Christians, Muslims, Jews, etc - why does your god need you to proselytize for him?

[Tigers!]

It would seem that if God were omnipotent, the amount of time and energy it would take to simultaneously speak to every single person who ever has lived, is alive or will live would be exactly the same as it would take to speak to one person at one point in time. So, if God actually took the time out of his day to speak to one person, why not just speak to everybody while he's at it? Since he's also omniscient, each one of those conversations could be crafted to have the maximal effect for the person he's speaking to as well, so there'd be zero doubt or confusion about who he is or what he wants once the conversation is finished.

For someone who threatens such dire consequences for those who disobey him, a little bit of due diligence on his part to ensure the proper message gets out would be somewhat omnibenevolent of him.

Would you listen if he did?

 

[Politesse]

Since when do Jews "proselytize"?

 

[southernhybrid]

Since when do Jews "proselytize"?

They don't. They make it very difficult to enter their club. Conservative Christians proselytize because they want to have the biggest club in town. Liberal Christians don't proselytize because they usually don't care if you join their club or not. I don't know about Muslims. Do they proselytize? I haven't had any knock on my door, but then I've only seen a few in my town in the 20 years I've lived here, so maybe that's it.

I don't know why evangelicals bother to proselytize in the US anymore. All of us have heard their silly threats by now. I think they should go waste their time by convincing Canadians to repent.

Baha'is proselytize but they refer to it as pioneering. They are supposed to move somewhere and then tell others about their religion. They don't believe in hell so at least they don't threaten others, but they do believe that in order to establish world peace, we need more Bahai's. Their prophet said so, so it must be true.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Would you listen if he did?

Oh, that's so unusual! Suggesting it's my fault that He doesn't.

But really, He already knows what it would take to convince me He's real, so chances are good I would listen. And He's omnipotent, so it's not like i couldn't hear.
And the story if the golden calf shows that direct knowledge He exists does not compromise my free will, or coerce my belief in Him.

 

[steve_bank]

Actually Jews do not proselytize.

The most weight is given to the matriarchal line in a family. Conversion is not as easy as Islam or Christianity.

To become Jewish without any history as I understand it you must live in accordance with Jewish customs and traditions for some period of time, and then go before a religious court to make your case.

Muslims elsewhere can be aggressive cultural, for example in Iran and Saudi Arabia there is pressure by the majority Muslim sects on the minority sects to change over. The Shiite-Sunni divide. I have never heard of any Muslim in the USA going door to door or stop people on the street.

Muslims I have known over here seem to be content to dwell within their faith. They will talk if asked but never initiate religiousconversation with an intent to persuade.

 

[Politesse]

Since when do Jews "proselytize"?

They don't. They make it very difficult to enter their club. Conservative Christians proselytize because they want to have the biggest club in town. Liberal Christians don't proselytize because they usually don't care if you join their club or not. I don't know about Muslims. Do they proselytize? I haven't had any knock on my door, but then I've only seen a few in my town in the 20 years I've lived here, so maybe that's it.

In theory, i.e. in terms of what the Holy Qur'an states about the matter, Muslims do have a charge to try and bring more people into the faith (through argumentation, not compulsion) and indeed a fair chunk of said book is devoted to philosophical argumentation along the lines of "if someone says this to you, make this argument in response". In practice, the history of Islam has included literally every possible orientation toward evangelization, from utter disinterest to violent conquest. I've never personally met a Muslim who was more than casually interested in converting me to the faith, and I know quite a few due to my location and line of work.

Liberal Christians, on my experience, love new company in theory, but figure outright proselytization is more annoying than effective, and tend to angle for more of a "lead by example" approach to spreading the good news. Spreading the message of Christ, from a liberal perspective, is less about trying to change people's labels and more about living in the world the way Christ taught us to -- loving neighbors, seeking justice, healing wound, revealing hypocrisies, and so forth.

 

[Rhea]

Which other humans told Adam and Eve about God?

Who told you Lion.
You know what the point is. Why are you fearful of discussing it?
Adam and Eve are imaginary, and you have no proof they even existed. So obviously that dodge does not score any increase in knowledge here.

Of all the people alive on the planet today - why do they need to tell anyone about your god. Why is it not assumed that your god is so powerful and loving that he gives the message himself?

Why are today's Christians terrified that people might not get the message if a human doesn't bring it?

Why do you think or believe that today's Christians are terrified?

They say so.
I’m so scared for you if you don’t believe!
I need to save you!
Have you heard the good news - because I’ll make sure you do since I’m pretty sure my god hasn’t told you an you need me.
They spend money on billboards and put a bible in every hotel room becauuse they are terrified that you can’t find out straight from god and you need them!

Their evangelism shows how badly they think they are needed to spread the message - admitting that they dont think their god can and you they are scared that’s true so they are committed to bailing him out.

 

[bilby]

It would seem that if God were omnipotent, the amount of time and energy it would take to simultaneously speak to every single person who ever has lived, is alive or will live would be exactly the same as it would take to speak to one person at one point in time. So, if God actually took the time out of his day to speak to one person, why not just speak to everybody while he's at it? Since he's also omniscient, each one of those conversations could be crafted to have the maximal effect for the person he's speaking to as well, so there'd be zero doubt or confusion about who he is or what he wants once the conversation is finished.

For someone who threatens such dire consequences for those who disobey him, a little bit of due diligence on his part to ensure the proper message gets out would be somewhat omnibenevolent of him.

Would you listen if he did?

How could he possibly not?

Theists really seem to misunderstand their own claim that God is omnipotent.

If an all powerful being wants something to happen - for example, wants me to believe that He exists - then it cannot fail to happen. I do not believe that He exists, therefore he doesn't want me to believe that He exists. Proselytizing is therefore counter to God's will - just like all other human behaviours that seek to change anything at all - from engineering to prayer.

The only other possibilities are that God doesn't have a will with respect to my belief - either because he doesn't care, or doesn't exist. Or that he is powerless to influence my belief. But in these cases, why proselytize? If God can't persuade me, you sure as shit won't - or are you better than God at this stuff?

If you simultaneously believe that:

a) God is omnipotent;
b) God wants me to believe in him
and
c) I don't believe in him, and am in need of your help to 'find' him

then you believe at least one contradiction, and your logic is badly in need of repair.

 

[Rhea]

It would seem that if God were omnipotent, the amount of time and energy it would take to simultaneously speak to every single person who ever has lived, is alive or will live would be exactly the same as it would take to speak to one person at one point in time. So, if God actually took the time out of his day to speak to one person, why not just speak to everybody while he's at it? Since he's also omniscient, each one of those conversations could be crafted to have the maximal effect for the person he's speaking to as well, so there'd be zero doubt or confusion about who he is or what he wants once the conversation is finished.

For someone who threatens such dire consequences for those who disobey him, a little bit of due diligence on his part to ensure the proper message gets out would be somewhat omnibenevolent of him.

Would you listen if he did?

What, are you scared your god wouldn’t know what to say to Tom Sawyer that was convincing?
That’s the thing, you think your god is a piker.

 

[Tigers!]

It would seem that if God were omnipotent, the amount of time and energy it would take to simultaneously speak to every single person who ever has lived, is alive or will live would be exactly the same as it would take to speak to one person at one point in time. So, if God actually took the time out of his day to speak to one person, why not just speak to everybody while he's at it? Since he's also omniscient, each one of those conversations could be crafted to have the maximal effect for the person he's speaking to as well, so there'd be zero doubt or confusion about who he is or what he wants once the conversation is finished.

For someone who threatens such dire consequences for those who disobey him, a little bit of due diligence on his part to ensure the proper message gets out would be somewhat omnibenevolent of him.

Would you listen if he did?

What, are you scared your god wouldn’t know what to say to Tom Sawyer that was convincing?
That’s the thing, you think your god is a piker.

God would know far better than I what to say to Tom.
How those words would be delivered to Tom is up to God.

 

[steve_bank]

What, are you scared your god wouldn’t know what to say to Tom Sawyer that was convincing?
That’s the thing, you think your god is a piker.

God would know far better than I what to say to Tom.
How those words would be delivered to Tom is up to God.

How do you know god is not speaking to you through us? God works in mysterious ways, that is what sat some Christians say about Trump.

 

[steve_bank]

It would seem that if God were omnipotent, the amount of time and energy it would take to simultaneously speak to every single person who ever has lived, is alive or will live would be exactly the same as it would take to speak to one person at one point in time. So, if God actually took the time out of his day to speak to one person, why not just speak to everybody while he's at it? Since he's also omniscient, each one of those conversations could be crafted to have the maximal effect for the person he's speaking to as well, so there'd be zero doubt or confusion about who he is or what he wants once the conversation is finished.

For someone who threatens such dire consequences for those who disobey him, a little bit of due diligence on his part to ensure the proper message gets out would be somewhat omnibenevolent of him.

Would you listen if he did?

What, are you scared your god wouldn’t know what to say to Tom Sawyer that was convincing?
That’s the thing, you think your god is a piker.

I know how-to insult in both English and Spanish, but piker is a new one for me.

Near as I can tell it is either a small time better, someone who never takes risks and gambles bug. Or what I grew up calling a goldbricker, domebody who woks hard at not working, a slacker.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Near as I can tell it is either a small time better, someone who never takes risks and gambles bug.

Pretty much. A small timer, especially in relation to his reputation.

In this case, the guy who CREATED THE WHOLE UNIVERSE AND EVERYTHING IN IT, according to him, is the guy who proves he exists by putting his mother's face on toast. On only one side. Low resolution. And you have to squint...

 

[Tom Sawyer]

It would seem that if God were omnipotent, the amount of time and energy it would take to simultaneously speak to every single person who ever has lived, is alive or will live would be exactly the same as it would take to speak to one person at one point in time. So, if God actually took the time out of his day to speak to one person, why not just speak to everybody while he's at it? Since he's also omniscient, each one of those conversations could be crafted to have the maximal effect for the person he's speaking to as well, so there'd be zero doubt or confusion about who he is or what he wants once the conversation is finished.

For someone who threatens such dire consequences for those who disobey him, a little bit of due diligence on his part to ensure the proper message gets out would be somewhat omnibenevolent of him.

Would you listen if he did?

Of course I would. He would have specifically crafted the message he gave to one which would have had the maximal effect for me. It would be the perfect ideal of exactly what I needed to hear and his 100% success rate in getting people to listen, understand and believe in his message would include his message to me.

After listening to a perfectly tailored message from an omnipotent and omniscient being, I would have no more choice in believing what he told me than I'd have a choice in believing that fire burns after sticking my hand into one. Every possible objection and counter argument to what he was saying would have already been taken into account and put into the message before I had a chance to come up with them, so there would be no possibility of any doubts remaining in my mind after the conversation.

 

[steve_bank]

Near as I can tell it is either a small time better, someone who never takes risks and gambles bug.

Pretty much. A small timer, especially in relation to his reputation.

In this case, the guy who CREATED THE WHOLE UNIVERSE AND EVERYTHING IN IT, according to him, is the guy who proves he exists by putting his mother's face on toast. On only one side. Low resolution. And you have to squint...

Piker fits. What does god risk? Nada.

If you want to understand how intractable religion is all's you have to do is look at the imagined images in all sorts of things. There was a dirty road sign that was supposed to look like Mary, not that we know what she looked like.

I see it as a thousand years of the RCC pounding superstition into an ignorant superstitious culture.

 

[Learner]

Christians, Muslims, Jews, etc - why does your god need you to proselytize for him?
Is he not powerful enough to bring the word himself? Needs the superior hand of the human to do it for him?

If a personal (unchanging) God were an actual thing, s/he/it would be able to communicate directly with every living thing in its creation. The (unchanging) sun, for example, needs no human to explain its existence or its actions to any other human.

Angels don't need proof of God's existence... YET some still went against God. God interacted with men back in ancient times YET men still opposed or ignored God , hence forth the NT etc..

When I look at you proselytizing, all I see is insecurity and fear. You know your god can't work without you, so in your fear of the truth that he's not there, you frantically try to use your human voice to create him so that he exists.

Fear is a crucial key element , by a certain way overlooked, that was intentionally emphasised on by Jesus, imo because we were bound to be falling short on every covenant (hence two greatest commandments by Jesus). Atheists have often brought up the cruelty notion such as "the fear of God" and "threat of Hell" which seeing from a psychological POV of early Christian Saints : The so-called gullible fearful Christians would be telling you the "truth and nothing but the truth", so to speak.

In short I have a faith in the gospels and early Christians i.e. I "trust" they were telling the truth.

 

[Rhea]

Christians, Muslims, Jews, etc - why does your god need you to proselytize for him?
Is he not powerful enough to bring the word himself? Needs the superior hand of the human to do it for him?

If a personal (unchanging) God were an actual thing, s/he/it would be able to communicate directly with every living thing in its creation. The (unchanging) sun, for example, needs no human to explain its existence or its actions to any other human.

Angels don't need proof of God's existence... YET some still went against God. God interacted with men back in ancient times YET men still opposed or ignored God , hence forth the NT etc..

You are confusing "believes completely in god and doesn't like him"
with "Lack of belief that it even exists or ever did."

It is surprising that you would confuse these two things as they have utterly different causes and utterly different solutions.
I expect an omnipotent god would not be confused by these two completely different things.

None of us is arguing about whether we would obey your god, by the way.
In case you had not noticed that.
The argument is that it doesn't even exist. It's imaginary. There is not a shred of convincing evidence for it outside of emotional feel-good appeal.

I wonder why you would confuse these two things. It's curious, you know? Do you really not understand the different between hating/rebelling someone and not believing that they even exist? It seems so obvious and clear, but there you are not telling the difference. So strange. Why do you think you can't distinguish?

Because nobody hates things they don't believe in. No one rebels against thing they don't believe exist.

When I look at you proselytizing, all I see is insecurity and fear. You know your god can't work without you, so in your fear of the truth that he's not there, you frantically try to use your human voice to create him so that he exists.

Fear is a crucial key element, that was sort of intentional emphasised on by Jesus, imo because we were bound to be falling short on every covenant (hence two greatest commandments by Jesus). Atheists have often brought up the cruelty notion such as "the fear of God" and "threat of Hell" which seeing from a psychological POV of early Christian Saints : The so-called gullible fearful Christians would be telling you the "truth and nothing but the truth", so to speak.

In short I have faith in the early Christians i.e. I "trust" they were telling the truth.

And I'm asking, why does your god rely on you trusting humans to believe in it?
Seems like it is just begging for mistakes.
Actually, it seems like exactly what would happen if there were no god at all.

 

[Learner]

You are confusing "believes completely in god and doesn't like him"
with "Lack of belief that it even exists or ever did."

It is surprising that you would confuse these two things as they have utterly different causes and utterly different solutions.
I expect an omnipotent god would not be confused by these two completely different things.

None of us is arguing about whether we would obey your god, by the way.
In case you had not noticed that.

The argument is that it doesn't even exist. It's imaginary. There is not a shred of convincing evidence for it outside of emotional feel-good appeal.

I wonder why you would confuse these two things. It's curious, you know? Do you really not understand the different between hating/rebelling someone and not believing that they even exist? It seems so obvious and clear, but there you are not telling the difference. So strange. Why do you think you can't distinguish?

Because nobody hates things they don't believe in. No one rebels against thing they don't believe exist

And I'm asking, why does your god rely on you trusting humans to believe in it?
Seems like it is just begging for mistakes.
Actually, it seems like exactly what would happen if there were no god at all.

I just didn't complete the explanation in my previous post that gave you that impression, now seeing the angle of the above. I should be saying that God is not going to try and convince us "anymore" like the past... no direct interaction. Its all gospels of Jesus from here on. THe reason why this is the only faith with the terms "TESTIMONY" and "WITNESSING". Obviously not all will accept this seriously (only those who are willing to hear) .


The theology is sound.

 

[Rhea]

You are confusing "believes completely in god and doesn't like him"
with "Lack of belief that it even exists or ever did."

It is surprising that you would confuse these two things as they have utterly different causes and utterly different solutions.
I expect an omnipotent god would not be confused by these two completely different things.

None of us is arguing about whether we would obey your god, by the way.
In case you had not noticed that.

The argument is that it doesn't even exist. It's imaginary. There is not a shred of convincing evidence for it outside of emotional feel-good appeal.

I wonder why you would confuse these two things. It's curious, you know? Do you really not understand the different between hating/rebelling someone and not believing that they even exist? It seems so obvious and clear, but there you are not telling the difference. So strange. Why do you think you can't distinguish?

Because nobody hates things they don't believe in. No one rebels against thing they don't believe exist

And I'm asking, why does your god rely on you trusting humans to believe in it?
Seems like it is just begging for mistakes.
Actually, it seems like exactly what would happen if there were no god at all.

I just didn't complete the explanation in my previous post that gave you that impression, now seeing the angle of the above. I should be saying that God is not going to try and convince us "anymore" like the past... no direct interaction. Its all gospels of Jesus from here on. THe reason why this is the only faith with the terms "TESTIMONY" and "WITNESSING". Obviously not all will accept this seriously (only those who are willing to hear) .

Why would a god do that?
And why would it let only humans pass on that directive?
"I give up on you"?
Because, why, he's punching below his weight?
He can't handle parenthood so it's time to chain the kids in a cage?

The theology is sound.

The logic isn't, though.
Theology is all about "do what feels good". You know, believe in heaven because it feels good to do so. Imagine the people you don't like in hell because that feels good, too.

But that's still all humans telling you stuff.
Which seems to satisfy you as being "divine" somehow. Which I just can't figure out, but it clearly satisfies you.

 

[Underseer]

Proselytizing is needed because god isn't real and because it makes the political control mechanism more useful for those with political power.