fact that Buddhism had fulfilled all the sociological, political, and artistic functions of religion to a tee in every society in which it's been the dominant school of thought.

[RaphaelDLG]

Buddhism is evangelical.  It's not a cultural religion like Hinduism is.

Yeah, Buddhism is absolutely a proselytizing religion.

And absolutely a religion. I love how something Sir Monier Monier-Williams said disparagingly in 1889 has gone on to become the sound bite of choice for sophomoric #analysis of Buddhism well over a hundred years later. Two important points: 'Buddhism doesn't believe in an afterlife' is a downright bizarre statement, and people who point out that the doctrine of anatman means that reincarnation is widely misunderstood are absolutely right but don't provide any account of why that means it's misunderstood, largely because 'what is the reincarnating substance?' is widely acknowledged to be an incredibly tough paradox in (most forms of) Buddhist thought. It's a paradox to which there's no pat, barista-with-a-soul-patch-friendly answer. Google 'alaya-vijnana' for one actual Buddhist attempt at resolving this theologically.

I didn't totally follow what you wrote, and my knowledge of world religions is woefully impoverished compared to yours, but my impression as an admirer and semi-practictioner is that

1) the realization that there isn't any essential "thing" that can cycle on is vitally important to understand to shatter your mental fictions of a self and that

2) taken from 40,000 feet, the religion as a whole is agnostic as to whether the "rebirth" alternative presented to reincarnation means that some kind of (very crucially:  non-essentialized) consciousness can indeed pass on or whether rebirth is just an accurate way of conceptualizing the world vis-à-vis Mufasa's "our bodies become the grass, the antelope eat the grass," and that the former is much more prevalent in areas closer to the indian subcontinent.

Wait, that which is more prevalent in areas closer to the subcontinent? The way I'm reading the sentence, that seems inaccurate, but I could be reading what you're saying wrong. (The rest of it is accurate; it's just that 'from 40,000 feet' has struck me throughout my academic career as the wrong way of understanding a religion. It's a massive, massive problem that I have with comparative religions as a discipline.)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Absolutely agreed (and I think I might know who the professor you're talking about is, and that he might teach at my university and have an office next to one of my professors'. Is it Stephen Prothero? I'll feel incredibly silly if I'm wrong but whatever). My other main problem with the more Eurocentric definitions is their absolute uselessness and obvious paltriness when faced with the fact that Buddhism had fulfilled all the sociological, political, and artistic functions of religion to a tee in every society in which it's been the dominant school of thought.

Yes, it was Prothero.  I've read some of his stuff and really enjoyed it.

What I meant with the first part was that, from my highly limited experience, the most recent strains of Buddhism (that seem to all be in SE Asia) are more likely to have strictly materialistic practictioners who often don't believe in supernatural consciousness transferring forms of rebirth (Zen, Chan) whereas other, older, larger schools like Mahayana, Theravada, Tibetan Buddhism are more likely to believe in some form of supernatural consciousness-transferring after death that appears similar to reincarnation, but is not the same, because the transfer is not essentialized (i.e., there is no self, no whole person, nothing to transfer).  I could be wrong or ignorant, though, you tell me.

From my vantage point, I like the realization that there is no self and think that that realization is possibly really useful, and find truth in the paradox that the answer to "what lives on after death?" is the sarcastic, cagey response of "who exactly is it that you think might live on or not live on?!?"

Or another way:  When people ask me what happens after I die, I tell them that my biological material/matter becomes recycled into something else after I die, and that all of the times I was kind to someone or treated someone like sh**t make me live on, for better or for worse, in a very meaningful, consequential, real way.  And if they are particularly game, I might give them that sarcastic cagey response.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The sharp distinction usually made in Western thought between philosophy and religion doesn't really pertain to Daoism , Ruism (aka Confucianism) and other forms of East Asian thought. For that matter, the dichotomy of the world views of Laozi and Kongzi obscures the fluid nature of the belief system that what we in West identify as Daoism and Confucianism are both a part of.

[they don't love you like i love you]

I suppose Wicca should be mentioned as well.

Oh and of course: Scientology.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

Buddhism is evangelical.  It's not a cultural religion like Hinduism is.

Yeah, Buddhism is absolutely a proselytizing religion.

And absolutely a religion. I love how something Sir Monier Monier-Williams said disparagingly in 1889 has gone on to become the sound bite of choice for sophomoric #analysis of Buddhism well over a hundred years later. Two important points: 'Buddhism doesn't believe in an afterlife' is a downright bizarre statement, and people who point out that the doctrine of anatman means that reincarnation is widely misunderstood are absolutely right but don't provide any account of why that means it's misunderstood, largely because 'what is the reincarnating substance?' is widely acknowledged to be an incredibly tough paradox in (most forms of) Buddhist thought. It's a paradox to which there's no pat, barista-with-a-soul-patch-friendly answer. Google 'alaya-vijnana' for one actual Buddhist attempt at resolving this theologically.

I didn't totally follow what you wrote, and my knowledge of world religions is woefully impoverished compared to yours, but my impression as an admirer and semi-practictioner is that

1) the realization that there isn't any essential "thing" that can cycle on is vitally important to understand to shatter your mental fictions of a self and that

2) taken from 40,000 feet, the religion as a whole is agnostic as to whether the "rebirth" alternative presented to reincarnation means that some kind of (very crucially:  non-essentialized) consciousness can indeed pass on or whether rebirth is just an accurate way of conceptualizing the world vis-à-vis Mufasa's "our bodies become the grass, the antelope eat the grass," and that the former is much more prevalent in areas closer to the indian subcontinent.

Wait, that which is more prevalent in areas closer to the subcontinent? The way I'm reading the sentence, that seems inaccurate, but I could be reading what you're saying wrong. (The rest of it is accurate; it's just that 'from 40,000 feet' has struck me throughout my academic career as the wrong way of understanding a religion. It's a massive, massive problem that I have with comparative religions as a discipline.)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Absolutely agreed (and I think I might know who the professor you're talking about is, and that he might teach at my university and have an office next to one of my professors'. Is it Stephen Prothero? I'll feel incredibly silly if I'm wrong but whatever). My other main problem with the more Eurocentric definitions is their absolute uselessness and obvious paltriness when faced with the fact that Buddhism had fulfilled all the sociological, political, and artistic functions of religion to a tee in every society in which it's been the dominant school of thought.

Yes, it was Prothero.  I've read some of his stuff and really enjoyed it.

What I meant with the first part was that, from my highly limited experience, the most recent strains of Buddhism (that seem to all be in SE Asia) are more likely to have strictly materialistic practictioners who often don't believe in supernatural consciousness transferring forms of rebirth (Zen, Chan) whereas other, older, larger schools like Mahayana, Theravada, Tibetan Buddhism are more likely to believe in some form of supernatural consciousness-transferring after death that appears similar to reincarnation, but is not the same, because the transfer is not essentialized (i.e., there is no self, no whole person, nothing to transfer).  I could be wrong or ignorant, though, you tell me.

That's not a materially inaccurate understanding. It's weird to characterize the division that it makes geographically; it's more common to divide Buddhism into Buddhist Modernism (which can arise out of any of the traditional schools) and non-Modernist Buddhism. Buddhist Modernism originates as a movement in Victorian Burma and Ceylon and then becomes one of the chief ideological forces in Meiji Japan. Within the ambit of non-Modernist Buddhist thought, though, the Mahayana sects have a more supernatural understanding of things than the Theravada sects (although this is of course a huge generalization). That's what I thought you were referring to and what I was reacting to as potentially inaccurate.

I think your understanding is positioning Zen/Chan oddly but (embarrassingly for somebody focusing on Japan!) I don't really understand that particular school of thought well enough to dispute it.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

I suppose Wicca should be mentioned as well.

Oh and of course: Scientology.

The topic says religions, not cults.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

Sorry for the double posts, but atheists seek converts too. But as they say, if atheism is a religion, then bald is a hair color.

[BuckeyeNut]

Wicca is definitely not a cult.

[Tartarus Sauce]

Sorry for the double posts, but atheists seek converts too. But as they say, if atheism is a religion, then bald is a hair color.

I think the OP means in terms proselytizing being encoded within the doctrine of the religion. Atheism has no doctrine other than lack of belief in god. What individual atheists do is up to them.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

Sorry for the double posts, but atheists seek converts too. But as they say, if atheism is a religion, then bald is a hair color.

I didn't think it was possible to reach critical mass of Trite in only two not-very-long sentences, but somehow our own The Obamanation has managed.

[Zioneer]

Technically, if you consider Mormons non-Christian, then we count as a non-Christian, non-Islamic converting religion. But we consider ourselves a Christian religion, so that's a moot point. But yeah, there's a lot of religions that either did seek converts in the past or still do.

And technically the neo-pagan religions might count as well.

[The Mikado]

Where does this crazy notion that Buddhism isn't a proselytizing religion come from? Buddhism was one of the most aggressively proselytizing religions out there. There's a good reason that Buddhist communities extend from Japan to India.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Where does this crazy notion that Buddhism isn't a proselytizing religion come from?

Presumably from American yoga teachers.

[Mopsus]

How do you count the Baha'i? Non-Christian, non-Islamic, or both Islamic and Christian?

[they don't love you like i love you]

You know, I just realized that Hinduism would count, if you count Tulsi Gabbard's sect as Hindu (some Hindus wouldn't.)

Not only do are they virtually exclusively made up of western converts, they had their own "scene" for a brief period based around some NYC bands that had some guys who converted and then some other people in the scene thought it was cool, like a parallel Christian hardcore. Actually it even predates Christian hardcore come to think of it.

One of those things that's just so hard to believe when you hear it, but is absolutely true.

[Blue3]

Are any of these examples mentioned so far still anywhere near as active with converting people as Christianity and Islam?

I just don't see it with Hinduism and Buddhism in the present time, though prove me wrong. I can see it a bit with Wicca, even if it's very small and heterodox, it seems very active. Scientology only if you count the rich celebrities. But Hinduism, Buddhism, and the others? The vast supermajority of their current followers seem to be uninterested in it, and don't see it as a moral imperative, at least from what I've read and have seen...

[DavidB.]

Judaism is basically a religion only for Jewish people. Jews acknowledge most of Jewish law doesn't apply to outsiders, and that outsiders can still find favor with God without converting (law of Noah).

This may be true (though not only can non-Jews "find favor with G-d" by keeping the Noahide laws, they are actually supposed to keep them), but let's not forget we say this in Aleinu three times a day (bolded emphasis by me):

"Therefore we put our hope in You, Hashem our G-d, that we may soon see your mighty splendor, to remove detestable idolatry from the earth, and false gods will be utterly cut off, to perfect the universe through the Almighty's sovereignty. Then all humanity will call upon Your Name, to turn all the earth's wicked toward You. All the world's inhabitants will recognize and know that to You every knee should bend, every tongue should swear. Before You, Hashem, our G-d, they will bend every knee and cast themselves down and to the glory of Your Name they will render homage, and they will all accept upon themselves the yoke of Your kingship that You may reign over them soon and eternally."

This is to say -- Judaism is not entirely like "Judaism's for Jews, and everybody else can do whatever they like." At some point in the future non-Jews are supposed to recognize G-d as the Almighty too.

[RFayette]

Judaism is basically a religion only for Jewish people. Jews acknowledge most of Jewish law doesn't apply to outsiders, and that outsiders can still find favor with God without converting (law of Noah).

This may be true (though not only can non-Jews "find favor with G-d" by keeping the Noahide laws, they are actually supposed to keep them), but let's not forget we say this in Aleinu three times a day (bolded emphasis by me):

"Therefore we put our hope in You, Hashem our G-d, that we may soon see your mighty splendor, to remove detestable idolatry from the earth, and false gods will be utterly cut off, to perfect the universe through the Almighty's sovereignty. Then all humanity will call upon Your Name, to turn all the earth's wicked toward You. All the world's inhabitants will recognize and know that to You every knee should bend, every tongue should swear. Before You, Hashem, our G-d, they will bend every knee and cast themselves down and to the glory of Your Name they will render homage, and they will all accept upon themselves the yoke of Your kingship that You may reign over them soon and eternally."

This is to say -- Judaism is not entirely like "Judaism's for Jews, and everybody else can do whatever they like." At some point in the future non-Jews are supposed to recognize G-d as the Almighty too.

Out of curiosity, how does Judaism consider Christianity with respect to the phrase "remove detestable idolatry"?  I happened across a debate about the New Testament's reliability in which the Orthodox Jew in the debate [Tovia Singer] argued that Christianity constituted idolatry and thus adherents violate the Noahide laws.  I was pretty surprised by this, since my understanding was that most Jews do not hold this position.