M-13 - Missionary Work

[Elocin4684]

Well, I believe that missionary work is wrong. It takes what a culture has devoloped over the past centuries and destroys it in a year. I know missionary people think they are doing the right thing, but, if you really do believe in a god, it is my opinion that this god wouldn't make more than half the world wrong. (Only about 1/3 of the world, if that much, is Christian.) I remember talking to my suitemate over the summer and telling her about those poor Buddhists and stuff (that religion was just an example and was the first non-book religion that popped into my head) and how people should just leave them alone and leave them at their beliefs and she just looks at me and says, "That's why we have missionaries". That really made me mad. People shouldn't be playing god, and going in and changing their whole belief system is kind of playing god. They have a wonderful culture that shouldn't be tampered with. Anyways, most of the time they just incorporate Jesus into their native religion, which, I'm sure that's not what the missionaries wanted.

I just wish people would stop thinking more than half the world wrong. I don't think they're wrong; to each their own god. If it's not hurting you, then why try to fix it?

Anyways, what do yall think about missionary work?

[Midnightsfire]

I think this may be in the wrong spot...(The Chapel is not a debate forum FYI) If it gets moved I'll post my opinion...

[Elocin4684]

well, that's what I thought, but then my Mary Magdalene thread got moved here... we'll see what happens

[Morgoth]

This is more of a debate topic, so I moved it here.

[daniel4hp]

As long as missionaries carry out their work in the right way, I approve. It is my belief that in order for people to be "saved," they must believe in the Christian God. I'm not here to debate that point, that's not what this thread is about. But, considering that belief, I think that it is important that people reach out to other cultures to teach them what the Bible says.

Now, as I said above, this has to be done the right way, and often it is not done in the right way. Missionaries should be respectful of the culture and treat them as equals. Never should a missionary force his belief on a native, but should, rather, teach what they believe, show the God that is revealed in the Bible, and then let God do the rest.

But, when this is done correctly, and the missionary is respectful of the other culture while teaching what I believe to be true, then I fully approve of missionary work. I think that God calls Christians to reach out to non-believers, that all might have the opportunity for salvation. As long as the missionaries take the right approach, I think they are doing a very important job in spreading the gospel.

[Elocin4684]

Well, if you're for this type of missionary work, then ask yourself this question:

If somebody came and talked to me about Muhammad and told me all the good things about the Muslim religion and then asked me in the end what I thought, would I be offended and mad at this person becauese I thought he was trying to convert me to his religion?

If you answered, no, you wouldn't be offended, then you're not a hypocrit and I have respect for you

If you answered yes, you would be offended, I ask you what is the difference between Christian missionaries and this man's doings. If you say he is Muslim, then I really think you should be open minded to people being other religions.

Being oppressed for your religion is no fun at all, trust me, and people trying to convert you constantly is not really fun, either.

[remusjlupin1980]

Missionary works nowadays are not necessarily bad. Just as long as the missionaries don't FORCE people to convert and they take the time to learn how to understand the local culture and traditions and try to assimilate Christian beliefs (or whatever beliefs the missionaries are spreading) with the local cultures and traditions. I've heard of a lot of tribes whose cultures and traditions were enriched by Christian influences.

[Wab]

Now, as I said above, this has to be done the right way, and often it is not done in the right way. Missionaries should be respectful of the culture and treat them as equals.

How on one hand can a missionary be respectful of a culture (where the other religion is central to the culture) yet believe that the missionary's religion is better?

[Doggy]

My parents have been misionaries, and I lived abroad with them for several years, while they worked. I think that missionary work is absolutely ok, if you don't push your way in and change everything. Let everything move slowly. Let the people there choose if they want to listen. Don't force your faith onto the people. Respect that the people often have very different cultures, don't start insisting to Christmas trees and hiding eggs just because inhabitants of a place has become Christian. Instead, let develope their own culture, in the light of their new belief.

[ANDTORR]

a missionarys job, is usualy first to help the people with their basic needs and education and such, and then comes the christian word, and we arent like the spanish and french and stuff like 400 years ago which was "either you belive in our got or we kill you" no we just tell them Gods message and as the oracle in the matrix says so well "Let them make up their own **** minds."

[Midnightsfire]

Missionary work Feh!

If it weren't for missionaries, Christianity wouldn't be as prevalent as it is today. :td:

If it weren't for missionaries, other native peoples and cultures would have thrived. Religions and beliefs would have been more diverse...

Mission: Possible (http://www.geocities.com/iconoclastes.geo/mission.html)

The conclusion from link:

While some of these examples of missionary activities in history and present indeed remind me of actual death camps, however, all of them end in the destruction and depopulation of what once was the home of happy native cultures. Therefore, regardless of their respective intentions, I cannot see any relevant difference between missionaries and the Nazi henchmen (except that in Nazi death camps there were musical instruments).
As long as operations like these can claim tax-exempt status, your money and taxes support these activities.

Again I say Feh!

[daniel4hp]

If somebody came and talked to me about Muhammad and told me all the good things about the Muslim religion and then asked me in the end what I thought, would I be offended and mad at this person becauese I thought he was trying to convert me to his religion?
I wouldn't be offended. I wouldn't convert to Islam, but I respect that he has a right to tell me about what he believes, and I understand that what he believes is just as important to him as what I believe is to me. If he wants to tell me about his faith, as long as he doesn't do it in a rude way, I'm fine with it. :)

How on one hand can a missionary be respectful of a culture (where the other religion is central to the culture) yet believe that the missionary's religion is better?
It comes down to what that missionary believes. If the missionary believes in absolute truth -- in other words, if it is their belief that in order for the native to be saved, they must convert to Christianity (or Islam, or whatever the missionary is spreading) -- then it is perfectly possible to be repsectful of the culture while still believing that they must convert to Christianity.

As long as the missionary understands the cultural richness of the native culture, understands what their culture means to them, and tries to present Christianity in a way that blends with their culture (while keeping the core message), then they are being respectful of what the native believes. If they come in with a gun and say that the native must abandon his culture and way of life, that's another story. But I certainly think that the missionary can teach Christianity while still understanding the importance of the native culture and honoring it.

Just as long as the missionaries don't FORCE people to convert and they take the time to learn how to understand the local culture and traditions and try to assimilate Christian beliefs (or whatever beliefs the missionaries are spreading) with the local cultures and traditions.
I totally agree. :tu:

[Wab]

At the heart of all evangelical missionary work is arrogance: My beliefs are right yours are wrong. Why else would they try to convert unbelievers?

[remusjlupin1980]

At the heart of all evangelical missionary work is arrogance: My beliefs are right yours are wrong. Why else would they try to convert unbelievers?

Not all missionary work are like that. As I said above, I think the missionary should understanding for the local cultures and beliefs. Perhaps Christianity can add to that their present beliefs. There's a tribe in the Philippines who added Christian traditions to their beliefs in forest spirits, elementals and nature gods. They believe in Jesus yet maintained their culture, traditions and beliefs. If the natives choose to reject Christianity, then I don't think the missionary should force it on them. That is what is arrogant.

[Azimuth]

Only about 1/3 of the world, if that much, is Christian

Thankfully, it's alot less than that.

At the heart of all evangelical missionary work is arrogance: My beliefs are right yours are wrong. Why else would they try to convert unbelievers?

Exactly. Why do they try to convert non-believers, anyway? What's the point? Can't they just accept that people have other beliefs?

[JofpGallagher]

Only about 1/3 of the world, if that much, is Christian.

Thankfully, it's alot less than that.

....And Thankfully, people that think that we should be everyday less and less people are way alot less than that.

[Azimuth]

....And Thankfully, people that think that we should be everyday less and less people are way alot less than that.

Er, what? That didn't make sense. :shrug:

What I meant was, I am glad that there are so many different religions and cultures in the world, and there isn't just like one religion that goes around telling other people what to believe. :agree:

[JofpGallagher]

Er, what? That didn't make sense. :shrug:

What I meant was, I am glad that there are so many different religions and cultures in the world, and there isn't just like one religion that goes around telling other people what to believe. :agree:

I'm very sorry since I misunderstood your meaning. Since you quoted me, nothing I can do deleting my post, so I hope my apologies do the work. :)

[daniel4hp]

At the heart of all evangelical missionary work is arrogance: My beliefs are right yours are wrong. Why else would they try to convert unbelievers?
Its not arrogance, or at least, its not direct arrogance. Evangelical missionaries believe that the Bible teaches that people who do not put their faith in Jesus will go to hell, because, according to these beliefs, Jesus is the only way to heaven. Now, obviously many people disagree with this belief, but what I'm saying is that this is what evangelical missionaries believe, and thus, these people feel obligated to spread the gospel to other people, so that they too may believe. They aren't saying that they are better, only that they know (or believe that they know) the thing that the Native people need in order for a blissful afterlife.

Now, you might believe that this belief that salvation is only in Jesus to be, essentially, arrogent. That might be what you choose to believe. But, what my point is, is that evangelical missionary work is not, in any case, directly propelled by arrogance. It is propelled by what these people believe to be true. What they believe to be true is their choice. And, because of this belief, they feel that, in order to help the native people, they need to teach Christianity to them. Evangelican missionaries aren't saying that they are better than the natives. Rather, they feel that they have something that the natives need, and they therefore want to help them.

[firebolt2000]

I guess it has been through my bad experiences with missionaries approaching me, but I do not agree with mission trips and missionary work.

Several Mormon missionaries have told me that I am going to Hell because I choose to remain Jewish and not convert to their religion. When I see that people are abusing their job like this, it just makes me have less respect for the mission trips. I agree with mission trips that go out and build things like schools, etc. but I do not agree with the trips that try to convert people. It reminds me of the Puritans trying to "purify" the Church. Like Midnights said, the religions would be more diverse if it weren't for Christian missions, and we might all have more acceptance for others of different backgrounds with diversity.

[Hagrid442]

I believe there is nothing wrong with conversion as long as it is not imposed. If, say, Christianity is given as an option, and you give a clear, coherent synopsis of what Christ is all about, that's fine. People will convert out of their own accord. However, if the missionary has an arrogant view of the others' religion, and crams it down their collective throats, that's sure to backfire. The best way to convert is to lead by example. Show them what a good Christian should do. Calling the other religion "false" and proselytizing leaves a bad impression.

Kinda like these morons. (http://www.portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/12/27/wirq27.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/12/27/ixhome.html) It's bad enough that those in power want to impose a government on Iraq. But they also want to impose religion? God deliver us from misguided, ignorant Evangelicals.

[LewsTherin]

I don't see anything wrong with missionary work. My church is often seen as a "missions" church, and I can tell you that they don't go around and Bible-bash people - they are invited wherever they go. They also do humanitarian work, helping people to become self-sufficient by training them in various technical skills. Thus, people actually want missionaries from out church to come, and often, there simply aren't enough missionaries to go. So, missionary work is not all bad.

Also, you must remember that missionaries are simply doing what they believe is right. You may believe them trying to convert people is wrong, but to them it is part of their core beliefs. So, respect their beliefs and they might just respect yours. I agree that missionaries sometimes (unfortunately more often than not) do more harm than good, but there are some truly good people who do a great deal of good whereever they go. So, don't judge all of Christianity based on a few musguided individuals.

Anyway, I believe the best way to do missionary work can be summed up in one qoute: "Go out today and preach the Gospel and if you must, use words."

[Midnightsfire]

Bible Belt Missionaries set out for a "War for Souls" in Iraq (http://www.portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/12/27/wirq27.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/12/27/ixhome.html)

American Christian missionaries have declared a "war for souls" in Iraq, telling supporters that the formal end of the US-led occupation next June will close an historic "window of opportunity".

Organising in secrecy, and emphasising their humanitarian aid work, Christian groups are pouring into the country, which is 97 per cent Muslim, bearing Arabic Bibles, videos and religious tracts designed to "save" Muslims from their "false" religion.

The International Mission Board, the missionary arm of the Southern Baptists, is one of those leading the charge.

John Brady, the IMB's head for the Middle East and North Africa, this month appealed to the 16 million members of his church, the largest Protestant denomination in America.

"Southern Baptists have prayed for years that Iraq would somehow be opened to the gospel," his appeal began. That "open door" for Christians may soon close.

"Southern Baptists must understand that there is a war for souls under way in Iraq," his bulletin added, listing Islamic leaders and "pseudo-Christian" groups also flooding Iraq as his chief rivals.

The missionaries are mainly evangelicals who reject talk of Muslims and Christians worshipping the same God.

Jerry Vines, former head of the Southern Baptist Convention, has described the Prophet Mohammed as a "demon-obsessed paedophile". Franklin Graham, son of Billy Graham and the head of Samaritan's Purse, a big donor to Iraq, has described Islam as a "very evil and wicked religion".

The missionaries pose a dilemma for President George W Bush. He has reached out to Muslims since September 11, shrugging off criticism from evangelicals to describe Islam as "peaceful". But Christian conservatives are also a key Bush constituency: Franklin Graham delivered the invocation prayer at his presidential inauguration.

The US Agency for International Development has said that the government cannot rein in private charities. "Imagine what the US Congress would say to us," said a spokesman in April.

Jon Hanna, an evangelical from Ohio who has recently returned from Iraq, applied for a new passport to travel there, describing himself as a humanitarian worker. "I was worried the US authorities might try to stop us, might be worried we were going to start a riot with our Bibles."

In Baghdad last month Mr Hanna met two other American missionary teams. One, from Indiana, had shipped in 1.3 million Christian tracts. "A US passport is all you need to get in, until the new Iraqi government takes over. What we thought was a two-year window, originally, has narrowed down to a six month window," said Mr Hanna, an evangelical minister and editor of Connection Magazine, a Christian newspaper in Ohio.

He describes Islam as "false". He cited St John's Gospel, saying: "Who is the liar? It is the man who denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a man is the antichrist."

Mr Hanna concluded: "The Muslim religion is an antichrist religion." Later Mr Hanna asked to retract that choice of words. "Without the reader hearing my voice and looking into my eyes as I made that statement, it would be easy for certain readers to feel personally attacked and be offended," Mr Hanna wrote by email. "That would be unfruitful."

He rejected the suggestion that aid work was a "cover" for missionary work, preferring to call it a "conduit for sharing the gospel of Jesus. Christians are commanded to minister to the hungry, but also to the hunger of the spirit. It can't be separated," he said.

In public, the largest groups put the emphasis on their delivery of food parcels and their medical work. However, their internal fund-raising materials emphasise mission work. One IMB bulletin reported aid workers handing out copies of the New Testament and praying with Muslim recipients. Another bulletin said Iraqis understood "who was bringing the food . . . it was the Christians from America."

Southern Baptists from North Carolina visited Iraq in October to help hand out 45,000 boxes of donated food. One of the team, Jim Walker, told IMB's Urgent News bulletin that he met village children "starved of attention and I could tell some of them have not eaten well. But their biggest need is to know the love of Christ."

Mr Hanna said he encountered friendly curiosity, with noisy crowds gathering to take his group's tracts. "Maybe 10 per cent were hostile." He was one of 21 on his mission including Jackie Cone, 72, a Pentecostalist grandmother from Ohio who said God had told her to join a second mission planned for next year. "I sensed Him telling me to come back in January," she said.

Mrs Cone is confident she made converts in Baghdad. In her hotel she met a Muslim woman on crutches with a leg operation due that day. Mrs Cone knelt on the lobby floor and prayed that surgery would not be required.

"I saw her that evening and she said God had healed her, and she hadn't needed the surgery. She didn't say Allah, she pointed to Heaven and gave God the glory," she said.

Mrs Cone led the Kurdish woman and her brother in prayer, asking Jesus into their hearts. "I'd given them a Bible and a Jesus video in Arabic. I think they think of themselves as Christians now," she said. "They have the Bible and I hope they will grow in grace."

Muslims are hard converts, American missionaries admit. The large organisations have experts trained in refuting Muslim teachings that Jesus is just another prophet.

Before going to Iraq, Mr Hanna studied Christian training manuals and attended a seminar for missionaries to the Arab world.

Mr Hanna concedes his new Iraqi friends were possibly drawn by the novelty of meeting Americans. "But you don't discount that, you use it as an opportunity to tell them about Jesus. Last time we only took 8,000 Arabic Bibles to Iraq. In future missions the goal is one million."

:nc:

[Wab]

Also, you must remember that missionaries are simply doing what they believe is right.

So were the Nazis.

Quite frankly, I believe that redemption is reserved for the good regardless of what faith (even if they have none) they profess.

[LewsTherin]

So were the Nazis.

Just remember, some missionaries are good people. Some make mistakes, sure, but no-one is perfect, so forgive them. Comparing them to Nazis is unnecessary and an insult to those whose hearts are in the right place.

[Midnightsfire]

Just remember, some missionaries are good people. Some make mistakes, sure, but no-one is perfect, so forgive them. Comparing them to Nazis is unnecessary and an insult to those whose hearts are in the right place.Some missionaries aren't good people and I myself woudn't compare them to nazis, despite such evil actions (http://www.geocities.com/iconoclastes.geo/mission.html).

All in the name of God.

From link:

While some of these examples of missionary activities in history and present indeed remind me of actual death camps, however, all of them end in the destruction and depopulation of what once was the home of happy native cultures. Therefore, regardless of their respective intentions, I cannot see any relevant difference between missionaries and the Nazi henchmen (except that in Nazi death camps there were musical instruments).
As long as operations like these can claim tax-exempt status, your money and taxes support these activities.

[Hagrid442]

Bible Belt Missionaries set out for a "War for Souls" in Iraq (http://www.portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/12/27/wirq27.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/12/27/ixhome.html)



Midnightsfire! I posted that exact same article two posts up!!
:lol:

[Midnightsfire]

By the gods!!! :blush:

Umm...

*remembers all those posts that he insisted that others really read the thread*

http://www.click-smilies.de/sammlung0903/aktion/action-smiley-077.gif

[Wab]

Just remember, some missionaries are good people. Some make mistakes, sure, but no-one is perfect, so forgive them. Comparing them to Nazis is unnecessary and an insult to those whose hearts are in the right place.

I did not compare any missionary to Nazis (although I expected this response). I merely stated that the mindset that drives them is sometimes alike. That is, I'm right, so any harm is done in the greater good and if I do harm that's okay because my heart was in the right place.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions and "good people" just can't wait to join the road crew.

[Elocin4684]

My parents have been misionaries, and I lived abroad with them for several years, while they worked. I think that missionary work is absolutely ok, if you don't push your way in and change everything. Let everything move slowly. Let the people there choose if they want to listen. Don't force your faith onto the people. Respect that the people often have very different cultures, don't start insisting to Christmas trees and hiding eggs just because inhabitants of a place has become Christian. Instead, let develope their own culture, in the light of their new belief.

Your comments are ver ironic in saying Christmas trees and Easter eggs are the Christian way to do things. Both those traditions were taken from Pagan beliefs.

[Elocin4684]

Evangelical missionaries believe that the Bible teaches that people who do not put their faith in Jesus will go to hell, because, according to these beliefs, Jesus is the only way to heaven.... Evangelican missionaries aren't saying that they are better than the natives. Rather, they feel that they have something that the natives need, and they therefore want to help them.


I was always under the impression that if somebody did not know about Jesus their whole life, than supposedly god would forgive them because they did not know better. Based on this, why can't people leave other people alone? If they do not know, than supposedly they will go to heaven.

[Elocin4684]

Several Mormon missionaries have told me that I am going to Hell because I choose to remain Jewish and not convert to their religion. When I see that people are abusing their job like this, it just makes me have less respect for the mission trips. I agree with mission trips that go out and build things like schools, etc. but I do not agree with the trips that try to convert people. It reminds me of the Puritans trying to "purify" the Church. Like Midnights said, the religions would be more diverse if it weren't for Christian missions, and we might all have more acceptance for others of different backgrounds with diversity.


You know, you just can't win. One church will tell you you're going to hell and then you convert to their church, and the another church tells you that you are going to hell because you belong to a diff church and you should be in theirs.

Now, about the school building and stuff, it is my belief that rather or not the missioniaries advertise that they are there to convert or not, it is their mission to convert (a little redundant in vocab, sorry). If they build a school, then they think people will see how good they are and they owe them the conversion and they will convert, or other thoughts along that line. No matter what the main object supposedly is, missionaries will always be there to convert people.

[Elocin4684]

Also, you must remember that missionaries are simply doing what they believe is right. You may believe them trying to convert people is wrong, but to them it is part of their core beliefs. So, respect their beliefs and they might just respect yours.

Well, I believe most of our problems here is that we think these people aren't respecting said convertees' beliefs. Therefore, it's really hard for us to respect the converters' beliefs. Did that make any sense? I know I don't speak for everybody, but it sounds like some people are thinking along those lines.

[Elocin4684]

Midnight, that article makes me sick. People are just rushing in there and taking advantage of a country in chaos. Where did you find that article?

This just prooves that it is no longer enough to believe in the wisdom and goodness of Jesus. Muslim people do, but I guess they want them to be Southern Baptists as well.

[Silvilocks]

I was always under the impression that if somebody did not know about Jesus their whole life, than supposedly god would forgive them because they did not know better. Based on this, why can't people leave other people alone? If they do not know, than supposedly they will go to heaven.

Nice point! I've heard that explanation from representatives of two or three religions. If the churches followed your suggestion, people who genuinely don't have the resources to learn about any religion would automatically go to heaven, and people like me who've made a conscious decision to reject religion wouldn't keep being pestered by those who want to spread "their" word.

[Nelran]

Bah, missionary work :td:

[daniel4hp]

I was always under the impression that if somebody did not know about Jesus their whole life, than supposedly god would forgive them because they did not know better. Based on this, why can't people leave other people alone? If they do not know, than supposedly they will go to heaven.
Depends who you ask. Some Christians hold this view, but many hold the view that outside of believing that Jesus is the Son of God, no one can be saved, so it is essential to give all people the opportunity to hear about Jesus, so they can possibly convert and go to heaven. This also explains why Muslums must convert -- they believe in the goodness of Jesus, but, according to Christians who feel you must believe that Jesus is the Son of God, these people can't be saved unless they accept this.

Well, I believe most of our problems here is that we think these people aren't respecting said convertees' beliefs. Therefore, it's really hard for us to respect the converters' beliefs. Did that make any sense? I know I don't speak for everybody, but it sounds like some people are thinking along those lines.
Yes, that makes sense. Its along the lines that it is hard to be tollerent of someone who refuses to be tollerent; if you don't act a certain way, you can't expect others to act that way towards you.

I guess it comes down to what you consider respect. Lets say that someone believes that in order for any person to be saved, they must believe that Jesus is the Son of God. This person, therefore, feels compelled by their beliefs to tell others about Jesus. Now, they go about doing this in very peaceable way, without forcing their beliefs on anyone. They try to set a good example, show love and care for the native people, and tell the natives about their beliefs. They don't force the natives to convert, but they do make it clear that they believe the people need to convert in order to be saved. Are these people respecting the native's religious beliefs?

See, I would say that they are. They believe that the native's are wrong -- that is just what their religion tells them -- but at the same time, they are going in with a loving and caring attitude, and after saying what they have to say, let the native's make up their own minds. I think that as long as they don't force their beliefs on the natives, then what they are doing is fine. You can't get beyond the missionary's belief in absolute truth, but as long as the missionary doesn't force them to convert, but allows them to decide for themselves, you can't ask for more.

[Nelran]

Throughout the early Christian period, every great calamity -- famine, earthquake, and plague -- led to mass conversions, another indirect influence by which epidemic diseases contributed to the destruction of classical civilization. Christianity owes a formidable debt to bubonic plague and to smallpox, no less than to earthquake and volcanic eruptions and today, the missionaries are doing the exact same thing with wars, AIDS & dictatorial governments. Don't trust 'em, don't like 'em, don't trust a group of people who only help others because of a command from their god. Like human compassion isn't enough to warrant helping others.

Why would you trust a group of people who sit in a Church several thousand miles away, plotting on how to 'help' and at the same time pass on their beliefs. What kind of people do that? It's so covert and sinister. Then you convert and it turns the country into a pit of religious indifference. Take Nigeria today. And now they're heading too Iraq to bring the 'good news.' There's already Sunni & Shia conflict and you propose that adding Christianity to the mix is going to solve anything? You may feel commanded to help these people, but use some common sense first!

[Benzo]

The missionaries are doing the exact same thing with wars, AIDS & dictatorial governments. Don't trust 'em, don't like 'em, don't trust a group of people who only help others because of a command from their god. Like human compassion isn't enough to warrant helping others.

Why would you trust a group of people who sit in a Church several thousand miles away, plotting on how to 'help' and at the same time pass on their beliefs. What kind of people do that? It's so covert and sinister. Then you convert and it turns the country into a pit of religious indifference. Take Nigeria today. And now they're heading too Iraq to bring the 'good news.' There's already Sunni & Shia conflict and you propose that adding Christianity to the mix is going to solve anything? You may feel commanded to help these people, but use some common sense first!
First :welcome: Nelran

I think you tend to overgeneralize. I can't imagine missionaries using calamities to make people believe in God, come on. I know it exists but missionaries? I think they prefer to help the community and be an example to them. I agree that they present themselves with their faith as THE truth and that bugs me, that leads to dissenssion (Eng?) among the community and how can they be so sure their God is better than theirs....

Sorry but can you tell us more about that part: 'Then you convert and it turns the country into a pit of religious indifference.'?

[Wab]

Don't the missionaries heading to Iraq realise that it is already home to one of the oldest Christian churches in the world?

If anyone was to evangelise with a bit of respect for the varying traditions of Islamic Iraq it's the Assyrians.

[LewsTherin]

I'd just like to say that not all missionaries go out to bible-bash people. Some, like those from my church, go out where they are badly needed. Yes, they preach the Gospel, but they also bring financial and technical aid to people who quite literally have nothing. And if the people are not interested in the Gospel, then the missionaries don't preach about it, but still render any assistance they can. And they do it because, one, the believe God has told them to, and two, because they have genuine compassion for the people they're ministering to. They go out to, above all, serve the people and if they convert, then that's great, if they don't, they don't.

I don't deny that missionaries in the past have not done wrong things, indeed, they've done some horrific, even evil, things. I also don't deny that such things probably still happen today. But, there are a precious few who do do what they do because they genuinly want to make a difference, and they are making a difference. So, don't judge the good missionaries based on the actions of a bunch fools who have completely missed the point of missionary work.

[kaitlyne]

I don't agree with missionary work because I believe that I have no right to force my religion on others. First of all I think that we all worship the same God through different means, but even without that the way I see it there are so many different religions in the world, and every person believes that his or her religion is the correct one, and therefore why is it my place to tell anyone else that they are wrong?

On the other hand, some missionaries do very good work, building homes, schools, offering food and clothing, things like that. I am totally for people offering services like that, I just don't feel that those services should be about conversion, I think they should be about doing good for another person.

[haycheng]

I do not understand why some posters are so against missionary. In my church(and other churchs I have been to), become a Christisan is a very important and not a easy thing. I am currently taking sunday school for my baptize. I have to write a personal essay on why I chose Christ as my Personal Savior. The missionary merely give people the idea of their religious, I choose to seek them. Without missionary work, how can others heard the good new? I doubt true Christisans want to force the religjous into others. A faith that is force upon is not truely a faith. The person would not truely be saved in Christisan sense anyways. What the point of doing all the work if they do not truely accepting Shrist.

By the way, some of the missionary work are not right. I was in a angelic(? do I remember it correctly?) primary school and Catholic High School when I was back in HK, they force us to study the Bible. It is just a very sad way to get someone to be a Christisans. It did not work either. Although it is certain good to know all the detail now that I plan to baptize.

[Midnightsfire]

Midnight, that article makes me sick. People are just rushing in there and taking advantage of a country in chaos. Where did you find that article?

I've neglected this...my apologies.

The info on that link posted (http://www.geocities.com/iconoclastes.geo/mission.html) is from a pair of books:

N.Lewis, The Missionaries, New York: McGraw-Hill 1988

D.E.Stannard, American Holocaust. Columbus and the Conquest of the New World, New York: Oxford University 1992

Vile stuff...

[Elocin4684]

I think the problem I have with missionary work is the fact that they go into really poor regions of countries. Now, the work they do is good by bringing food and stuff, but I would rather see a nonreligious group do this. It seems that they are very backhanded in doing this when they say they're there to just aid these people but they brought along bibles just in case. These people being helped probably feel that if they don't convert, then the missionary work might stop, leaving them hungry once again.

Speaking of bringing bibles, this turns my thought onto an event that happened a couple of years ago. Some people (I think colleges students, maybe) decided it would be a good idea to bring bibles into a country to spread the word of their god. This caused them to be arrested. Then, here in the states, all these church groups were outraged and saying it was wrong. They never considered the fact that, in that country, bringing in bibles was against the law. But, no, they didn't care. And it wasn't as if these people just had their personal bibles with them; they had a supply of bibles read to distribute. This is just a missionary work that couldn't even respect the laws of the country.

[haycheng]

I think the problem I have with missionary work is the fact that they go into really poor regions of countries. Now, the work they do is good by bringing food and stuff, but I would rather see a nonreligious group do this. It seems that they are very backhanded in doing this when they say they're there to just aid these people but they brought along bibles just in case. These people being helped probably feel that if they don't convert, then the missionary work might stop, leaving them hungry once again.

Speaking of bringing bibles, this turns my thought onto an event that happened a couple of years ago. Some people (I think colleges students, maybe) decided it would be a good idea to bring bibles into a country to spread the word of their god. This caused them to be arrested. Then, here in the states, all these church groups were outraged and saying it was wrong. They never considered the fact that, in that country, bringing in bibles was against the law. But, no, they didn't care. And it wasn't as if these people just had their personal bibles with them; they had a supply of bibles read to distribute. This is just a missionary work that couldn't even respect the laws of the country.
you are right to a certain extend. However, the missionary work are not like that(most of them anyway). Mother Teresa is famous for taking of sick and drying without forcing them to convert.
As for Bible in that certain country, is it china? If it is, China does not allow any major group to form, not just christisan. China have not feedom of religious(although that may not be true anymore. The law is there but the government generally trun a blind eyes toward them no). America and other western countries are just so willing to get into business of others. I do not see it is related much to religious.

[Elocin4684]

hay, I didn't understand that last thing you said...

No, I'm pretty sure it wasn't China. I think it was a Middle Eastern country that specifically didn't want Christian bibles. That's why it was such a big deal.

China does allow religion, but it is closely monitored. There are Christian churches that preach Chinese government approved material and there are underground Christian churches that smuggle in banned Christian bibles. In my opinion, I don't see how Christianity can be approved by a communist government since they believe that they will take care of you in the afterlife, also. I have heard of no other religions in China doing the underground thing, but I think the Christian underground is so easy to spot because of how structured Christianity is (such as having priests, mass worships, etc.) versus something like Muslim or Budhist where it is common to worship on your own. Also, I don't think a religion like Judaism would take hold in China considering you never hear about Jewish people smuggling in the Torah when it's illegal or trying to convert (it's against their religion to recruit, I do beleive). So, Christianity would be really easy to spot in the underground world of China.

[Wab]

I have heard of no other religions in China doing the underground thing, but I think the Christian underground is so easy to spot because of how structured Christianity is (such as having priests, mass worships, etc.) versus something like Muslim or Budhist where it is common to worship on your own.

Islam is as strcutured as Christianity although not as centralised. For their part Muslims must pray (perform salah) five times a day after performing a ritual cleansing. A lot harder to conceal than silent prayer.

For their part the Chinese have been persecuting Muslims as much as it has other faiths including a virtual war against the Uigha in NW China who the govt claims are terrorists.

[Elocin4684]

Islam is as strcutured as Christianity although not as centralised. For their part Muslims must pray (perform salah) five times a day after performing a ritual cleansing. A lot harder to conceal than silent prayer.

For their part the Chinese have been persecuting Muslims as much as it has other faiths including a virtual war against the Uigha in NW China who the govt claims are terrorists.


Well, when I said structured, I didn't mean the physical practice itself, I meant the heirarchy contained in the church, ie, priests, etc. Although it is easier to conceal silent prayer, most Christians believe they do need to go to church. This causes a mass of people in one place, which is a lot harder to conceal than a single person doing prayer five times a day.

I didn't realize that Muslim was a big religion in China. The only way I really knew about the Christian underground is because Channel One (any American students know about that? watched it in jr high and some of high school) did a report on it.

[Wab]

China's population is 1-2% Muslim and 3-4% Christian (according to the CIA).

The Muslim population goes largely unremarked because it is centred in the remote west of the country and came to China via the old trade routes 1300 years ago rather than via a modern missionary movement.

[Tiberius]

My parents have been misionaries, and I lived abroad with them for several years, while they worked. I think that missionary work is absolutely ok, if you don't push your way in and change everything. Let everything move slowly. Let the people there choose if they want to listen. Don't force your faith onto the people. Respect that the people often have very different cultures, don't start insisting to Christmas trees and hiding eggs just because inhabitants of a place has become Christian. Instead, let develope their own culture, in the light of their new belief.

Don't push your way in? Isn't that what missionary work is all about? Whether it is done fast or slow, whether it is through friendship or by force, doesn't it all end up the same if the missionary is successful? You are going in there and messing around with a people's cultural and religeous beliefs. Lets say I am a missionary anmd I go to New Guinea to convert a tribe called the Shellmikedmu. What right do I have to go in there and start telling them that it is wrong to worship the big wooden totem pole in the clearing in the center of their village? That they shouldn't sacrifice a pig to their god? They didn't want me in there, they never asked me to come, did they? And don't say that they never asked because they don't have communication technology. Even if they had a phone, does that mean they would have called me and said, "Hey, we're worshiping a big log here, can you come and fix that?" Of course not.

Now, I have no wish to offend anyone here, but I've just gotta say...

Christianity teached that if you don't believe in God or Jesus, then you go to Hell, right? But there are other religions that say the same thing. And if you are a Christian, then you obviously aren't a member of any other religion. Now, if, out of all the religions that have ever existed across the face of the planet (a huge number, I'm sure), then Christanity is the only religion that got it all right, then Christians are fine. BUT - if one of the other religions is right (that's assuming anyone got it right at all), then all this business about going to Hell when you die is probably wrong.

Now, I'm an athiest. I don't believe in God. I used to, but I eventualy started thinking, "How do I know that I'm right when I say God exists?" I mean, all we have to go on is a book, right? One book. And even that was written ages ago, in another language, and it has been translated and retranslated down through the ages, so how do we know how accurate it is anymore? We've all heard the joke about the priest who is studying the Bible and realises that the word is CELEBRATE, and they just left out an R somewhere down the line. it raises an interesting point - how do we know that the Bible is right? I have never seen a single piece of evidence to support that. So you have to admit, from a strictly scientific point of view, it could be wrong. Now, I know all of you who are religious say that evidence doesn't matter when you have faith. But when you are using that faith, something personal to you, to change an entire culture, isn't that wrong? "No, you shouldn't worship that totem pole, because I believe in a different God to yours." That's the basics of it. But your belief might be wrong. If you want to believe it, that's fine. But how can you justifiably force your belief onto other people?

And one last thing. How many of you who are religious are religious because it was the way you were brought up? How many of you have actually sat down and thought, "Should I actually be Christian?" I mean, if your parents brought you up as a Christian, you are on the wagon, so to speak. Ask yourself why you have stayed on the wagon. is it because that it is the best place to be, or merely that you haven't bothered to look to see if it is better walking by yourself, alongside the wagon.

Remember, just because you believe in the Bible and God and Jesus, it doesn't mean it really is that way. I might believe that a robber is breaking into my home right now! (I'm at my local library atm.) Now, if I call the police (Help, my home is being robbed!) and they go there, it all might be fine. My belief that a robber was at my place didn't make it true. The same is true of religion. You might believe in God, but that doesn't mean that God is really up there. So I think that everyone should have a good long think about their religious beliefs and see if those beliefs should be re-evaluated.

Okay, many of you are rather upset with me now, aren't you? I apologize. I am an athiest, but it is not, nor has it ever been my intention to force any religious person to give up their beliefs. I was simply making a point. I was playing the part of a missionary for athieism. Many of you who are religious probably felt that I was trying to push you into giving up your religion, right? Trying to change your beliefs. Wasn't nice, was it? That's EXACTLY what missionaries are doing all over the world, and it's WRONG.

If a person wants to be converted, let them decide to do it. But they should never be forced, and that's what missionaries do. They expose non-Christians (or non-Buddists, or non-whatever) to their religion in the hope of converting them. You can't argue with that. Missionaries WANT to convert people, that's the only reason they exist. But it is definately wrong for anyone person to force their beliefs on another person.

[LewsTherin]

I just thought I'd say that there is a great deal of evidence to support the Bible. I've seen countless articles and reports from scientists who openly study the Bible because it is one of the most accurate historical documents available. After all, the Fossil Record and the description of creation (as relates to the order of emergence of life on earth) match each other, for all intents and purposes, exactly.

And I wasn't offended, no. I've had this debate with myself and decided that there is an overwhelming amount of proof for Christianity, if you just open your eyes and look.

And, like I've said before in this thread, some missionaries go out to Bible-bash people, but some don't. Some respect other peoples beliefs and only stay as long as the people want them, or if they're invited. Don't judge all missionaries based on the bad ones.

[Confessor]

Christianity teached that if you don't believe in God or Jesus, then you go to Hell, right? But there are other religions that say the same thing. And if you are a Christian, then you obviously aren't a member of any other religion. Now, if, out of all the religions that have ever existed across the face of the planet (a huge number, I'm sure), then Christanity is the only religion that got it all right, then Christians are fine. BUT - if one of the other religions is right (that's assuming anyone got it right at all), then all this business about going to Hell when you die is probably wrong.

Apparently you haven't read something important. I believe it's called the Bible. There are a few (at least two) passages where it is said that, interpretted together, say that only if you are Christian that you must believe in Christ. If you are of another religion, then you do not 'know' and therefore need not believe in Christ, so long as you make an honest effort to live a good life.

Now, I'm an athiest. I don't believe in God.
Congratulations.

If a person wants to be converted, let them decide to do it. But they should never be forced, and that's what missionaries do. They expose non-Christians (or non-Buddists, or non-whatever) to their religion in the hope of converting them. You can't argue with that. Missionaries WANT to convert people, that's the only reason they exist. But it is definately wrong for anyone person to force their beliefs on another person.
Actually, the base of missionary work is to help out those in need, and through that, hopefully, people will be drawn to the faith due to the 'good works'. Sure they want to convert people, everyone does (besides Buddhists, considering the Dalai Lama(sp) specifically told people not to convert). As some have already said (well, I'm sure they said anyway) that missionary work brings about good things, as that is its basis. The ones who forcefully push their way into whatever in order to convert aren't true Christians/Muslims/Jews/whatever, and, as such, should not be considered actual missionaries. Not to mention forced conversions isn't a true conversion and doesn't actually mean anything.

[Midnightsfire]

Apparently you haven't read something important. I believe it's called the Bible. There are a few (at least two) passages where it is said that, interpretted together, say that only if you are Christian that you must believe in Christ. If you are of another religion, then you do not 'know' and therefore need not believe in Christ, so long as you make an honest effort to live a good life.
Really? Please cite these passages for me. Assuming you can.


Actually, the base of missionary work is to help out those in need, and through that, hopefully, people will be drawn to the faith due to the 'good works'. Sure they want to convert people, everyone does (besides Buddhists, considering the Dalai Lama(sp) specifically told people not to convert). As some have already said (well, I'm sure they said anyway) that missionary work brings about good things, as that is its basis. The ones who forcefully push their way into whatever in order to convert aren't true Christians/Muslims/Jews/whatever, and, as such, should not be considered actual missionaries. Not to mention forced conversions isn't a true conversion and doesn't actually mean anything.
You may wish to read my earlier posts. (Gandhi had good reason to have a poor opinion for missionaries.)

Assuming you can cite the aforementioned passages, I'll cite the ones contradicting them.

[Confessor]

Okay, I was wrong. I'm sorry. The statements were not part of the Bible, to which I attested. But they're still from Christian authority, and so are still important. Though I still apologize for saying they're from the Bible.

Vatican II
This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others within due limits.


Also from The Catechism itself:
[quote]'Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.


Now, my remark on missionaries comes from personal opinion. I have only met one missionary, and, for the most part, recited his words. So you'll understand if my view differs.

[haycheng]

I think people are too opinion against ehe missionary work or any foreign influence. The fact is globalization is happening whatever we like it or not. It is the natural of culture to take in others' idea and continous to transform. It is a believer's job to spread the good new(most religions anyway). I do not see any problem if they do not force people to believe by law or by military might. Beside, a true believer should know better to force a religion into other's life. Most christisan church believe that a true believer must "choice" to believe(also must be well-info) in order to be "saved".

[Tiberius]

Apparently you haven't read something important. I believe it's called the Bible.

Something important? I'd say that the Bible is important only if you're a Christian. I'm not.

There are a few (at least two) passages where it is said that, interpretted together, say that only if you are Christian that you must believe in Christ. If you are of another religion, then you do not 'know' and therefore need not believe in Christ, so long as you make an honest effort to live a good life.

As has already been said, those passages aren't in the Bible, but you've told us the source and the source still sounds pretty good, so I'm going to say that it's just as good as if it had come from the Bible.

But still, that whole thing sounds like, "Aw, you don't share my religious beliefs, but don't worry. You can still come to Heaven and play with me if you want to." Just because I'm not a Christian I still get to go to Heaven because I don't know any better? I DON'T KNOW ANY BETTER? Thanks, but I don't need Christian sympathy. And, btw, I don't like the implication that I am somehow ignorant of some wonderful truth just because I'm not Christian. The vast majority of people on this planet are not Christian. Are they all ignorant too?


I'm an athiest. I don't believe in God.
Congratulations.

You're too kind. (Can you feel the oodles of dripping sarcasm here? Watch your step, the floor may be slippery.) :p

Actually, the base of missionary work is to help out those in need, and through that, hopefully, people will be drawn to the faith due to the 'good works'.

Actually, I'd like to disagree with you here. If I go and help those in need, I'd call myself an aid worker, not a missionary. There is absolutely no need to bring religion into helping people.

Sure they want to convert people, everyone does (besides Buddhists, considering the Dalai Lama(sp) specifically told people not to convert)

Everyone wants to convert people? By what you said I'm assuming you meant that if I find someone who doesn't share my religious beliefs, then I will want to convert him/her. Nothing could be further from the truth. I think everyone should be free to have their own religious beliefs.

As some have already said (well, I'm sure they said anyway) that missionary work brings about good things, as that is its basis.

That's assuming that you think religion is a good thing in the first place. How much conflict, how much bloodshed, how much grief and sorrow and tears for religion? There may be good things about religion, such as a strong moral code (don't kill, etc), but there is a lot about religion that leaves a lot to be desired for my tastes. Homer Simpson said it best: "Why should I go to Church each week just to hear about how I'm going to Hell?" Although that may reflect somewhat on Rev. Lovejoy's preaching methods... :shrug:

The ones who forcefully push their way into whatever in order to convert aren't true Christians/Muslims/Jews/whatever, and, as such, should not be considered actual missionaries. Not to mention forced conversions isn't a true conversion and doesn't actually mean anything.

Isn't it always forced? Or at least, the vast majority of the time? I mean, if a missionary goes to Africa to convert the tribes, isn't he intruding on them? After all, the tribesmen never asked him to come, right?

When you think about it, a missionary is a door-to-door salesman for religion. The houses are just a long way from what we call civilisation, he's not asking the tribesmen for money, and he's not selling dictionaries. But apart from that, it's pretty much the same thing. Now, don't you find door-to-door salesmen annoying? I know I do. Now, imagine a dictionary salesman turns up one day with a shirt that says "BUY A DICTIONARY FROM ME!" But he never says a thing about it. He just stays and does a bit of work, washes the dishes, vacuums the floor, and so on. Wouldn't you get the feeling he was being nice just so you'd buy a dictionary from him? I sure would. And maybe if you felt you needed a dictionary, you might.

BUT...

What if you already had a dictionary? One that had served you well for years? Would you be thinking that maybe his dictionary is better? I'd much prefer to stick with the tried and proven dictionary I already had, thank you.

Sure, you could tell this salesman to bugger off, but there are lots, and I mean LOTS of people out there who wouldn't want to be that rude. So they'd let him stay until eventually that felt that they just had to buy a dictionary from him.

So they buy a dictionary, and throw out their old one. The salesman leaves ("My work here is done!") The proud owner of the brand spanking new dictionary opens it, has a flick through, and discovers something truely amazing.

The new dictionary is, for all intents and purposes EXACTLY THE SAME AS THE OLD ONE!

So, they went through all that trouble to get something that they already had. A bit of a waste of time.

Yes, I think that all religions are basically the same, underneath it all. Sure, the ancient Aztecs may not have believed that the son of one of their gods died nailed to a big wooden cross, but really, Christianity is about a whole lot more than that. The core concepts of Christianity aren't about a guy who died on a hill.

Christianity, and indeed, all religions are about morals. They provide guidlines about how to live our lives as productive members of society. And they also provide answers to the BIG questions. How did everything come into being? What am I here for? What's going to happen when I die? And have you ever noticed that all religions give pretty much the same answers?

The universe was created by a god or group of gods.

You are here to contribute in a positive manner to the society in which you live, and also to have children.

When you die, you will go to a place where you will never know suffering or pain and where you will be happy and peaceful forever.
Sound familiar?

I guarantee you that there is not a single religion in the world that says...

The universe came into being because some guy in a dirty lab coat mixed two chemicals that he shouldn't have and accidentally created the universe in a petri dish.

You aren't really here for anything, but since you are, have some fun.

When you die, you just go into nothingness.

I mean, who wants to hear that? Yet, it could very well be the truth (except for the guy in the dirty lab coat.)

Now, since all religions are basically the same, and since most people converted by missionaries already had religion before the missionaries came (a tribe of athiests living in deepest darkest Africa), isn't this a case of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it?"

Also, let's assume that missionaries are successful, and within the next century every single person on this planet is a Christian. It'll never happen, but I'm sure there are plenty of people out there who think that it should. Wouldn't it be the first step to global conformity? It would be absolutely horrible if that happened! Everyone exactly the same as everyone else? EW! I'd hate to live in a world like that! It is our DIFFERENCES that make the world such an interesting and vibrant place to live. We should celebrate our differences, not eliminate them. it's called IDIC, Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations, and it's something I believe in passionately. After all, if we were all the same, then it would reduce the value of us. "Oh, Steve died? Nevermind, there's another one of him..."

So next time you meet someone of a different faith, don't even think about trying to change them. Maybe you should sit and talk with them for a bit and get a different view on things, because it's always good to be able to see things from another perspective.

[haycheng]

Something important? I'd say that the Bible is important only if you're a Christian. I'm not.



As has already been said, those passages aren't in the Bible, but you've told us the source and the source still sounds pretty good, so I'm going to say that it's just as good as if it had come from the Bible.

But still, that whole thing sounds like, "Aw, you don't share my religious beliefs, but don't worry. You can still come to Heaven and play with me if you want to." Just because I'm not a Christian I still get to go to Heaven because I don't know any better? I DON'T KNOW ANY BETTER? Thanks, but I don't need Christian sympathy. And, btw, I don't like the implication that I am somehow ignorant of some wonderful truth just because I'm not Christian. The vast majority of people on this planet are not Christian. Are they all ignorant too?





You're too kind. (Can you feel the oodles of dripping sarcasm here? Watch your step, the floor may be slippery.) :p



Actually, I'd like to disagree with you here. If I go and help those in need, I'd call myself an aid worker, not a missionary. There is absolutely no need to bring religion into helping people.



Everyone wants to convert people? By what you said I'm assuming you meant that if I find someone who doesn't share my religious beliefs, then I will want to convert him/her. Nothing could be further from the truth. I think everyone should be free to have their own religious beliefs.



That's assuming that you think religion is a good thing in the first place. How much conflict, how much bloodshed, how much grief and sorrow and tears for religion? There may be good things about religion, such as a strong moral code (don't kill, etc), but there is a lot about religion that leaves a lot to be desired for my tastes. Homer Simpson said it best: "Why should I go to Church each week just to hear about how I'm going to Hell?" Although that may reflect somewhat on Rev. Lovejoy's preaching methods... :shrug:



Isn't it always forced? Or at least, the vast majority of the time? I mean, if a missionary goes to Africa to convert the tribes, isn't he intruding on them? After all, the tribesmen never asked him to come, right?

When you think about it, a missionary is a door-to-door salesman for religion. The houses are just a long way from what we call civilisation, he's not asking the tribesmen for money, and he's not selling dictionaries. But apart from that, it's pretty much the same thing. Now, don't you find door-to-door salesmen annoying? I know I do. Now, imagine a dictionary salesman turns up one day with a shirt that says "BUY A DICTIONARY FROM ME!" But he never says a thing about it. He just stays and does a bit of work, washes the dishes, vacuums the floor, and so on. Wouldn't you get the feeling he was being nice just so you'd buy a dictionary from him? I sure would. And maybe if you felt you needed a dictionary, you might.

BUT...

What if you already had a dictionary? One that had served you well for years? Would you be thinking that maybe his dictionary is better? I'd much prefer to stick with the tried and proven dictionary I already had, thank you.

Sure, you could tell this salesman to bugger off, but there are lots, and I mean LOTS of people out there who wouldn't want to be that rude. So they'd let him stay until eventually that felt that they just had to buy a dictionary from him.

So they buy a dictionary, and throw out their old one. The salesman leaves ("My work here is done!") The proud owner of the brand spanking new dictionary opens it, has a flick through, and discovers something truely amazing.

The new dictionary is, for all intents and purposes EXACTLY THE SAME AS THE OLD ONE!

So, they went through all that trouble to get something that they already had. A bit of a waste of time.

Yes, I think that all religions are basically the same, underneath it all. Sure, the ancient Aztecs may not have believed that the son of one of their gods died nailed to a big wooden cross, but really, Christianity is about a whole lot more than that. The core concepts of Christianity aren't about a guy who died on a hill.

Christianity, and indeed, all religions are about morals. They provide guidlines about how to live our lives as productive members of society. And they also provide answers to the BIG questions. How did everything come into being? What am I here for? What's going to happen when I die? And have you ever noticed that all religions give pretty much the same answers?

The universe was created by a god or group of gods.

You are here to contribute in a positive manner to the society in which you live, and also to have children.

When you die, you will go to a place where you will never know suffering or pain and where you will be happy and peaceful forever.
Sound familiar?

I guarantee you that there is not a single religion in the world that says...

The universe came into being because some guy in a dirty lab coat mixed two chemicals that he shouldn't have and accidentally created the universe in a petri dish.

You aren't really here for anything, but since you are, have some fun.

When you die, you just go into nothingness.

I mean, who wants to hear that? Yet, it could very well be the truth (except for the guy in the dirty lab coat.)

Now, since all religions are basically the same, and since most people converted by missionaries already had religion before the missionaries came (a tribe of athiests living in deepest darkest Africa), isn't this a case of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it?"

Also, let's assume that missionaries are successful, and within the next century every single person on this planet is a Christian. It'll never happen, but I'm sure there are plenty of people out there who think that it should. Wouldn't it be the first step to global conformity? It would be absolutely horrible if that happened! Everyone exactly the same as everyone else? EW! I'd hate to live in a world like that! It is our DIFFERENCES that make the world such an interesting and vibrant place to live. We should celebrate our differences, not eliminate them. it's called IDIC, Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations, and it's something I believe in passionately. After all, if we were all the same, then it would reduce the value of us. "Oh, Steve died? Nevermind, there's another one of him..."

So next time you meet someone of a different faith, don't even think about trying to change them. Maybe you should sit and talk with them for a bit and get a different view on things, because it's always good to be able to see things from another perspective.
It is a basis attack on missionary work. You are in fact trying to convert us into your belief at this very moment. You are trying to make us more like you. While it may not be religious, it is still a belief. As longer as you do not resolve to force, I do not see anything wrong with trying to convert other on whatever the issue is.

[Mirtilla]

I'm not against missionary works and to understand the missionarys you need to know why them want to converte people.
I'm chatolic so I speak from a chatolic's point of view. A missionary usually wants to converte people to his religion because he wants that these persons knowing the beauty of Christianity.
For a missionary the meeting with Christ has changed his life, has made his life better because he has experimented something beautiful(his faith in Christ) so it's natural for him to try to get people know how beautiful the meeting with Christ could be, it's his love for others people.

Mirtilla

[Elocin4684]

China's population is 1-2% Muslim and 3-4% Christian (according to the CIA).

The Muslim population goes largely unremarked because it is centred in the remote west of the country and came to China via the old trade routes 1300 years ago rather than via a modern missionary movement.


OK, so the Muslim population is mainly in the west, meaning China does not really care about controlling them. I think China gave up long ago controlling the West. For example, when China was trying to reduce the population by every family only having one child, they threw in the towel when it came to this area of the country because a lot of it is still very agriculturaly based, meaning families have more than one child to help out with farm chores.

[Wab]

OK, so the Muslim population is mainly in the west, meaning China does not really care about controlling them.

Far from it.

"Gross violations of human rights are being perpetrated in the Uighur Autonomous Region of Xinjiang, in the west of China, with little about it being known to the international community. The main victims of these violations are the Uighurs, the majority ethnic group among the predominantly Muslim local population.

Thousands of people have been arbitrarily detained in the region over the past few years and arbitrary arrests continue. Thousands of political prisoners, arrested at various times during the 1990s, are reported to remain imprisoned, some having been sentenced to long prison terms after unfair trials, others still detained without charge or trial after months or years in jail."

http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/ENGASA170181999

[Tiberius]

It is a basis attack on missionary work. You are in fact trying to convert us into your belief at this very moment. You are trying to make us more like you. While it may not be religious, it is still a belief. As longer as you do not resolve to force, I do not see anything wrong with trying to convert other on whatever the issue is.

Haycheng wrote this in response to my post of January 22nd. It was a long post in which I gave an opposite point of view to a previous post by Confessor, as well as giving my thoughts for the purpose of a religion (that being to provide answers for questions that are so big they almost frighten us. Why are we here, what happens when we die, and so on.)

But, Haycheng...

You say I was trying to convert you to my beliefs? You descibed my post as an attack on the ideals of missionary work. But, you seem to consider that in my post, I was acting as a missionary of sorts, and you sure didn't seem to like it.

Let me emphasize: You didn't like me acting as a missionary and trying to convert you to my beliefs about missionary work.

So, is it so hard to believe that other people may be like you, and they don't want to be converted?

I'd actually be very happy if someone, anyone, can answer this question for me: What gives a anyone the right to change one person's religious beliefs to another?

[LewsTherin]

I'd actually be very happy if someone, anyone, can answer this question for me: What gives a anyone the right to change one person's religious beliefs to another?
Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but does the person being converted not choose to adopt another set of beliefs? Some missionaries do Bible-bash people, yes, but it is still up to those they're bashing to decide whether they'll convert or not, no matter how much pressure the bashers may put on them.

If you're talking about tribal cultures, well, they did not have much choice. What (some) missionaries did to them was wrong. I wish what was done could be undone but it cannot be undone, so we should perhaps try to forgive those missionaries. We've lost cultures, sure, but western culture has killed as many tribal cultures, if not more. That's no excuse, I know, but we don't live in a perfect world here, and there are no perfect people in it. Missionaries make mistakes the same as the rest of us - they're only human. So give them a break; theirs is not an easy job.

[haycheng]

I may not like your point of view, but I sure do not mind your opinion. I would be a very sad person if I am offensed so easily. missionaries should not try to force others into their religious though. Religious is something come from the heart and you must truely believe.

As for you question, the answer is no. However, that is oversimplified the issue. The fact is none can convert other unless they are willing to convert. And most of the time, missionaries only provide an alternative solution. None should be forced to chose anything.

This is of course very idealistic. The fact is some missionaries have forced people into their religious(at least on the surface of worshipping. do they actually convert, it is a seperate question.). Anyone would remember the stories of colonial power force others into their religious. Ever today, there are people who consider Islam people are evil.

Outside of religious, we force other to our believe all the time. The Iraq war is a good example. I still remember president bush said, " you are either with us or against us". There was also a time whern US label any foreign politicans we do not like as communists or evil. (we installed couple politicans in other countries)

At the end, none should worry much about christisan missionary. Most of them back aways very easy anyways. I am more worry about the animal right groups, abortion groups(both pro-choice or pro-life), etc. Those people are willing to kill to get their idea approved.

[la_ginny]

At the heart of all evangelical missionary work is arrogance: My beliefs are right yours are wrong. Why else would they try to convert unbelievers?

I disagree completely. At the heart of any missionary work that I have witnessed, or have done myself, is love. It is sacrifice and giving. Much of the missionary work modern Christians do involves work and service in areas that are in need. This can be anything from building homes to providing medical care to teaching people how to read. It's through this giving, these acts of love, that people spread the Gospel message. They don't force it -- Christians believe that by doing these things, they are showing God's love, and people will want to know the message.

I know there are some missionaries who give others a bad reputation. But trust me, it's not the "almighty Christians" heading into the Far East with the sword of truth to slay all their "pagan" rituals and force them into Biblical submission. They just want to help people, and to show them the same kindness they have been shown by God.

Ok, and I had to add this in after I read what others said about missionaries only doing work for people in hopes of getting a conversion in return, bringing their Bibles along in hopes they can force it on people. All I can say is:

Are you kidding? How can you speak about the motivations of missionaries? You don't know, and don't quote the crazies of the world (who unfortunately give atheists far too much to work with). I have been a missionary, and worked with MANY amazing ones. And I can promise you, when we packed up for Mexico, we were just so excited to bring toys to kids in rural areas and build a wall for the church we stayed at. We were excited to hold a bible camp during the days, because the kids were thrilled to play the games with us and hear stories.

When it was all over, we didn't go home and tally up how many people we had "saved." We instead talked about how great it was to give to people who had nothing, and in the process, we passed on some of God's love that He gave to us.

[Wab]

I disagree completely. At the heart of any missionary work that I have witnessed, or have done myself, is love. It is sacrifice and giving. Much of the missionary work modern Christians do involves work and service in areas that are in need. This can be anything from building homes to providing medical care to teaching people how to read.

You missed the key word of my post "evangelical". I have no beef with people who do humanitarian work but I do with people who use that opportunity to prosletyse especially whe it puts the convertees at risk as it did in Taliban Afghanistan.

[Midnightsfire]

Read my prior posts.

[Tiberius]

At the heart of any missionary work that I have witnessed, or have done myself, is love. It is sacrifice and giving. Much of the missionary work modern Christians do involves work and service in areas that are in need. This can be anything from building homes to providing medical care to teaching people how to read. It's through this giving, these acts of love, that people spread the Gospel message.

How can you speak about the motivations of missionaries?

I have been a missionary, and worked with MANY amazing ones. And I can promise you, when we packed up for Mexico, we were just so excited to bring toys to kids in rural areas and build a wall for the church we stayed at. We were excited to hold a bible camp during the days, because the kids were thrilled to play the games with us and hear stories.

When it was all over, we didn't go home and tally up how many people we had "saved." We instead talked about how great it was to give to people who had nothing, and in the process, we passed on some of God's love that He gave to us.

Okay, first of all, if you go to a village in Mexico and build walls and repair buildings and teach kids to read, that social worker, and it can be done quite easily without bringing religion into it. I don't have a problem at all with people building things or teaching kids to read.

You also say I don't know the motivations of missionaries. Forgive me, but I always thought that the motivation for missionaries was to convert people. Am I wrong?

Also, I have one other point to make. religion is based on faith. It is a choice that a person comes to. That's fine, and if you want to believe in God, I'm okay with that. Because faith is a personal thing. But how can you tell another person that your choice is correct? I mean, there is no proof, really. A person decides to practise a particular faith out of choice. But telling people that they'll go to hell unless they convert doesn't really give them that choice.

By the way, I just gotta ask... When you went to Mexico as a missionary, you were hoping to convert people, right? So did they ask you to expose them to your religion? You did you decide that it would be best for them? And if you did, how did you know that it was best for them?

[la_ginny]

Okay, first of all, if you go to a village in Mexico and build walls and repair buildings and teach kids to read, that social worker, and it can be done quite easily without bringing religion into it. I don't have a problem at all with people building things or teaching kids to read.

I agree. But I'm just saying that MUCH of modern missionary work involves, well, work. It's not just going to a foreign country with nothing but a Bible and the clothes on your back, praying someone will listen to you.


You also say I don't know the motivations of missionaries. Forgive me, but I always thought that the motivation for missionaries was to convert people. Am I wrong?...

It is often the primary motivation, yes. But like I said, many of the mission trips I have been inovled in revolve around humanitarian work, work that we did because we were motivated by our faith to help others.

By the way, I just gotta ask... When you went to Mexico as a missionary, you were hoping to convert people, right? So did they ask you to expose them to your religion? You did you decide that it would be best for them? And if you did, how did you know that it was best for them?

Ok, lemme just say that I hate the word "covert." Maybe that makes me not the conventional missionary. So was I hoping to convert people? Basically, no. I was hoping to do some good work, in the name of God, and to learn something from the people there about their way of life. I was hoping to give as much of myself as possible, and see what God did with it. We left without any "coversions", and couldn't have been happier if there had been 100 conversions. We worked hard to serve the people there.

Did they ask me to expose them to my religion? No. Just like no one asked me if I wanted to be exposed to Christianity. It just happened - someone told me about it. We actually worked with a church down there, so our motivations were clear. We invited neighborhood kids to a vacation bible school at the church. In the end, it was the people - the kids - who asked us why we were there. They wanted to know what we were all about. What should we have said? "Well, we're just here hanging out really, believing in our God, but we don't want to tell you about Him, because that would be making decisions for you. So maybe we shouldn't talk about this anymore." We told them the truth - that we loved God, and we were there to serve them. For many, that was enough for them to understand. Many joined the church after we left.

Personally, I do not make assumptions about what is "best" for other people. For example, I'm not a doctor, so I can't advise people on their health or how to stay in shape. But if people want to know how I stay in shape, how I keep healthy, I'm going to tell them. I won't keep it from them in fear of "forcing" something onto them they don't want. That's kind of the point of missionary work, from my POV - you're showing people how you live a healthy life, in hopes that they will want to know it for themselves.

You may say that these people have their own ways of being healthy that may be very different than mine. For me, that's fine. I'm just there if they want to learn how I do it.

[Midnightsfire]

Unfortunately Christianity did a fine job of conversion in then US.

When Bobby Labonte takes the green flag in Sunday's Daytona 500, he'll be racing for victory -- and the Lord. (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2004/racing/specials/daytona500/2004/02/10/bc.car.racing.religion.ap/index.html?cnn=yes)

Ridiculous.

American Airlines apologizes for Christianity remarks (http://www.cnn.com/2004/TRAVEL/02/13/pilot.christianity.ap/index.html)

Lucked out that I wasn't on the plane. ("Hey! Just fly the flippin' plane and shut the he** up!")

Government sponsored Creationism anyone? (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/13/bush.vouchers.ap/index.html)

aka fuzzy science.

Groups fail to block same-sex marriage licenses (http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/West/02/13/samesex.marriage/index.html)

Whatever happened to the idea of just letting God deal with it? Christians were so much cooler when they had that attitude. Don't worry, all the "sinners" are going to burn anyway right? So just leave them alone and let them live their lives...

What some missionaries do, doesn't compensate for what has been or continues to be done today.

[LewsTherin]

When Bobby Labonte takes the green flag in Sunday's Daytona 500, he'll be racing for victory -- and the Lord. (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2004/racing/specials/daytona500/2004/02/10/bc.car.racing.religion.ap/index.html?cnn=yes)

Ridiculous.


If I may ask, what's so ridiculous about people doing their racing for God? I think it takes guts for these people do this, to be open about their beliefs. And if that seems to irritate you, what do you think of my sig?

But this is off topic...which leads me to think that your post was something of a jab at Christians, Midnight.

[Midnightsfire]

If I may ask, what's so ridiculous about people doing their racing for God? I think it takes guts for these people do this, to be open about their beliefs. And if that seems to irritate you, what do you think of my sig?
Perhaps you should have read the article a bit more closely.

"Why does corporate America spend so much money ... supporting things that don't have moral values?" Shepherd asked. "And here we are, trying to serve the Lord. There's nothing bad in the Bible. Even if you don't believe in God, if everyone would just live by the Bible and the Ten Commandments, see how much better the world would be."

He happens to be worth a lot of money.

Maybe he should...oh, i don't know...maybe follow the words of Christ a little more closer?

And it's apparent he hasn't rad the Bible (save for select passages perhaps) and has no clue what living by the Bible would entail or the very real Hell he is endorsing.


But this is off topic...which leads me to think that your post was something of a jab at Christians, Midnight.
More like a jab at some hypocritical fool.

[Wab]

It just intrigues me (coming from a happily secualrised country) how so many Americans in public life find it necessary to invoke the Lord.

[LewsTherin]

Perhaps you should have read the article a bit more closely.

"Why does corporate America spend so much money ... supporting things that don't have moral values?" Shepherd asked. "And here we are, trying to serve the Lord. There's nothing bad in the Bible. Even if you don't believe in God, if everyone would just live by the Bible and the Ten Commandments, see how much better the world would be."

He happens to be worth a lot of money.

Maybe he should...oh, i don't know...maybe follow the words of Christ a little more closer?

And it's apparent he hasn't rad the Bible (save for select passages perhaps) and has no clue what living by the Bible would entail or the very real Hell he is endorsing.

I see nothing contradictory to the Bible in that qoute of his, so I really don't know what "Hell" you're referring to. I also don't see the problem with sticking "Jesus" on their car or openely claiming that they're racing for God. A Gay person will openly admit they are gay. A muslim will admit they are muslim. What's wrong with a Christian doing the same?

And yes, he's worth lot of money, but there are many other professional sportsmen and women who are openly Christian (SA's Penny Heyns springs to mind). There's nothing underhandeed about them expressing their beliefs. It is, after all, their right (Freedom of religion and all that).

And Midnight, I don't believe you understand the Bible quite as well as you think you do. Rather reserve your judgement of the man until you know more about him other than what an article tells you.

[Midnightsfire]

I see nothing contradictory to the Bible in that qoute of his, so I really don't know what "Hell" you're referring to. I also don't see the problem with sticking "Jesus" on their car or openely claiming that they're racing for God. A Gay person will openly admit they are gay. A muslim will admit they are muslim. What's wrong with a Christian doing the same?
Not seeing it because you don't want to. He is promoting the 10 Commandments, by extension the Old Testament, something you and others here don't even consider in your arguments on your religion. (Considering the bloodthirsty nature of the OT, I can't really blame you, although as such, it's hypocrisy, but I imagine you'll refuse to see that as well. And if you can't find that Hell, imagine being put to death for simply gathering firewood on the Sabbath.)



And yes, he's worth lot of money, but there are many other professional sportsmen and women who are openly Christian (SA's Penny Heyns springs to mind). There's nothing underhandeed about them expressing their beliefs. It is, after all, their right (Freedom of religion and all that).

And Midnight, I don't believe you understand the Bible quite as well as you think you do. Rather reserve your judgement of the man until you know more about him other than what an article tells you.
I understand that many supposed Christians are hypocrites that spout much about faith and don't know a single thing about it or Christ 's own words. If they did, and followed His beliefs, the vast majority would be as Jesus was, pretty much a street corner evangelist and wouldn't have much in the way of "worldly possessions."

[Tiberius]

Like I said, many of the mission trips I have been inovled in revolve around humanitarian work, work that we did because we were motivated by our faith to help others.

Okay, I think I may have been misunderstood.

If you go to a village in Mexico and build schools and all that because you have been motivated by your faith, then that's fine. I don't have a problem with that. And if that's how you define missionary work, then I have been misunderstood. Please let me clarify.

If you go to Mexico and try to change the Mexican's beliefs to your beliefs, then that is wrong. Anything else you do, as far as I am concerned, doesn't come into it. I just have a problem with the changing people's beliefs part of it.

Remember that episode of the Simpsons where the Simpson house catches fire? Everyone's at Church except Homer, who's asleep on the couch. Ned Flanders (a very religious person, if you don't know) risks his life to save Homer. Later, it is said that while God wasn't working in the fire that burnt the house, He was working in the people who saved the house from being burnt to the ground, and who saved homer. Now, I wouldn't have a problem at all if Ned Flanders had saved me from a burning house. But that doesn't mean that I have any obligation to listen to him talk to me about religion.

My point is that helping people is fine. Converting them (despite that you don't like the word, that's what it is - changing their religious beliefs, either changing it yourself or encouraging them to change) is not fine.

Did they ask me to expose them to my religion? No. Just like no one asked me if I wanted to be exposed to Christianity. It just happened - someone told me about it.

Did your parents raise you as Christian? If so, then perhaps you became Christian simply because you had never been different. Did you sit down one day and think, "Okay, the time has come for me to decide whether or not I will be a Christian"? Perhaps, if you had never experienced life as a non-Christian, you are Christian because it is more comfortable for you.

We actually worked with a church down there, so our motivations were clear. We invited neighborhood kids to a vacation bible school at the church. In the end, it was the people - the kids - who asked us why we were there. They wanted to know what we were all about. What should we have said? "Well, we're just here hanging out really, believing in our God, but we don't want to tell you about Him, because that would be making decisions for you. So maybe we shouldn't talk about this anymore." We told them the truth - that we loved God, and we were there to serve them.

And why did you invite the kids to the Bible school if not to expose them to your religion? As far as I am concerned, the Bible is purely religious. Now, I'm assuming the kids weren't Christians. Bible school sure sounds to me like you were teaching them about the Bible. Therefore you were exposing them to your religion. Now, why do that if you didn't want them to think, "Hey, maybe this Bible stuff has something going for it. I think I might become a Christian."

In school when you learn about Math, the teacher is showing you how mathematics works. If you teach them about a religious book, you are basically telling them "This is how religion works." The idea is that what you learn in school is right. Not partially right, or half right, completely right. As in not wrong. So in essence, the kids would most likely come away thinking that what you had told them was right and it was the truth, while whatever religion they had believed in before was wrong. I have a problem with that. Religion, by its very definition cannot be proved. It is based on faith, not fact. Therefore, there is no right or wrong, only what is right for you. Did you tell the kids that? That you couldn't be sure if your religion was right for them, and they would have to think and decide whether their original religion was more appropriate for them, for their lifestyle?

Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but does the person being converted not choose to adopt another set of beliefs?

Ummm, excuse me, but if they decide to convert, why do they need missionaries? If I choose to convert to Christianity, then I can do it by myself, thank you very much. I don't need anyone to come and show me how great it is. By the time I choose to convert, Christianity has "made its sale" as it were. They don't need to keep advertising.

"Why does corporate America spend so much money ... supporting things that don't have moral values?" Shepherd asked. "And here we are, trying to serve the Lord. There's nothing bad in the Bible. Even if you don't believe in God, if everyone would just live by the Bible and the Ten Commandments, see how much better the world would be."

To be fair, this was quoted from an article. But nothing bad in the Bible? Just the other day, while I was in a bookshop, I picked up a bible, opened it to a random page (I'm not sure where in the Bible, I couldn't give you the specifics, sorry, but I'm sure someone familiar with the book can provide them), and the first thing I saw was how a girl was telling her sister how she had slept with her own dad the night before, and she encouraged her sister to do the same so they could continue the family line. ICKY! However, not knowing any of the specifics of the situation, I can't say whether they were nasty little girls or what. At least in the context of the Bible. But it sure seemed bad to me!

Also, does the Bible not encourage discrimination against homosexual people? Here in Australia, there's a guy called Rev. Fred Niles, and he uses the Bible in his attacks on Homosexuality. So don't tell me there's nothing bad in the Bible.

But I digress. I'm not here to attack religion, just forcing religious beliefs onto others...

[DsX Phoenix]

Did your parents raise you as Christian? If so, then perhaps you became Christian simply because you had never been different. Did you sit down one day and think, "Okay, the time has come for me to decide whether or not I will be a Christian"? Perhaps, if you had never experienced life as a non-Christian, you are Christian because it is more comfortable for you.



And why did you invite the kids to the Bible school if not to expose them to your religion? As far as I am concerned, the Bible is purely religious. Now, I'm assuming the kids weren't Christians. Bible school sure sounds to me like you were teaching them about the Bible. Therefore you were exposing them to your religion. Now, why do that if you didn't want them to think, "Hey, maybe this Bible stuff has something going for it. I think I might become a Christian."

In school when you learn about Math, the teacher is showing you how mathematics works. If you teach them about a religious book, you are basically telling them "This is how religion works." The idea is that what you learn in school is right. Not partially right, or half right, completely right. As in not wrong. So in essence, the kids would most likely come away thinking that what you had told them was right and it was the truth, while whatever religion they had believed in before was wrong. I have a problem with that. Religion, by its very definition cannot be proved. It is based on faith, not fact. Therefore, there is no right or wrong, only what is right for you. Did you tell the kids that? That you couldn't be sure if your religion was right for them, and they would have to think and decide whether their original religion was more appropriate for them, for their lifestyle?

But I digress. I'm not here to attack religion, just forcing religious beliefs onto others...

But, inviting someone to a Bibly study is not forcing anything on anyone. If I invite a friend of mine to go see a movie with them, I am not forcing them to go with me.

You ask the person if they were raised by Christians, and then imply that maybe they are Christians simply because they are uncomfortable to think about any other possiblities. And yet, if anyone tells them that there are other possibilities, according to you, then that person is forcing his/her religion or non religion on the person. Without opportunities to learn new things, and new ideas, no more new ideas will ever come about.

I agree with you that no one should sit there and badger someone into converting, or even forcing someone to listen to you. However, merely making the opportunity for someone to hear your ideas is extremely healthy for someone to making the correct choice. How can someone find the "true" idea (I am not saying this is Christianity. I am saying that somewhere, there is a truth, whether it be religion or science) if they never have an opportunity to study more than one?

Also, not everything learned in school is right. Some things, especially in science, are just the best theories anyone has right now.

[la_ginny]

And why did you invite the kids to the Bible school if not to expose them to your religion? As far as I am concerned, the Bible is purely religious. Now, I'm assuming the kids weren't Christians. Bible school sure sounds to me like you were teaching them about the Bible. Therefore you were exposing them to your religion. Now, why do that if you didn't want them to think, "Hey, maybe this Bible stuff has something going for it. I think I might become a Christian."
It's interesting that you use the word "expose" in your first sentence - because that's exactly what we were trying to do. Expose them to Christianity. I never said we weren't. What you didn't say, and what we were NOT doing, was inviting kids to Bible school to FORCE them into believing what we did. And your description is exactly what we were hoping would happen, and there doesn't seem to be anything wrong with it, even by your own description. It's an explanation, an exposure of beliefs, in a setting that everyone (kids and their parents) willingly participated in. How is someone ever going to choose what religion is right for them if no one tells them?

In school when you learn about Math, the teacher is showing you how mathematics works. If you teach them about a religious book, you are basically telling them "This is how religion works." The idea is that what you learn in school is right. Not partially right, or half right, completely right. As in not wrong. So in essence, the kids would most likely come away thinking that what you had told them was right and it was the truth, while whatever religion they had believed in before was wrong. I have a problem with that. Religion, by its very definition cannot be proved. It is based on faith, not fact. Therefore, there is no right or wrong, only what is right for you. Did you tell the kids that? That you couldn't be sure if your religion was right for them, and they would have to think and decide whether their original religion was more appropriate for them, for their lifestyle?
These kids didn't have an "original religion." Many of them were just trying to get by on the streets. We told them what we believed, and what reasons we had to believe it. We tried to show them the differences it made in our lives. At times, yes, we acknowledged what others believed that was different from what we believed. We told them we believed we were correct - that is the nature of EVERY religion, and only the non-religious (which I'm assuming you are) say that it is only what is right "for you." I agree in a real world sense that is true, because I want to believe there is more than one correct path to God. But that's not going to stop every religion of the world from saying they believe they are correct. Some may acknowledge that others can be correct too, but most religious people won't say "Well, there's no way I can prove this thing that I pour my whole life into, and that I hinge my very existence on, so really there is not a right or wrong here. I guess this is just what is best for my lifestyle." If people picked religions based on what they thought was best for their "lifestyle," who knows what they would come up with?

Ummm, excuse me, but if they decide to convert, why do they need missionaries? If I choose to convert to Christianity, then I can do it by myself, thank you very much. I don't need anyone to come and show me how great it is. By the time I choose to convert, Christianity has "made its sale" as it were. They don't need to keep advertising.
How can anybody decide to convert if they don't know about a religion, or have never been exposed to one? And in the cases where people have not been exposed to any religion, or are not committed to any particular one, what reason do they have to pursue God? None, unless someone like a missionary comes along to give them a chance to learn what they believe. How can Christianity "make its sale" if a sales rep never comes by to give you the pitch? That's a cheesy metaphor, but really - why wouldn't they need to keep advertising? How else will you know?

For you - you live in a place where you obviously have been exposed to the basic Christian beliefs, and have not chosen it for yourself. You're right, you don't need anyone to come along and "tell you how great it is." But often in countries where missionaries go, they have never heard of what Christians believe, or were not given an opportunity to choose. Or perhaps they have no spiritual beliefs at all. These are the people missionaries are trying to serve.

[DsX Phoenix]

Perhaps you should have read the article a bit more closely.

"Why does corporate America spend so much money ... supporting things that don't have moral values?" Shepherd asked. "And here we are, trying to serve the Lord. There's nothing bad in the Bible. Even if you don't believe in God, if everyone would just live by the Bible and the Ten Commandments, see how much better the world would be."

He happens to be worth a lot of money.

Maybe he should...oh, i don't know...maybe follow the words of Christ a little more closer?

And it's apparent he hasn't rad the Bible (save for select passages perhaps) and has no clue what living by the Bible would entail or the very real Hell he is endorsing.


More like a jab at some hypocritical fool.

I'm sorry, Midnight, this really isn't relevant at all to this discussion. This discussion is only about whether or not people should try to convert others to their religion, not whether or not what is said in someone's religion is right.

It really gets tiring to go into a religion thread, any religion thread, and see this same argument going on, irregardless of what the thread is actually supposed to be discussing. The arguments between you and lews have really gotten out of hand, in my opinion.

[LewsTherin]

The arguments between you and lews have really gotten out of hand, in my opinion.
You're right, of course. For my part; I've acted stupidly and I apologise for any offence I may have caused to those participating in this thread. Next time, I'll try to do better.

[Midnightsfire]

I'm sorry, Midnight, this really isn't relevant at all to this discussion. This discussion is only about whether or not people should try to convert others to their religion, not whether or not what is said in someone's religion is right.I disagree. Advertising is merely another form of proselytizing and selling one's religion.



The one with the most money and power has had the most influence for centuries. Admittedly, that isn't much when compared to the fact that civilization is roughly 10,000 years old. (Give or take a millenia or so.) and Chrisitianity has been the one on top for only approximately 2,000 years.

[Tiberius]

And why did you invite the kids to the Bible school if not to expose them to your religion? As far as I am concerned, the Bible is purely religious. Now, I'm assuming the kids weren't Christians. Bible school sure sounds to me like you were teaching them about the Bible. Therefore you were exposing them to your religion. Now, why do that if you didn't want them to think, "Hey, maybe this Bible stuff has something going for it. I think I might become a Christian."

It's interesting that you use the word "expose" in your first sentence - because that's exactly what we were trying to do. Expose them to Christianity. I never said we weren't. What you didn't say, and what we were NOT doing, was inviting kids to Bible school to FORCE them into believing what we did. And your description is exactly what we were hoping would happen, and there doesn't seem to be anything wrong with it, even by your own description. It's an explanation, an exposure of beliefs, in a setting that everyone (kids and their parents) willingly participated in. How is someone ever going to choose what religion is right for them if no one tells them?

So you were trying to expose them to Christianity? I am assuming that you did that in the hopes that they would convert. Whether you forced it on them or not doesn't alter that fact. You wanted them to convert, so you did everything that you could to do it. And yes, you did want them to convert. I mean, that's why you had this whole Bible school thing in the first place, right?

So, I ask you now... Why? What was wrong with the way they were before? Religiously, I mean. You said: "How is someone ever going to choose what religion is right for them if no one tells them?" Now, i could go on and say that what you said means that you were trying to tell them what religion was right for them, but I'm pretty sure that wasn't what you meant. I'm going to interpret that line as you saying that they had to have at least some knowledge of a wide variety of religions order to choose one. Shopping around, so to speak.

But why was this neccessary? Did they NEED religion? Were they unhappy with their current religious beleifs? And if they had none when you arrived, were they unhappy being athiests? I have no religion, as many here know. But that doesn't make me unhappy.

And also, if they need to know about a whole different bunch of religions in order to make a choice as to which religion is right for them, shouldn't you? How many religions do you know about? More than a passing reference, I mean. Not neccessarily an in depth knowledge, but more than a passing familiarity. I'd bet that you only know about Christianity in that much detail. So, to me, unless you do know that, then you were applying a double standard. They had to know about a wide variety of religions in order to make their choice, but you didn't. I can't stand double standards. All people are equal, so the should all have the same opportunities, the same rights and you get the idea.

These kids didn't have an "original religion." Many of them were just trying to get by on the streets. We told them what we believed, and what reasons we had to believe it. We tried to show them the differences it made in our lives.

Okay, so they didn't have an original religion. I'll assume they were athiests then. From that, I can only conclude that you probably decided that they should have religion. Did you not say: "That's exactly what we were trying to do. Expose them to Christianity." Expose them why? To convert them, of course. Why else?

At times, yes, we acknowledged what others believed that was different from what we believed. We told them we believed we were correct - that is the nature of EVERY religion, and only the non-religious (which I'm assuming you are) say that it is only what is right "for you."

Let me see if I have this right. Christianity - the same version of Christianity - is right for all Christians? But isn't religion based on faith? And faith comes from within, yes? So, if it comes from within, then it is influenced a great deal by the person holding that faith, and is therefore different for each person. Different people have different reasons for being religious. One person might have faith because that's how they were raised, another because they are scared of death and want reassurances and another because they felt God come and help them through a difficult part of their life. And that's just off the top of my head. All those different reasons, and you say that a person's desires for what is right for them have no impact? That first person in my example, who was just raised that way, then they are comfortable. To them, religion would be like an old leather chair that has been loved for years and is comfortable and familiar. They're happy with it, knowing that it's there. So that's what is right for them. The second person doesn't want that feeling, he wants a reassurance that he's going somewhere nice when he dies. That's a completely different reason for being religious. it doesn't make him comfortable, because he knows he's still going to die. it just helps him deal with it. Same with the third person. Everyone has a different view on religion. Ever notice how many variations of the whole God and Jesus thing their are? it comes about from people making religion into what is right for them. So it happens. Don't tell me it doesn't.

I agree in a real world sense that is true, because I want to believe there is more than one correct path to God. But that's not going to stop every religion of the world from saying they believe they are correct. Some may acknowledge that others can be correct too, but most religious people won't say "Well, there's no way I can prove this thing that I pour my whole life into, and that I hinge my very existence on, so really there is not a right or wrong here. I guess this is just what is best for my lifestyle." If people picked religions based on what they thought was best for their "lifestyle," who knows what they would come up with?

So did you tell them that you were correct? Or merely that you believe you are correct? there's a difference.

Also, you said, "Most religious people won't say "Well, there's no way I can prove this thing that I pour my whole life into, and that I hinge my very existence on, so really there is not a right or wrong here. I guess this is just what is best for my lifestyle." Well, why shouldn't they say that? Is Christianity the best religion for your lifestyle? Bet ya say that it is.

How can anybody decide to convert if they don't know about a religion, or have never been exposed to one? And in the cases where people have not been exposed to any religion, or are not committed to any particular one, what reason do they have to pursue God? None, unless someone like a missionary comes along to give them a chance to learn what they believe. How can Christianity "make its sale" if a sales rep never comes by to give you the pitch? That's a cheesy metaphor, but really - why wouldn't they need to keep advertising? How else will you know?

Okay, let me ask you how you found out about this site. Did you see a pop up banner? (Come to www.cosforums.com) I don't think so. You probably just put Harry Potter into a search engine, thought this page looked good, came and you've been coming back ever since, right? My point is that you don't need salesmen to sell something. The villagers can ask you about your religion when they see you praying. That lets them take it at their own speed. But you invited them to a Bible school like a religious Tupperware party. To continue that metaphor, when you arrived their, they either didn't need microwavable food containers or already had another non-Tupperware style of microwavable food containers. In either case, they didn't really need yours. Okay, these metaphors are just getting weird. Back to reality.

For you - you live in a place where you obviously have been exposed to the basic Christian beliefs, and have not chosen it for yourself. You're right, you don't need anyone to come along and "tell you how great it is." But often in countries where missionaries go, they have never heard of what Christians believe, or were not given an opportunity to choose. Or perhaps they have no spiritual beliefs at all. These are the people missionaries are trying to serve.

You're right in your first sentence. I was exposed to Christian beliefs and decided that it wasn't for me.

So let me get this straight. They haven't been exposed to Christianity, so you pop over and expose them to it so they can decide if it's right for them? Yes? Alrighty then. Oh, but, uh, just one thing... If they hadn't been exposed to Christianity, then obviously they hadn't been exposed to any of the other big religions of the world. Buddhism, Muslim, Judaeism and so on. (I apologize for any spelling mistakes.) Did you expose them to any other religions as well? Nope? Just Christianity? Well, then, how do you expect them to make a decision if you only tell them about one religion? they look at all the evidence you provide and it tells them that Christianity is correct, but they don't get the whole picture! Of course it's going to tell them that Christianity is correct! It's coming from a Christian!

Also, just an addendum...

For those of you who have been missionaries, I'd like to ask you something. When you went to these people, were you hoping that they'd find religion, or were you hoping they'd find your religion?

[PrtVeela]

What some missionaries do, doesn't compensate for what has been or continues to be done today.

Here here. I particularly agree on your last statement. When I worked at the bank there was this guy that I worked with and the only thing he ever talked to me about was about his missionary work. And how "700.00 can save a whole community" and how the lord lifted the community up. And the only thing he played on the radio was Christian rock (NOT that there is anything wrong with that, but I do not wish to here it at work). Now I'm sorry but this is a place of buisness and this seems like one of the last places religion or religious affliation should be discussed.

The 'Lord' didn't have anything to do with bringing up that community, it was the money that was given and the volunteer work done. You don't have to be a missionary to bring up a community anyone can do it. This may be your religion and belief of choice but to encourage other people to join I personally find to be an invasion on my privacy and on my personal rights.
I even told him how I felt and that still didn't stop him from telling me his stories so finally I asked to be moved. That should have never happened. The conversation should have never taken place.

Not to mention when missionaries go into third world countires or countries that are predominatley another religion and promote their religion I find totally (for lack of a better word) wrong. When Heather Mercer was taken captive it was because she was there doing Missionary Work and under the Taliban this is prohibited. Now am I saying she should have been held captive? no. But the risks that these people take with their lives, with the lives of the people that they are trying to convert and with the people that have to go in and rescue them, well it hardly seems worth it. In many nations it is punishiable sometimes by death to teach any religion other than the state specified one.

How is someone in Afghanistan or any non-english speaking country going to understand what an english speaking person has to say about religion? Even if they understand the words to they know the implications? One cannot assume this.

I would think most missionaries would be offended if I went up to them and talked to them about why they should believe what I would believe so why is it any different for them?

[la_ginny]

First let me say I appreciate this debate - It has actually helped me become stronger and a bit more grounded in my faith by reminding me why I did this mission work in the past. Tiberius and others, I appreciate your responses (albeit a bit fiesty). Sorry if that turns your stomach :p However, this debate is getting a bit draining and time consuming, so excuse me for only replying to bits and pieces...

So you were trying to expose them to Christianity? I am assuming that you did that in the hopes that they would convert. Whether you forced it on them or not doesn't alter that fact. You wanted them to convert, so you did everything that you could to do it. And yes, you did want them to convert. I mean, that's why you had this whole Bible school thing in the first place, right?

So, I ask you now... Why? What was wrong with the way they were before? Religiously, I mean. You said: "How is someone ever going to choose what religion is right for them if no one tells them?" Now, i could go on and say that what you said means that you were trying to tell them what religion was right for them, but I'm pretty sure that wasn't what you meant. I'm going to interpret that line as you saying that they had to have at least some knowledge of a wide variety of religions order to choose one. Shopping around, so to speak.

But why was this neccessary? Did they NEED religion? Were they unhappy with their current religious beleifs? And if they had none when you arrived, were they unhappy being athiests? I have no religion, as many here know. But that doesn't make me unhappy.

Well done, you've proved that I wanted people to become Christians (which I never said that I didn't). What you haven't proved is that this is wrong, or that I forced anyone to do anything they did not want to do. (I think you underestimate the intelligence of people when you assume that merely by exposing them to my religion, I'm not giving them options to do whatever they wish. Despite some popular opinion, missionaries don't brainwash, and even if people were perfectly happy with whatever relgion or lack thereof they had before, they still must make a choice about Christianity. They can choose it or not. If they do, then perhaps they weren't as "perfectly happy" as you think.)

Ok, I know our metaphors are getting bad, so here's another one for you: Imagine you went into a bookstore with a friend. You have a very favorite author (hmm... JKR for example). You've read different books, as has your friend, but you are adamant in your passion for JKR. Would it not stand to reason that you would show your friend all the HP books in the store, and perhaps try to convince him or her to buy/read them? And if your friend was hesitant, or even totally resistent, would you force HP on them? How long would you persist that they read the books?

I imagine that you, like me, probably wouldn't get abrasive. You would much rather your friend come to read and enjoy the books for themselves. But you can't help telling them about it, just because you like it so much, and you want others to appreciate it like you do.

How different is that from what I did as a missionary? I say not too much.

And also, if they need to know about a whole different bunch of religions in order to make a choice as to which religion is right for them, shouldn't you? How many religions do you know about? More than a passing reference, I mean. Not neccessarily an in depth knowledge, but more than a passing familiarity. I'd bet that you only know about Christianity in that much detail. So, to me, unless you do know that, then you were applying a double standard. They had to know about a wide variety of religions in order to make their choice, but you didn't. I can't stand double standards. All people are equal, so the should all have the same opportunities, the same rights and you get the idea.

I love (or hate, depending on your view of my sarcasm) how all atheists assume that Christians are brainwashed people who only participate in their religion because it was the only thing they were ever taught. I admit I'm not a religion expert (I doubt you are either), but I took several courses in college on world religions, particularly Judaism and Islam. I learned them from the ground up, and was fascinated by them.

Even recent events in my life have caused me to seriously doubt my faith, and whether I wanted to practice a religion at all. I just moved to a new city, away from my family and all that I know. There's no one here to keep me accountable to my former faith. But in the past few weeks, it has been rekindled, thanks in part to discussions on these forums. So please don't assume that my faith is like the comfy cozy chair you mentioned. It's an ever-changing and evolving part of my life.



Also, you said, "Most religious people won't say "Well, there's no way I can prove this thing that I pour my whole life into, and that I hinge my very existence on, so really there is not a right or wrong here. I guess this is just what is best for my lifestyle." Well, why shouldn't they say that? Is Christianity the best religion for your lifestyle? Bet ya say that it is.
Not necessarily. In fact, no religion would probably the easiest relgion for my lifestyle. To be more specific, atheism would be a walk in the park. Thousands of people, of all relgions, have been (some still are) persecuted for their faith. Many live as the extreme minority of a particular faith in a culture dominated by another. Do you think their religions were "best for their lifestyle"? Certainly not, but they continued in them, facing their own hells on earth, because it was something they believed in so passionately. Not because it was something they felt indifferent about because they couldn't prove it either way -- it just best suit their emotional and spiritual needs.

Ok, dinner is getting cold....

Thanks for the discussion! I may not be able to resist the urge to pop back in and reply.

[JofpGallagher]

Maybe he should...oh, i don't know...maybe follow the words of Christ a little more closer?

And it's apparent he hasn't rad the Bible (save for select passages perhaps) and has no clue what living by the Bible would entail or the very real Hell he is endorsing.


More like a jab at some hypocritical fool.

I am a Catholic, and I don't care too much about the bible, which at the end is a History book written by men (Not even Jesus bothered to write a simple word on it). That does not mean I will go and burn bibles. The book has my respect. I don't give too much importance of what the bible entails or what the real hell endorses. My religion is the Christian God and Jesus, and it is not a book. I conclude that for you I may be a bad Christian since I don’t go through the cranny and nooks of the bible or my religion. I don’t believe that to be a religious person has to be that complicated.

I agree with the ones that say that is wrong to force people to be converted, but I don’t see anything wrong if missionaries spread the word. That’s their job. I have been told about other religions and that does not mean I will be converted for that. I hear, I ponder, and I decide.

[DsX Phoenix]

I disagree. Advertising is merely another form of proselytizing and selling one's religion.



The one with the most money and power has had the most influence for centuries. Admittedly, that isn't much when compared to the fact that civilization is roughly 10,000 years old. (Give or take a millenia or so.) and Chrisitianity has been the one on top for only approximately 2,000 years.

You are absolutely right. I was not saying your original post about the race car driver and his sponsor was not on topic, I was saying your response to Lews had nothing to do with the discussion.

A better response to his question would be to say that it is wrong, because non-Christians should not be force-fed Christianity if they want to watch a NASCAR race. Christians even say this, about gays on TV ("If they want to be gay, that's fine, by why do they have to shove their lifestyle down my throat on TV?").

[Midnightsfire]

First let me say I appreciate this debate - It has actually helped me become stronger and a bit more grounded in my faith by reminding me why I did this mission work in the past.

This thread (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?t=3284) may hearten you further.

*grins* Feel free to wake it up by posting a reply!

I would think most missionaries would be offended if I went up to them and talked to them about why they should believe what I would believe so why is it any different for them?

Reminds me of a couple of Jehovah's Witnesses that had the misfortune of knocking on my door one morning. Kinda funny how the one appeared not only offended by my pat explanation why I didn''t follow their interpretation of what consitutes religion, he appeared as if my words were fighting words. Lol! ("Yo guys! Turn the other cheek already and go knock on my neighbors door. They'll be happy to hear you....And have a good morning.")

Touchy...

(I swear I'll convert to solipsism.)

[PrtVeela]

This thread (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?t=3284) may hearten you further.

*grins* Feel free to wake it up by posting a reply!



Reminds me of a couple of Jehovah's Witnesses that had the misfortune of knocking on my door one morning. Kinda funny how the one appeared not only offended by my pat explanation why I didn''t follow their interpretation of what consitutes religion, he appeared as if my words were fighting words. Lol! ("Yo guys! Turn the other cheek already and go knock on my neighbors door. They'll be happy to hear you....And have a good morning.")

Touchy...

(I swear I'll convert to solipsism.)

LOL you know what's even funnier...okay so maybe only for me but its still pretty funny, my Grandma was a Jehovah's Witnesses...and my dad wasn't but he married into a catholic family...oh the fun at Christmas time and Birthdays. ;)

[Tiberius]

First let me say I appreciate this debate - It has actually helped me become stronger and a bit more grounded in my faith by reminding me why I did this mission work in the past. Tiberius and others, I appreciate your responses (albeit a bit fiesty). Sorry if that turns your stomach :p However, this debate is getting a bit draining and time consuming, so excuse me for only replying to bits and pieces...

Thanks! I'm glad you appreciate it, I'm having a great time too! :cool: It doesn't turn my stomach (did you mean the debate or the fact you called my responses fiesty? Either way is cool, I know I get carried away sometimes.)

Well done, you've proved that I wanted people to become Christians (which I never said that I didn't). What you haven't proved is that this is wrong, or that I forced anyone to do anything they did not want to do. (I think you underestimate the intelligence of people when you assume that merely by exposing them to my religion, I'm not giving them options to do whatever they wish. Despite some popular opinion, missionaries don't brainwash, and even if people were perfectly happy with whatever relgion or lack thereof they had before, they still must make a choice about Christianity. They can choose it or not. If they do, then perhaps they weren't as "perfectly happy" as you think.)

Okay, I proved you want people to become Christian. But is it wrong? You know what i'm gonna say here... You said, "I assume that merely by exposing them to my religion, I'm not giving them options to do whatever they wish... [and] even if people were perfectly happy with whatever relgion or lack thereof they had before, they still must make a choice about Christianity. They can choose it or not. If they do, then perhaps they weren't as "perfectly happy" as you think."

True, you can expose them to your religion, and they can make a choice about it. But by exposing them ONLY to your religion, then aren't you providing an incomplete picture? Let's assume that before you arrive they only know their religion. Then you turn up, tell them about your religion. Now they know about two religions. Lucky them. Now they know about Christianity, which is all about a God that turns people into pillars of salt, doesn't want people to have knowledge (that whole Garden of Eden thing, I'm sure you remember it) and says that if we aren't nice boys and girls, we're all going to Hell (insert spooky music here).

Now, if their original religion is all nice smiles sunshine and puffy white clouds, isn't Christianity going to scare them a bit? I mean, it does, after all, have gory scary bits. So they might be scared into it. Or they might say, "Our God says we're going somewhere nice no matter what, the Christian God says we might go to Hell." So they decide to play it safe. Remember, many people will assume that because you are missionairies, you have the facts. I emphasize FACTS. As in provable. i've yet to see proof that Christianity is correct. So maybe they were perfectly happy in their previous religion, and they just converted to play it safe, or because they didn't want to insult you.

Ok, I know our metaphors are getting bad, so here's another one for you: Imagine you went into a bookstore with a friend. You have a very favorite author (hmm... JKR for example). You've read different books, as has your friend, but you are adamant in your passion for JKR. Would it not stand to reason that you would show your friend all the HP books in the store, and perhaps try to convince him or her to buy/read them? And if your friend was hesitant, or even totally resistent, would you force HP on them? How long would you persist that they read the books?

I imagine that you, like me, probably wouldn't get abrasive. You would much rather your friend come to read and enjoy the books for themselves. But you can't help telling them about it, just because you like it so much, and you want others to appreciate it like you do.

How different is that from what I did as a missionary? I say not too much.

Not too much? Absolutely! Not too much different. But different in one important aspect.

HP isn't true. We all know it isn't true. If I came on here announcing that I thought it was all fact, and that I saw Harry flying his Firebolt over my house yesterday, then you'd think I was a loon, and you'd give a look like this: :huh: . You, however, believe the Bible is true. Now, Harry Potter is pure escapism. Just for fun, to get away from the stresses of real life. Anyone who took it as seriously as religion, you'd say to them, "loosen up, it's just a book!" Getting someone into Harry Potter isn't really going to change their lives. JKR might be a bit disappointed, and so might some of the other posters in here, but Harry Potter doesn't really change someone's life. The Religion, however, does. When someone gets into religion, it's a life changer. You tell them that they can't worship the planets, or the big log over there in the clearing. That they can't commit adultery (which could be the case in cultures where the men have more than one wife.) That they can't kill, which could complicate some tribal laws. religion is a life changer.

Okay, now I wish to clarify something.

Exposing people to religion is not neccessarily wrong. Most of you gasped then, right? ("Tiberius said WHAT?!") My problem is with how you expose them.

true, if you expose them to Christianity, you are giving them a choice: "Stay as you are or change to this religion." basically, that's it. You can't argue with it. You just say it much nicer. You tell them to stay as they are or change. But you aren't giving them the freedom to choose how they change! You are basically saying, "If you do change, it must be like this!" The only way to make it fair to the convertee is to give them the choice. Let them choose from a large number of religions. But still, even that has it's problems. "If you change, it must be this, this, or this!" Why not let them make one of their own? I mean, you knows better what they need religiously then they themselves? And if they're going to make their own religion, they they sure don't need missionaries.

No religion would probably the easiest relgion for my lifestyle. To be more specific, atheism would be a walk in the park.

Atheism isn't so easy. I've had to choose my own moral code, which is pretty hard. for example, I say I will not kill. But what if there is a madman about to blow up Sydney? Kill about 4/5 million people? Do I betray my moral code for the greater good? Or what if it is my child they are going to kill (I don't have own, this is just hypothetical.) Do I kill them then? Take one life to save another? Either way, one dies, one lives. How do i make that choice? It is very hard. Ned Flanders, however, wouldn't have that problem. In the Bible it says don't kill, so he wouldn't. No matter what.

Thousands of people, of all relgions, have been (some still are) persecuted for their faith. Many live as the extreme minority of a particular faith in a culture dominated by another. Do you think their religions were "best for their lifestyle"? Certainly not, but they continued in them, facing their own hells on earth, because it was something they believed in so passionately. Not because it was something they felt indifferent about because they couldn't prove it either way -- it just best suit their emotional and spiritual needs.

They emotionally needed to live under that sort of stress?

Also, I think you'll find that very few of those people converted to that religion. They were brought up in that religion, so it is very ingrained for them.

Thanks for the discussion! I may not be able to resist the urge to pop back in and reply.

Please do, I'm having a great time! :cool:

[HollywoodBob]

Tiberius, you forgot to mention that never in history has genocide ever been attempted in the name of atheism. :D

-HollywoodBob

[la_ginny]

Ha! You are getting more fiesty with your references to me :p "You Know Who"? Honestly...

True, you can expose them to your religion, and they can make a choice about it. But by exposing them ONLY to your religion, then aren't you providing an incomplete picture? Let's assume that before you arrive they only know their religion. Then you turn up, tell them about your religion. Now they know about two religions. Lucky them. Now they know about Christianity, which is all about a God that turns people into pillars of salt, doesn't want people to have knowledge (that whole Garden of Eden thing, I'm sure you remember it) and says that if we aren't nice boys and girls, we're all going to Hell (insert spooky music here).

Now, if their original religion is all nice smiles sunshine and puffy white clouds, isn't Christianity going to scare them a bit? I mean, it does, after all, have gory scary bits. So they might be scared into it. Or they might say, "Our God says we're going somewhere nice no matter what, the Christian God says we might go to Hell." So they decide to play it safe. Remember, many people will assume that because you are missionairies, you have the facts. I emphasize FACTS. As in provable. i've yet to see proof that Christianity is correct. So maybe they were perfectly happy in their previous religion, and they just converted to play it safe, or because they didn't want to insult you.
Though I know lots of denominations of Christianity preach hellfire and brimstone, I don't. Could you imagine us teaching bible school to 10-year-old Mexican children and telling them God will smite (that's the present tense of smote, lol - learn something new every day!) them if they don't become Christians? That they're going to hell, so they need fire insurance. That's exactly what we stay far far away from. True, there are those missionaries out there who do the opposite, but *ba!* I say to them. I can only speak for myself. If somebody goes through the motions of converting because they're afraid of hell, then it's not a true coversion anyway. In the missionary settings I've been in, the motivation people have for converting is a sense of purpose in life, a calling to love and service, and the idea that God has a plan for their lives. It's not because they're scared the missionaries will eat their kidneys in their sleep, or that a burning bush will part the Gulf of Mexico and suck them all into the burning depths of the inferno. (Sorry, I'm getting a little too creative here...It's late).

I guess I'm going to have to agree to disagree with you on the religious choice ideas. No, we don't give them ALL the options when choosing a relgion. But really, what are ALL the options? How many people in the world, seriously, explored every possible option for religion before picking one? In your mind, it's the best plan, but in reality it's just not feasible, or even desireable. It could drive a person nuts! And by your philosophy, if people are happy with what religion they have, then we should leave them alone. So what if a person willing chooses a new relgion, motivated by what they learned from a missionary? But now they only know about two religions. Should they seek out info on ALL the others? By your standards, no, because we should just let sleeping dogs lie, as the saying goes...


Not too much? Absolutely! Not too much different. But different in one important aspect.

HP isn't true. We all know it isn't true. If I came on here announcing that I thought it was all fact, and that I saw Harry flying his Firebolt over my house yesterday, then you'd think I was a loon, and you'd give a look like this: :huh: . You, however, believe the Bible is true. Now, Harry Potter is pure escapism. Just for fun, to get away from the stresses of real life. Anyone who took it as seriously as religion, you'd say to them, "loosen up, it's just a book!" Getting someone into Harry Potter isn't really going to change their lives. JKR might be a bit disappointed, and so might some of the other posters in here, but Harry Potter doesn't really change someone's life. The Religion, however, does. When someone gets into religion, it's a life changer. You tell them that they can't worship the planets, or the big log over there in the clearing. That they can't commit adultery (which could be the case in cultures where the men have more than one wife.) That they can't kill, which could complicate some tribal laws. religion is a life changer.
Yeah, I thought about that after I wrote it, and I agree. The point I was trying to make was the process missionaries go through in getting someone to hear out their POV - it's in fact as tame or tamer than what an HP fan would do, and in context, missionaries are discussing something much more serious than HP. They have a right to be more assertive. But we aren't like that (well, I'm not a missionary anymore, so I can't say precisely)


They emotionally needed to live under that sort of stress?

Also, I think you'll find that very few of those people converted to that religion. They were brought up in that religion, so it is very ingrained for them.
Oops, misunderstanding here. I wasn't saying that they picked the less popular relgion because they emotionally needed to live under that sort of stress. Ok, here's what I said again:
Do you think their religions were "best for their lifestyle"? Certainly not, but they continued in them, facing their own hells on earth, because it was something they believed in so passionately. Not because it was something they felt indifferent about because they couldn't prove it either way -- it just best suit their emotional and spiritual needs.
I was saying that people continue in their persecuted religions NOT because they feel indifferent and not because it just suits their emotional and spiritual needs. I was saying that it must be something more than that.

Thanks again for the response! This is probably the best ongoing debate I've had on these forums yet (and on the brighter side, at least it wasn't in the love thread... that's one scary place!)

[LewsTherin]

True, you can expose them to your religion, and they can make a choice about it. But by exposing them ONLY to your religion, then aren't you providing an incomplete picture? Let's assume that before you arrive they only know their religion. Then you turn up, tell them about your religion. Now they know about two religions. Lucky them. Now they know about Christianity, which is all about a God that turns people into pillars of salt, doesn't want people to have knowledge (that whole Garden of Eden thing, I'm sure you remember it) and says that if we aren't nice boys and girls, we're all going to Hell (insert spooky music here).

Well, I would think that every religion in the world would only expose you to their own religion. I've never heard of a Muslim carrying a catalogue around, or a Jew, or any other religious person. The nature of religion means you believe your religion is right. If you did not believe your religion to be correct, why on Earth would you follow it? You wouldn't. But, if you believed it to be correct why would you accept another, right? Well, you'd accept another if you doubted your own. Why would you doubt you own? You'd doubt it if your God did not seem to be interested in you at all, and if your prayers were never answered i.e. you're worshipping a God who doesn't exist i.e. the wrong one. And if you doubt your own, would you not research another religion? I would think that you would. And if some missionary just happened to come along, and what he talks about sounds better than what you got, wouldn't you convert? (After all, what people seems to want from religion these days is a "Get out of jail free ticket." You know, stick God in the drawer until they're in trouble, then pull him out and expect him to jump to their rescue. Either that, or they want a vending machine. *shakes head*)

As for God not wanting people to have knowledge: that's not what it meant. The Bible said "Knowledge of Good and Evil." That's a totally different thing to the knowledge I'm sure you're referring to, which is good. God even advocates knowledge and understanding ("My people die from lack of knowledge"). Adam and Eve had never done anything wrong, so ,what did the tree represent? Not knowledge I can assure you. Rather I think it represented Sin (which is doing wrong, hence, it brings the knowledge of the difference between right and wrong). The whole thing was a test of their obedience. I'm sorry to go off-topic, but it occurs to me that a great many problems people have with Christianity and the Bible (and in extension, Missionaries), arise from a lack of understanding of the Bible. Remedy this, and I'm sure there'd be less problems.

Ned Flanders, however, wouldn't have that problem. In the Bible it says don't kill, so he wouldn't. No matter what.

Lol, Ned Flanders is not the typical Christian. In fact, Ned Flanders is a mockery of Christianity. Surely, you do not take poor old Ned as an example of what Christians are like? A Christians would kill to defend themselves or their family. There is no law against self-defence in the Bible.

Lastly, it seems non-christians believe that all Christians were brought up as Christians and that is why the believe. This is not the case. I know of Jews, Muslims, you name it, who converted to Christianity; and interestingly enough, they did not even meet a missionary. All they did was read the Bible, or, they talked to a complete stranger who seemed to have something they lacked, and the stranger turned out to be a Christian. Or, believe it or not, they cried out to God and he answered them. It also seems that non-christians don't understand missionary work either, but I'll get into that in another post.

I have one last question. Tiberius, you say you disagree with the method by which non-religious folks are exposed to religion. How then, would you expose them to your religion (if you were religious)? I ask not to attack you, but merely because I'm curious.

[Midnightsfire]

From what I've read many times, many natives have been very curious of other beliefs when they aren't under duress. (The duress part was illustrated in a prior post.)

Said natives however, never really adopt Christian beliefs (generically speaking) and instead incorporate them into their own. (Voodoo is an excellent example of such syncretism.)

I have one last question. Tiberius, you say you disagree with the method by which non-religious folks are exposed to religion. How then, would you expose them to your religion (if you were religious)? I ask not to attack you, but merely because I'm curious.
Your curiosity should lead you to Buddhism, Hindu, Taoism and other Pagan beliefs (By Christian point-of-view). Such beliefs have never needed missionaries. And yet they not only have survived, they have grown despite the lack. (Something most Christians should ponder.)

[Tiberius]

First of all, your sig pic is really beautiful. Kudos to your friend Alice!

Okies, down to business.

Tiberius, you forgot to mention that never in history has genocide ever been attempted in the name of atheism.

Very true, Bob! Thanks for pointing that out. I wonder if there is any other religion out there that can say the same thing?

Ha! You are getting more fiesty with your references to me :p "You Know Who"? Honestly...

Tee hee :p

If somebody goes through the motions of converting because they're afraid of hell, then it's not a true coversion anyway. In the missionary settings I've been in, the motivation people have for converting is a sense of purpose in life, a calling to love and service, and the idea that God has a plan for their lives. It's not because they're scared the missionaries will eat their kidneys in their sleep, or that a burning bush will part the Gulf of Mexico and suck them all into the burning depths of the inferno. (Sorry, I'm getting a little too creative here...It's late).

Nicely creative.

Okay, so maybe they don't join because they're scared of hell. But what if they join just so they have a chance to go to Heaven when they die? isn't that just as bad? Now, if you only preach the good stuff about Christianity, aren't they going to want to get in on the action? I probably would. (But I won't. :P) Are you giving them this one sided picture hoping for exactly that? And then when they're in, you reveal the truth about Hell and all that? (Don't get too upset, I didn't mean it that way, but you get my point.) Besides, you've said you want them to know about Christianity so they can make an educated choice about it, right? But how can they make that educated choice when you don't give them the full picture?

How many people in the world, seriously, explored every possible option for religion before picking one? In your mind, it's the best plan, but in reality it's just not feasible, or even desireable.

But you don't even give them even a little choice. And it really wouldn't be that hard to do. When you're going over there as a Christian missionary, just take a Jew, a Muslim, a Buddhist, etc with you. Then the villagers can choose from them. I mean, I assume that it isn't just one Christian that goes, there's a whole bunch. So why not just one of each? And you can have a few interesting chats on the way. :eyebrows:

And by your philosophy, if people are happy with what religion they have, then we should leave them alone.

Well, sure, why not? I'm happy with my religious beliefs (ie: none). Are you going to try to convert me?

So what if a person willing chooses a new relgion, motivated by what they learned from a missionary? But now they only know about two religions. Should they seek out info on ALL the others? By your standards, no, because we should just let sleeping dogs lie, as the saying goes...

The reason you let sleeping dogs lie is because if you wake them up, you might get bitten. How many missionaries were killed by villagers who didn't want to be converted?

And if the villagers want to seek out information on ALL the other religions, then why not? They can if they want to! Who's got the right to stop them?

The point I was trying to make was the process missionaries go through in getting someone to hear out their POV - it's in fact as tame or tamer than what an HP fan would do, and in context, missionaries are discussing something much more serious than HP. They have a right to be more assertive. But we aren't like that (well, I'm not a missionary anymore, so I can't say precisely)

They have a RIGHT? Who gave them that right? it is impossible to prove or disprove the existence of god. And I don't just mean the Christian God. I mean ANY god. So what gives anyone the right to teach as truth something they can't possibly prove?

If you did not believe your religion to be correct, why on Earth would you follow it? You wouldn't. But, if you believed it to be correct why would you accept another, right? Well, you'd accept another if you doubted your own. Why would you doubt you own? You'd doubt it if your God did not seem to be interested in you at all, and if your prayers were never answered i.e. you're worshipping a God who doesn't exist i.e. the wrong one.

The wrong God. Okay, let's think about this for a moment. A person of one religion (say Islam) is upset, because Allah hasn't been listening to his prayers. He reads Lew's post, and decides that maybe Lew is right, he's worshipping the wrong God. He decides his God is not the right one. So he converts to Christianity, and everything starts going right! he decides he's found the right God now. Now, there's a Christian. This Christian is upset because his God hasn't been listening to his prayers. (See where I'm going?) Now, the Christian reads Lews post and decides that he's worshipping the wrong God. he decides that his God is not the right one. So he converts to Islam, and everything starts going right! he decides that he's found the right God now.

See the problem here? While the Islamic person is faced with evidence that his God is wrong, the Christian who converts to Islam gets a completely diferent viewpoint. Same thing from the other side. While the Christian faced with evidence that his God is wrong, the Islamic person who converts to Christianity gets a completely diferent viewpoint. So either person's point of view, the other person is wrong. Which means they are both wrong, yet are both right. How can this be? How can the Christian God be wrong for one person, while right for another? Is God selective? That seems like the only explanation. But it says in the Bible that God loves us all! Is anyone else confused?

I have one last question. Tiberius, you say you disagree with the method by which non-religious folks are exposed to religion. How then, would you expose them to your religion (if you were religious)? I ask not to attack you, but merely because I'm curious.

Well, I have religious beliefs, of a sort. Atheism can be arguably called a religious belief, because it is a belief about religion. So I'll take your question as asking how I would expose someone to Atheism.

In short, I wouldn't. I'm an athiest, you're not. You have religion. So what? I don't mind. You can have any religion you want. Just because my religious beliefs are different to yours, doesn't mean you are definately wrong. I can't prove that I'm right, and I'll never say otherwise. Maybe Christians are right. Maybe Muslims are. I don't know, and I don't think that I can tell with any of the information I can find out about the subject. So I just avoid the whole thing. And if there is a God, then he can't send me to hell for worshipping the wrong one.

But who am I to tell people about the joys of Atheism? Sure it's got good sides. Don't have to get up early on Sundays, start eating straight away without waiting to say Grace ("GRACE!"). But it also means that I have to decide on what my moral code is going to be. technically I can't have a day off on Christmas (but the pressies are so nice!). Every religious belief has rules and guidelines that believers have to follow, even Atheism. But at least, being an athiest, I get to make the rules myself. So I get exactly what I want.

Now, I am a fan of Star Trek as well as HP. And in trek, there's a thing known as IDIC. Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations. In other words, it takes all types. I believe in that passionately. It can be sumed up nicely in a quote I read once. I can't remember the exact wording, or who said it, but it was something like; "I may not agree with your beliefs, but I will defend until death your right to have them."

But never would I go out and stand on the street yelling about IDIC. If people want to believe it, fine. If not, fine. Whether or not someone chooses to be an atheist or not won't make any difference at all to how I live my life.

[la_ginny]

First of all, your sig pic is really beautiful. Kudos to your friend Alice!
Muchas gracias! Apparantly my pal Alice (who is a real-life friend) used to have quite an Internet following for her fanart. Didn't know that until just a few weeks ago... When she went to the HP convention in Orlando, people recognized her and some asked for her autograph! Crazy. Sorry, OT again...

Very true, Bob! Thanks for pointing that out. I wonder if there is any other religion out there that can say the same thing? This was about Bob's comment that genocide has never been committed in the name of atheism.

Ah yes my dears, but we are not arguing the merits of Christianity and atheism as proper life philosophies. I certainly do not take credit for any genocides committed in the name of Christianity in the past, just as I do not take credit for the atrocities my ancestors (possibly) committed toward their slaves in Louisiana. I do, however, feel deeply sorry for these people and wish none of it had ever happened that way.


Okay, so maybe they don't join because they're scared of hell. But what if they join just so they have a chance to go to Heaven when they die? isn't that just as bad? Now, if you only preach the good stuff about Christianity, aren't they going to want to get in on the action? I probably would. (But I won't. :P)
Fear of Hell and fear of not going to Heaven are the same thing, and neither are good reasons to convert. Again, I think that if someone converts because they need "insurance" then it's not a true conversion.

Are you giving them this one sided picture hoping for exactly that? And then when they're in, you reveal the truth about Hell and all that? (Don't get too upset, I didn't mean it that way, but you get my point.) Besides, you've said you want them to know about Christianity so they can make an educated choice about it, right? But how can they make that educated choice when you don't give them the full picture?
...

But you don't even give them even a little choice. And it really wouldn't be that hard to do. When you're going over there as a Christian missionary, just take a Jew, a Muslim, a Buddhist, etc with you. Then the villagers can choose from them. I mean, I assume that it isn't just one Christian that goes, there's a whole bunch. So why not just one of each? And you can have a few interesting chats on the way. :eyebrows:
But I still don't believe in the shopping around idea. In my opinion, the choice we offer is to convert to Christianity, or to not. Maybe it's just me, but I'm not much up for a buffet of world religions (try the filet of Jesus, it's amazing!).

And again, maybe this is just me, but if I felt like something was missing in my life, and someone came along telling me about some other religion, let's say Islam even (to get away from the Christianity examples). For me to want to abandon the rituals, customs and beliefs I already hold and adopt new ones, I'd have to be very convinced that the new set was correct. Even though you say it is impossible for any one religion to be "right", and you may in fact be right (ironic, isn't it?), people want their religion and the people who preach it to be sure of what they believe. Even if it can't be proven scientifically.

Take atheism for example. If I was considering becoming an atheist, I would want to talk to someone who already is -- like yourself for example. For me to abandon my current belief in God, or even agnostic belief in God (he may or may not be there), I would want to be sure that you were right. Therefore you would have to be sure that you were right. But you're not. So if you're not sure that what you have to offer me is any better than what I've got, why should I change? I know, this is your point exactly. This is why we should let sleeping dogs lie. The problem (well, it's not a problem really) is that religious people DO believe they are right, even though you say they aren't. So as long as they believe that, don't expect a van filled with Jews and Buddhists to stop by your local Baptist church to pick up the bibles on their way to Mexico.


They have a RIGHT? Who gave them that right? it is impossible to prove or disprove the existence of god. And I don't just mean the Christian God. I mean ANY god. So what gives anyone the right to teach as truth something they can't possibly prove?
In America, it's a little thing called the First Amendment -- free speech. I know, it doesn't apply in every country, and that's the problem. But personally I think the basic tenants of free speech can and should be applied universally, because we see the oppressiveness of places where it is not.


Well, I have religious beliefs, of a sort. Atheism can be arguably called a religious belief, because it is a belief about religion. So I'll take your question as asking how I would expose someone to Atheism.

In short, I wouldn't. I'm an athiest, you're not. You have religion. So what? I don't mind. You can have any religion you want. Just because my religious beliefs are different to yours, doesn't mean you are definately wrong. I can't prove that I'm right, and I'll never say otherwise. Maybe Christians are right. Maybe Muslims are. I don't know, and I don't think that I can tell with any of the information I can find out about the subject. So I just avoid the whole thing. And if there is a God, then he can't send me to hell for worshipping the wrong one.

But who am I to tell people about the joys of Atheism? Sure it's got good sides. Don't have to get up early on Sundays, start eating straight away without waiting to say Grace ("GRACE!"). But it also means that I have to decide on what my moral code is going to be. technically I can't have a day off on Christmas (but the pressies are so nice!). Every religious belief has rules and guidelines that believers have to follow, even Atheism. But at least, being an athiest, I get to make the rules myself. So I get exactly what I want.
You're welcome to sit content with your atheism, because your beliefs do not involve any form of ultimate truth. But world relgions -- Christianity -- involve a belief in an ultimate truth, regardless of whether you think there is one or not. That's why we don't sit around apathetically, not caring if others share in the joy of what we believe to be truth. The difference between your beliefs and mine is that you don't believe in the goodness of your own -- while I do. And so I want to share the goodness of my beliefs with others.

Now, I am a fan of Star Trek as well as HP. And in trek, there's a thing known as IDIC. Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations. In other words, it takes all types. I believe in that passionately. It can be sumed up nicely in a quote I read once. I can't remember the exact wording, or who said it, but it was something like; "I may not agree with your beliefs, but I will defend until death your right to have them."
I'm fairly sure that it's more like "I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will defent to the death your right to say it." And I'm pretty sure it was in reference to free speech (don't get me started on Free Speech -- I'm a journalist!! :p )

[la_ginny]

Jesus also existed. He was a real man, and at least we Catholics, believe in the Holy Trinity which means thet The Father is God, the Son (Jesus) is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. Hence my God lived on this planet as a human. His name was Jesus.

By the way, Muhammad also existed (as a real person). Born in 570 and died in 632 AD

Thanks, JofpGallagher, my thoughts exactly. :clap: To HollywoodBob: We are still debating missionary work, right? I know, in the end it boils down to our core beliefs, but I still think the fundamental question that started this whole thread is whether or not is correct, or desireable, for people to do missions in attempt to get others to convert to their religion.

And your probing questions about my beliefs, and whether I would still choose my religion if I had begun as another, etc.... How different is that "evangelizing" from what missionaries do? Your goal is to make me think about what I believe, and the ideology of what you believe is behind the questions you ask. And in the end, I imagine you certainly wouldn't mind it if I asked you more about what you believed, and perhaps decided that your questions made me wonder if I should choose your "religion."

That is (or can be) the simple goal of Christian missionaries: to ask probing questions and get people to think about what they believe.

And to answer your question:
Yes, I was raised in half of a "Christian" home. My mom took me to church, my dad didn't care much. But after elementary and middle school, mom didn't take me anymore, and I stopped going. In early high school I questioned drastically what I believed, and thought of abandoning religion altogether. Thanks to some deep thought and the blessings of friends, I went back to church and started doing mission work. College brought similar struggles, and again in these past few months before and after graduation I doubted again. Seriously thought of giving up on God. Until I realized He hadn't given up on me... It's a longer story than that, but there's the nuts and bolts.

[Wab]

Tiberius, you forgot to mention that never in history has genocide ever been attempted in the name of atheism. :D

-HollywoodBob

True, but in the interests of nit-pickery this is not to say that genocides haven't been committed for non-religious reasons.

Stalins attempted genocide of Ukrainians, for example, purely political.

[Tiberius]

Muchas gracias! Apparantly my pal Alice (who is a real-life friend) used to have quite an Internet following for her fanart. Didn't know that until just a few weeks ago... When she went to the HP convention in Orlando, people recognized her and some asked for her autograph! Crazy. Sorry, OT again...

Wow. An HP con. Anyone know if there are any in Australia?

Ah yes my dears, but we are not arguing the merits of Christianity and atheism as proper life philosophies. I certainly do not take credit for any genocides committed in the name of Christianity in the past, just as I do not take credit for the atrocities my ancestors (possibly) committed toward their slaves in Louisiana. I do, however, feel deeply sorry for these people and wish none of it had ever happened that way.

I never meant to use that as an arguement about this topic. I just thought it was an interesting little tidbit.

Fear of Hell and fear of not going to Heaven are the same thing, and neither are good reasons to convert. Again, I think that if someone converts because they need "insurance" then it's not a true conversion.

Ah, but how can you tell? And you gotta admit, Christianity does sorta support the "Well, I better convert or I'm going to Hell" idea, don't it?

But I still don't believe in the shopping around idea. In my opinion, the choice we offer is to convert to Christianity, or to not. Maybe it's just me, but I'm not much up for a buffet of world religions (try the filet of Jesus, it's amazing!).

So you don't want them to find religion, you want them to find your religion. Basically the "I'm right and you're wrong" approach. My religion is better than yours. My cooking tastes better than yours. My taste in TV shows is better than yours. Get the idea?


And again, maybe this is just me, but if I felt like something was missing in my life, and someone came along telling me about some other religion, let's say Islam even (to get away from the Christianity examples). For me to want to abandon the rituals, customs and beliefs I already hold and adopt new ones, I'd have to be very convinced that the new set was correct. Even though you say it is impossible for any one religion to be "right", and you may in fact be right (ironic, isn't it?), people want their religion and the people who preach it to be sure of what they believe. Even if it can't be proven scientifically.

As I have said many times before, religion cannot be proved one way or the other. Neither can the existence of alien life. So, both of these are ideas. If I come up to you and say, "Aliens are real!", then you'd quite understandably ask me for my evidence (assuming, of course that you don't believe in aliens, but that's a whole nother thread. ;) ) And if I can't give any evidence, what are you going to do? You won't believe me, of course. I'm the same. If I am going to beleive in Christianity, I'm going to want evidence to support your claims. Maybe it's getting Jesus to come and have a drink with me, or maybe it's me feeling God helping me through a rough part of my life. In either case, I'd have my evidence.

Now, if you go to a village in Mexico (that's a popular place in this thread, that village in Mexico. I go there a lot...:huh: ), then I think it's quite reasonable for the villagers to ask you for evidence. So either you've got to show them God, or they have to feel God's work. Now, if they have a religion already, that's going to be very hard to do. "See that plant? it was made by God," you say. "No it wasn't," they reply. "It was made by the great Bird." So you try the other approach. "Ever felt that God helped you through a rough part of your life?" you ask. "Sure," they tell you, "but it was the Great Bird, not God."

You said, "People want their religion and the people who preach it to be sure of what they believe. Even if it can't be proven scientifically." So, you go down to this village. They have a religion, you have a religion. Everyone involved has a religion. But they just have a different religion to yours. So you try to convert them. Simply put, I want to know what right you (as a missionary) have to tell them that whatever god they've been worshipping for hundreds of years is wrong and yours is right. I mean, they've had this religion for who knows how long, then you come in and decide to change it! Now, you have every right to believe whatever you want. And you have every right to tell them about your religion. But what gives you the right to change their culture? Don't tell me it's free speech. Changing their culture isn't free speech. Telling them about your religion is free speech. Changing theie culture is just scraping what they've spent centuries developing just because you don't agree with it.

Take atheism for example. If I was considering becoming an atheist, I would want to talk to someone who already is -- like yourself for example. For me to abandon my current belief in God, or even agnostic belief in God (he may or may not be there), I would want to be sure that you were right. Therefore you would have to be sure that you were right. But you're not. So if you're not sure that what you have to offer me is any better than what I've got, why should I change? I know, this is your point exactly. This is why we should let sleeping dogs lie. The problem (well, it's not a problem really) is that religious people DO believe they are right, even though you say they aren't. So as long as they believe that, don't expect a van filled with Jews and Buddhists to stop by your local Baptist church to pick up the bibles on their way to Mexico.

You say that I'm not sure if I'm right. In the sense that I can't prove Atheism is correct, then yes. But I am sure that Atheism is right. And isn't that the same basis of your beliefs? You believe God exists, I believe he doesn't. You say religious people believe they are right. But I'm not religious and I also believe I am right. But, belief is not the same as knowledge. I may believe as much as I like that I will live to 102 and die married to a beautiful supermodel, but that doesn't mean that's how it's going to be. In the same way, you can believe in God all you want, but that doesn't mean that God is up there. Belief is a choice. It can be supported with evidence, but it doesn't have to be. But it isn't knowing. Because if you knew (I'm getting into technical definitions here) that God exists, then it would mean that you have some proof. Like maybe you found Jesus and got him to turn water into wine or something. And I bet that would make a lot of people very happy. Mmm, wine... But you don't have that proof, so you can't "know" for sure. All you can do is believe. Now, I know that you probably are thinking now, "Hey, I know God exists." Please understand, I am not trying to trivialise your beliefs. I am simply using the words Believe and Know to make an important distinction. In either case (knowing or believing) you may be equally sure that you are right, but I have used the word Know to indicate that there is indefutable proof to back up your claims.

And I didn't mean that the Jews and Buddhists in the van should pick up the Bibles. I meant the Christians who are also in the van should pick them up. :p

In America, it's a little thing called the First Amendment -- free speech. I know, it doesn't apply in every country, and that's the problem. But personally I think the basic tenants of free speech can and should be applied universally, because we see the oppressiveness of places where it is not.

I gotta agree with you here. Free speech is generally a good thing. It's not good when a grown man tells a mother what he wants to do with her five year old daughter (Ew!) and backs it up as free speech. But everyone has the right to their own opinion and should be allowed to say it. But free speech can also be used against Missionaries.

I'd like to expand this free speech thing to free belief. I have the right to say what I like ("Snape is a nut! He's got an ugly butt!"), but I also have the right to believe what I want. I assume from the fact that you haven't tried to convert me that you'd agree with this. But then, don't the villagers in Mexico also have that right? And aren't you robbing them of that right by going in there to convert them?

You're welcome to sit content with your atheism, because your beliefs do not involve any form of ultimate truth. But world relgions -- Christianity -- involve a belief in an ultimate truth, regardless of whether you think there is one or not. That's why we don't sit around apathetically, not caring if others share in the joy of what we believe to be truth. The difference between your beliefs and mine is that you don't believe in the goodness of your own -- while I do. And so I want to share the goodness of my beliefs with others.

First, and no offence, who are you to tell me about my own beliefs? I have religious beliefs in that I have beliefs about God and religion. Just because I think God doesn't exist, doesn't make it non-religious. Well, it sort of does, but you see my point, right? Just like you, I have a belief about God. it's just different to yours.

Also, how can you say that my beliefs don't have an "ultimate truth"? The entire first part of your arguement is something I can turn around and say back to you. The UT of your belief is that there is a God, right? The UT of mine is that there isn't.

Now, can you please explain to me how Christianity having a UT means that you have to go out and spread the word about it? Does it tell you to do that in the Bible?


I'm fairly sure that it's more like "I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will defent to the death your right to say it." And I'm pretty sure it was in reference to free speech (don't get me started on Free Speech -- I'm a journalist!! :p )

Okies, thanks for clarifying that. However, I'd like to (as before) state my belief that Free Speech only extends to telling someone about your religion. Going to tell them about Christianity is fine, but going to convert them to Christianity goes beyond free speech, because it denies them their own free speech.

[LewsTherin]

See the problem here? While the Islamic person is faced with evidence that his God is wrong, the Christian who converts to Islam gets a completely diferent viewpoint. Same thing from the other side. While the Christian faced with evidence that his God is wrong, the Islamic person who converts to Christianity gets a completely diferent viewpoint. So either person's point of view, the other person is wrong. Which means they are both wrong, yet are both right. How can this be? How can the Christian God be wrong for one person, while right for another? Is God selective? That seems like the only explanation. But it says in the Bible that God loves us all! Is anyone else confused?

I see the problem, yes. Both viewpoints are eqaully valid and eqaully sincere - so which is right? The only way would be to put both Allah and God to the test and see which one exists, and which one does not. How would one do such a test? Watch how their worshipers live their lives.

Thus, the only way one should really share one's faith, is by living it. There's a qoute that says; "Go out today and preach the Gospel, and if you must, use words," which I think sums up what missionary work should be about. Go out and serve people, for no other reason than you want to, and if they ask you why you're doing it, you tell them it's because God loves them. In such a way people will see that there is something different about you and that there is indeed a greater and benevolent power in your life, and, if they find that power attractive, they will as you about it and you'll tell them about it. Your life is a greater testimony than anything else, and that is what should prove to people that the God you serve is indeed the only God and has the power that he claims to have. That, I think, is the only way to ever decide which God is the "right" one.

[la_ginny]

Great posts, again! :tu:

Ah, but how can you tell? And you gotta admit, Christianity does sorta support the "Well, I better convert or I'm going to Hell" idea, don't it?
Well, you never can tell actually. But it is something that we discussed as missionaries, and then tried to communicate to the Mexicans -- that they shouldn't just convert in fear of one thing or another. But the ultimate choice was up to them.


As I have said many times before, religion cannot be proved one way or the other. Neither can the existence of alien life. So, both of these are ideas. If I come up to you and say, "Aliens are real!", then you'd quite understandably ask me for my evidence (assuming, of course that you don't believe in aliens, but that's a whole nother thread. ;) ) And if I can't give any evidence, what are you going to do? You won't believe me, of course. I'm the same. If I am going to beleive in Christianity, I'm going to want evidence to support your claims. Maybe it's getting Jesus to come and have a drink with me, or maybe it's me feeling God helping me through a rough part of my life. In either case, I'd have my evidence.
There is a difference in proving the existence of aliens and proving the existence of God to someone. Not in the demonstration of proof, but the motivation for it and the results of it. Proving to you that aliens exist does not, or should not, involve how you live your life every day. It doesn't affect your moral code, or what you believe will happen to you when you die. True, perhaps if I proved to you that aliens existed, then you could be motivated to create crop circles to communicate and believe that one day you will be "beamed up" to the mother ship. But wouldn't that take your belief in aliens to a religious level?

When we went to the village in Mexico (funny, cuz that really is where we went), we didn't have "proof" that what we believed was correct. We offered the reasons why we believed -- telling them the stories of how God had worked in our lives. And we told them what we believed to be the supporting evidence... the Bible's stories, etc. Truth is, no one asked for the "proof" that you say you would need. I don't know why, they just didn't. If they had, we probably would have explained what we thought to be true, but also the things that we in fact had no proof of.

Now, if you go to a village in Mexico (that's a popular place in this thread, that village in Mexico. I go there a lot...:huh: ), then I think it's quite reasonable for the villagers to ask you for evidence. So either you've got to show them God, or they have to feel God's work. Now, if they have a religion already, that's going to be very hard to do. "See that plant? it was made by God," you say. "No it wasn't," they reply. "It was made by the great Bird." So you try the other approach. "Ever felt that God helped you through a rough part of your life?" you ask. "Sure," they tell you, "but it was the Great Bird, not God."

You said, "People want their religion and the people who preach it to be sure of what they believe. Even if it can't be proven scientifically." So, you go down to this village. They have a religion, you have a religion. Everyone involved has a religion. But they just have a different religion to yours. So you try to convert them. Simply put, I want to know what right you (as a missionary) have to tell them that whatever god they've been worshipping for hundreds of years is wrong and yours is right. I mean, they've had this religion for who knows how long, then you come in and decide to change it! Now, you have every right to believe whatever you want. And you have every right to tell them about your religion. But what gives you the right to change their culture? Don't tell me it's free speech. Changing their culture isn't free speech. Telling them about your religion is free speech. Changing theie culture is just scraping what they've spent centuries developing just because you don't agree with it.

But see now you're confusing the rights I have. We must make a distinction between my right to tell them about my religion, and my right to change theirs. Because these are two different things. You said "And you have every right to tell them about your religion." Agreed. But what gives me the right to change their culture? Nothing (well, some Christians would argue that God does, but I don't buy into that).

I'm not trying to change their culture, or anything about them really. I'm offering them the opportunity to change their beliefs. I never wanted to change their culture. The people in the village who had converted maintained their culture, but adopted new beliefs. True, some of these beliefs required adopting new rituals. Christianity takes many forms in many places in the world, and I don't believe that any one of these cultural forms of the religion is more right than another. The Christianity I practice is very different from what early Europeans practiced, and it is very different still from what the modern Mexican villagers practice. Personally, I am in great awe of the Mexican culture, and I don't want to come in with my middle-class white girl ideology and force it onto these beautiful people. The grand sanctuaries and elaborate Sunday dress of my church in America -- it doesn't fit with the blue jeans-wearing villagers in their dusty one-room church with rickety wooden pews. (It's not just about money either, but I'm just trying to make a point).

I'm not sure I can think logically enough to debate your whole "knowing" and "believing" paragraph, so I'll let it be. One point for you. :p

And I didn't mean that the Jews and Buddhists in the van should pick up the Bibles. I meant the Christians who are also in the van should pick them up. :p
I know, I was just making the analogy of several world religions in a van together. I have to admit, it's giving me an amusing mental picture... :lol:


First, and no offence, who are you to tell me about my own beliefs? I have religious beliefs in that I have beliefs about God and religion. Just because I think God doesn't exist, doesn't make it non-religious. Well, it sort of does, but you see my point, right? Just like you, I have a belief about God. it's just different to yours.

Also, how can you say that my beliefs don't have an "ultimate truth"? The entire first part of your arguement is something I can turn around and say back to you. The UT of your belief is that there is a God, right? The UT of mine is that there isn't.

Now, can you please explain to me how Christianity having a UT means that you have to go out and spread the word about it? Does it tell you to do that in the Bible?
Likewise, I meant no offense in saying what you believe has no ultimate truth. But in your previous posts you had said something along the lines of "I may be right, I may be wrong, let everybody believe what they want to." And to me that insinuated you didn't believe in an UT; i.e. that there absolutely is no God and those who believe there is are entirely wrong and when we all die we just die. Maybe I misunderstood your previous posts.

And actually, yes, the bible does tell us to go out and spread the word about Christianity's ultimate truth. It's called the Great Commission. Jesus said it in the gospels (of course I can't remember where exactly, and I don't have my bible in front of me.) Some Christians take it more literally than others. I know some who believe that they absolutely must work tirelessly in converting everyone in the world. Others (like myself) take a more pragmatic approach.

[Midnightsfire]

There is a difference in proving the existence of aliens and proving the existence of God to someone. If aliens decided to come down to Earth and have a little very public chat at the UN that would change everyone's life style, especially their religious belief.

Ironically, it would be more easier to prove the existence of extraterrestrial life than any deity. (Simple logic really.)


Well, you never can tell actually. But it is something that we discussed as missionaries, and then tried to communicate to the Mexicans -- that they shouldn't just convert in fear of one thing or another. But the ultimate choice was up to them.

When we went to the village in Mexico (funny, cuz that really is where we went), we didn't have "proof" that what we believed was correct. We offered the reasons why we believed -- telling them the stories of how God had worked in our lives. And we told them what we believed to be the supporting evidence... the Bible's stories, etc. Truth is, no one asked for the "proof" that you say you would need. I don't know why, they just didn't. If they had, we probably would have explained what we thought to be true, but also the things that we in fact had no proof of.
Interesting. There is much that you haven't said about this trip to Mexico. Such as what organization provided for it? In all honesty, it really isn't any of my business, however, there is usually a lot more that goes on than what you've already describe.


And actually, yes, the bible does tell us to go out and spread the word about Christianity's ultimate truth. It's called the Great Commission. Jesus said it in the gospels (of course I can't remember where exactly, and I don't have my bible in front of me.) *sigh*

And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, [even] unto the end of the world. Amen.

Matthew 28:18-20

[HollywoodBob]

I have to ask, during your missionary work, was all you did was go in tell them about Christianity and then leave or did you go in, and take them things they wouldn't normally have, and then tell them that Christianity provided them with those things and imply that if they believed as you did they'd have better lives?

-HollywoodBob

[la_ginny]

If aliens decided to come down to Earth and have a little very public chat at the UN that would change everyone's life style, especially their religious belief.

Ironically, it would be more easier to prove the existence of extraterrestrial life than any deity. (Simple logic really.)
Quite true. But what Tiberius said, and what I was responding to, was how someone would react right now. If a random person approached you to try to prove aliens are real... I've somehow lost what the original point of that analogy was. Sorry :blush:

Interesting. There is much that you haven't said about this trip to Mexico. Such as what organization provided for it? In all honesty, it really isn't any of my business, however, there is usually a lot more that goes on than what you've already describe.
I went on two trips in a short period of time. The first was with about 200 others college students through the Baptist ministry at my school. I think some of the trip was funded from donations from local churches, but we had to pay the majority of our own expenses. The second was longer, and it's generally the one I speak of in this thread. It was that summer, for two weeks, and it was not through any organization. A few of us who had gone on the Baptist trip decided we wanted to go again, so we rounded up a small group of people of several Christian denominations. We paid for it ourselves, though we did a few fundraisers to help out. It was nothing but college kids and a few extra translators. It was so informal that it definitely made getting across the border rather difficult...

And please don't hold the Baptist label against me... There are some things they do, or have done, that I don't agree with, and I no longer attend a Baptist church.

I'm not sure what you think that goes on that I haven't already described, but I'd be happy to answer any of your questions. Just out of curiosity, how is it that you know there is "more" to what goes on during mission trips? Have you ever been on one?


*sigh*

[size=2]And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, [even] unto the end of the world. Amen.

Matthew 28:18-20
It's ok, you don't have to get huffy because I didn't have the verse in my pocket. I happened to be at a foreign computer, meaning not at my house, with people waiting to use it. I'm sure you didn't mean to be offensive, but it just seems like you were annoyed by the fact that you "had" to post it...

I have to ask, during your missionary work, was all you did was go in tell them about Christianity and then leave or did you go in, and take them things they wouldn't normally have, and then tell them that Christianity provided them with those things and imply that if they believed as you did they'd have better lives?

Um.... huh? Why on earth would I do that? Yes, we brought them things. Not things they normally wouldn't have.... like a GameBoy or something stupid. We brought the basics -- used clothes and old toys. It's not as though they didn't already have their own clothes, though theirs were few and tattered. As for toys, some had them, but they were so excited to get a teddy bear or game from the "Gringos."

NO, we never told them that Christianity provided them with those things, or even that God provided them. It was pretty clear that we provided them. It wasn't an market transaction -- we give you toys (or God gives you toys) and you convert to Christianity in exchange. We weren't offering them better lives financially, just spiritually. They knew the reason we had things to give them was because we were Americans, not because we were Christians.

Ugh, sorry if I seem offended, but I am. It was all about giving. Anybody who has ever visited this village could see that. You just can't help but give what you have. We spent weeks beforehand gathering everything we could and packing as much as would fit in our vehicles. We left much of our own stuff that we could do without at home, just to make room for more stuff. And much of it we didn't actually get to give away ourselves. We gave it to the church down there, and they distributed it to the village's neediest children. In all likelihood, many of the people who benefitted from the donations never knew it came from the American missionaries. And who cares? I don't. I was just glad to help.

[Midnightsfire]

Many missionary organizations have been justifiably accused of human rights abuses.

As I posted earlier (http://www.geocities.com/iconoclastes.geo/mission.html#MT)...

However, let's take a look at the Akha peoples (http://www.akha.org/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=3):

In some countries the missionaries take wholesale advantage of these extreme conditions, teach the Akha that all they are, know and do is evil and that only when they will become like white evangelicals or white catholics can they become free from "darkness and bondage". These people behave worse than criminal ambulance chasers, imposing big churches on villages, forbidding the culture, the dance the songs and the traditions, splitting villages of large extended families with religious disinformation that their home churches would be shocked to see. Those of the Akha who help in this practice are handsomely rewarded by these missionaries for helping to do these evil events which further fragment and marginalize a culture that needs friends, not opportunistic predators in the name of the "gospel".

Just one of all too many examples of the willing destruction of of a culture and their beliefs and way of life.

Sad that in order for Christianity to be as widespread that it is today, that such destruction has happened a thousand times over.

Even more sad is the fact that Jesus condemned organized religion. Makes one wonder just what was truly meant by that supposed "great commission."


"I say quite deliberately that the Christian religion, as organized by its churches, has been and still is, the principal enemy of moral progress in this world."
Bertrand Russell (1872-1970)

[JofpGallagher]

Sometimes I wonder why is so easy to attack Christians different religions denomination. Could it be possible that someone brings examples of Non-Christian religion denomination in any of the religion threads in this forum? I mean, at least for a change.
It's always us the Christians! That for some we are the plague of the world. I think you have made it very clear MF that you dislike Christians...Is it only Christians or is it religion in general?

[Midnightsfire]

Sometimes I wonder why is so easy to attack Christians different religions denomination. Could it be possible that someone brings examples of Non-Christian religion denomination in any of the religion threads in this forum? I mean, at least for a change.
It's always us the Christians! That for some we are the plague of the world. I think you have made it very clear MF that you dislike Christians...Is it only Christians or is it religion in general?
I have an extensive list of cultures that I had once attempted to research but found that there was nothing to research beyond what archaeological science had found and the sterile writings of missionaries that deemed the prior writings and stories of said cultures offensive to Christian belief.

Most frustrating. Perhaps when I locate my old notes I will reprint them in detail here. However, a simple search on that Christian, Christopher Columbus should shed a little light:

The Arawaks according to the Catholic Encyclopedia (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01680c.htm) (Note the mention of supposed cannibalism...)
The Arawaks according to Race and History.com (http://www.raceandhistory.com/Taino/Caribs.htm) (Note the mention of no widespread and systematic cannibalism.)

I personally prefer a living culture. (And we already have a thread on Native Americans so I really don't need to go much further. But I have an extensive list of quotes of what many natives thought of Christianity in general.)

[la_ginny]

Many missionary organizations have been justifiably accused of human rights abuses.

As I posted earlier (http://www.geocities.com/iconoclastes.geo/mission.html#MT)...

However, let's take a look at the Akha peoples (http://www.akha.org/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=3):

In some countries the missionaries take wholesale advantage of these extreme conditions, teach the Akha that all they are, know and do is evil and that only when they will become like white evangelicals or white catholics can they become free from "darkness and bondage". These people behave worse than criminal ambulance chasers, imposing big churches on villages, forbidding the culture, the dance the songs and the traditions, splitting villages of large extended families with religious disinformation that their home churches would be shocked to see. Those of the Akha who help in this practice are handsomely rewarded by these missionaries for helping to do these evil events which further fragment and marginalize a culture that needs friends, not opportunistic predators in the name of the "gospel".

Just one of all too many examples of the willing destruction of of a culture and their beliefs and way of life.

Sad that in order for Christianity to be as widespread that it is today, that such destruction has happened a thousand times over.

Even more sad is the fact that Jesus condemned organized religion. Makes one wonder just what was truly meant by that supposed "great commission."

That is an incredibly depressing story, and it is exactly that kind of missionary work that I seek to separate myself from. I know these types of things have happened in the past. I know they still happen, though not as often or as harshly (think of what American culture and views on foreign culture was like, overall, in the 60s, 70s, and even beyond. We've come a long way since then, and I believe missionary work has too.)

But my post describes the exact opposite of what you describe above. In truth, I would take back every bit of that malice and destruction if I could, sacrificing whatever gains Christians think they made by destroying native cultures through mission work. Because in my view, those are not gains -- they are not "victories" for God, if a people and their way of life is destroyed.

I can't speak for others, as I have said before. I can only speak for myself. And my motivations and desires were entirely different than the stories in that link. The end results, I believe, were also different.

The atrocities you mention in your subsequent post, about Columbus, etc. are indicative of a very different time in American history. Trust me, I learned all about pre-colonial Latin American cultures, and how the conquistadors ravaged them in the name of God, gold and glory. It sickened me, too. So what's the solution? Where do we go now? I honestly don't know. But I'm not going to let someone labor under the illusion that the mission work I did, or the work my colleagues did, was anything like that.

The culture of that village is still intact, as far as I know.

[Midnightsfire]

*shrugs* I'm of the mind of some anthropologists, and enamored with an ideal of pure cultural relativism.

[Tiberius]

Wow, so much has gone in since last I was here. Are you guys posting a couple of times a day? I can't keep up! I'm at my local library and can only come on for an hour a day.

There is a difference in proving the existence of aliens and proving the existence of God to someone. Not in the demonstration of proof, but the motivation for it and the results of it. Proving to you that aliens exist does not, or should not, involve how you live your life every day. It doesn't affect your moral code, or what you believe will happen to you when you die. True, perhaps if I proved to you that aliens existed, then you could be motivated to create crop circles to communicate and believe that one day you will be "beamed up" to the mother ship. But wouldn't that take your belief in aliens to a religious level?

That depends how you define religious. Any being sufficiently advanced would seem like a God to us. And besides, there are quite a few people who claim that God and Jesus (and all the other gods) were aliens. You gotta admit, it is possible, after all... All that talk of heaven...

But see now you're confusing the rights I have. We must make a distinction between my right to tell them about my religion, and my right to change theirs. Because these are two different things. You said "And you have every right to tell them about your religion." Agreed. But what gives me the right to change their culture? Nothing (well, some Christians would argue that God does, but I don't buy into that).

I'm not trying to change their culture, or anything about them really. I'm offering them the opportunity to change their beliefs. I never wanted to change their culture. The people in the village who had converted maintained their culture, but adopted new beliefs.

Ah, but aren't you changing their culture by changing their beliefs?

I'm not sure I can think logically enough to debate your whole "knowing" and "believing" paragraph, so I'll let it be. One point for you. :p

Yay me! :clap:

I know, I was just making the analogy of several world religions in a van together. I have to admit, it's giving me an amusing mental picture... :lol:

A Rabbi and an athiest get into a van... Sounds like a very bad joke, don't it?

Likewise, I meant no offense in saying what you believe has no ultimate truth. But in your previous posts you had said something along the lines of "I may be right, I may be wrong, let everybody believe what they want to." And to me that insinuated you didn't believe in an UT; i.e. that there absolutely is no God and those who believe there is are entirely wrong and when we all die we just die. Maybe I misunderstood your previous posts.

Okay, let's talk about truth. Forget what happens in court, I say truth is absolute. Either something happened, or it didn't. Either God exists, or he doesn't. I may not know if He is up there or not, but I can tell you that I know that it has to be one of those, either he is or He isn't.

Now, many, if not all or the world's religions have UTs, right? And being different religions, their UTs are different. So if one is right, all the others are wrong. Now, the vast majority of people on this world are not Christians. So the majority say Christianity is wrong. Does that prove anything? Not at all. I watched "Contact" (great movie, I really recommend it, some great scenes about religion and science), and there's a line in there that 95% of the Earth's population believes in some sort of higher being, ie, a God. Does that mean that they are right? Not by a long shot. Quantity does not mean quality. Remember, at one point, 95% of people believed the Earth was flat.

Anyway, off topic. I'm not here to debate the existance of God. But I'm sure that would make a great thread. Anyway, back to business...

And actually, yes, the bible does tell us to go out and spread the word about Christianity's ultimate truth. It's called the Great Commission. Jesus said it in the gospels (of course I can't remember where exactly, and I don't have my bible in front of me.) Some Christians take it more literally than others. I know some who believe that they absolutely must work tirelessly in converting everyone in the world. Others (like myself) take a more pragmatic approach.

So how many missionaries do it because they are told to, and how many do it because they think it's a good idea? Now, let's go hypothertical. Let's say I am God. Mmm, power... :drool: If I told people to go and tell others that I am God and wise and all that, would it be good? Apparently, because that's what the Bible told us to do. What if I told someone to jump off a cliff to their doom? Is that good?

The culture of that village is still intact, as far as I know.

Except for the beliefs of the people you converted. Who knows what that could do.

Sometimes I wonder why is so easy to attack Christians different religions denomination. Could it be possible that someone brings examples of Non-Christian religion denomination in any of the religion threads in this forum? I mean, at least for a change.
It's always us the Christians! That for some we are the plague of the world. I think you have made it very clear MF that you dislike Christians...Is it only Christians or is it religion in general?

Speaking for myself, the only reason I refer to Christian Missionaries is that most missionaries are Christian, are they not?

NO, we never told them that Christianity provided them with those things, or even that God provided them. It was pretty clear that we provided them. It wasn't an market transaction -- we give you toys (or God gives you toys) and you convert to Christianity in exchange. We weren't offering them better lives financially, just spiritually. They knew the reason we had things to give them was because we were Americans, not because we were Christians.

I for one never had the impression that you attempted to bribe them.

Ironically, it would be more easier to prove the existence of extraterrestrial life than any deity. (Simple logic really.)

I'd like to propose that it's impossible to prove the existence of a deity. If there was concrete evidence, it wouldn't really be "faith", would it?

I see the problem, yes. Both viewpoints are eqaully valid and eqaully sincere - so which is right? The only way would be to put both Allah and God to the test and see which one exists, and which one does not. How would one do such a test? Watch how their worshipers live their lives.

Put both God and Allah to the test? There's an interesting idea! Watching how worshippers live isn't the way. That depends as much on the individual as the god. And besides, that assumes that the two gods are different gods. How can we know that they aren't the same god, just using different names? And who wants to tell the poor loser, "We did an experiment, and we've determined that your religion is a load of rubbish"? Not me, thanks!

[LewsTherin]

Put both God and Allah to the test? There's an interesting idea! Watching how worshippers live isn't the way. That depends as much on the individual as the god. And besides, that assumes that the two gods are different gods. How can we know that they aren't the same god, just using different names? And who wants to tell the poor loser, "We did an experiment, and we've determined that your religion is a load of rubbish"? Not me, thanks!
Well, I'd think that people would want to know whether the God they're worshipping is really looking out for them. Sure, it will come as a shock to find out that their religion is, as you say, a load of rubbish, but in the long run it would be better to base your religion on the real thing rather than something that does not exist.

I also don't think God would use different guises; what would be the point? It would be mighty confusing to the people trying to worship him, never mind causing considerable friction between those worshippers as to which is the right one (mind you, this is already the case). One God is much simpler to deal with.

[HollywoodBob]

I always thought it was a little funny that the early missionaries to south america told the sun worshipping natives that their God wasn't the right one. Atleast sun worshippers could see their God everyday. :D

Just an observation.

-HollywoodBob

[Benzo]

Good post HollywoodBob!

[Wab]

Put both God and Allah to the test? There's an interesting idea!

Very interesting seeing they're the same being.

[Tiberius]

Well, I'd think that people would want to know whether the God they're worshipping is really looking out for them. Sure, it will come as a shock to find out that their religion is, as you say, a load of rubbish, but in the long run it would be better to base your religion on the real thing rather than something that does not exist.

I also don't think God would use different guises; what would be the point? It would be mighty confusing to the people trying to worship him, never mind causing considerable friction between those worshippers as to which is the right one (mind you, this is already the case). One God is much simpler to deal with.

Okay, so God doesn't use different guises? Then only one religion in the world can be right! And that's assuming that anyone got it right at all! So I can infer from your arguement that you think the vast majority of religious people are just plain old WRONG. Even though they think they are right.

And how would they know that God is looking out for them? Is he nice to them? Well, that might be one way to find out. But oh, wait. How many Christians have suffered horribly? Even in the name of their religion? How many Christians died on September 11? Was God looking out for them? I know what you're going to say. God is so far above us that we can't even hope to comprehend his reasons for doing things. Well, I say sod that! If he's going to be doing something for me, I sure as heck want to know what it is! So isn't just saying that we can't comprehend his reasons just a way of easing our fears? It's all nasty, but God's looking out for us?

So how can we tell if a particular god is the real thing? You may be convinced that your religion is the right one. But in the history of the world, there have been many religions, and every single worshipper of every single religion has believed exactly the same thing! I know you suggest that we look at how believers of a faith act in order to judge the legitimacy of that particular god, but is that really accurate? A Christian goes on a killing spree. Does that mean his God is less legitimate? Protestants and Catholics kill each other in riots. Does that reduce the case for their god? The only way to judge if a god is real or not is to examine the god itself. And until a god actually comes down to Earth and pays us a visit in the flesh, that's going to be somewhat hard to do.

Just as Hollywood Bob said, the Sun worshippers could actually see their god every single day. At least they had evidence for their god that they could show to others. That's more than Christianity can say. When was the last time Jesus came to Earth? I remember something a few years ago about a face in the reflection off windows of an office block or something...

Anyway, this is off topic. This is about missionary work, not about the existance of God.

[OrbitingElle]

It is not possible to be respectful of someone else's culture while trying to persuade them about your own. Period. If they don't ask for your help, you have no business being there.

I am a vegetarian, but I would never stand outside a steakhouse and hand out pamphlets about why I think eating meat is wrong. I explain my beliefs if, and ONLY if, someone asks. It's incredibly arrogant for anyone to think that they are right about everything, and it's even more arrogant for them to try to push their knowledge on the unsuspecting public.

Missionary work is a bribe. The cultures targeted are poverty stricken, and they are bribed with help. If you want to be kind to them, give them food and back off, don't give them food and bible passages.

[madabouthermione]

Hey people :)

I don't wish to offend anyone or make an unpleasant post, but I want to share my concerns about Missionary Work and it's harmful effects, especially since I'm coming from a country whose culture is being subtley destroyed by this group of people who call themselves "Fundamendalists".

I'm a Buddhist and I come from Sri Lanka (for those of you who don't know about its location, it's the small island that is just under India). Anyway, we have a rich history of 2500 years, and Buddhism was what shaped our culture and influenced our Kings to succesfully govern our nation, in turn making it one of the most devoloped countries in Asia. Well, atleast before the British Colonists took over.
They burnt our temples, killed Buddhist monks, and made sure that the teaching of Buddhism was not carried out in any form. Buddhist monastories were converted into Christian schools, and anyone who stood against it was cosidered a traitor.

Please don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that all of them were bad. There were some Governers who recognized our culture's worth and worked for it's benifit. They didn't approve of the earlier colonists' ways. However, these noble men were just a handful.

Anyway, this was decades ago. In more recent times, the Fundamendalists I mentioned earlier have started a campaign of converting Buddhists into Christians by any means possible (BTW, these people are not Roman Catholics; they belong to some other divisions of Christianity; some groups don't even have a cross in their church). Their first targets are poor villagers, especially those in the war-torn Nothern parts. They offer these villagers money and food in exchange for a visit to their church. I don't like to use this word, but people are being "bribed" to change their religions; and the victims are not always Buddhists; in some parts of the county, Roman Catholics are persuaded to join these other religions; and the Sri Lankan Catholic community stands firmly against these Fundamendalists. Recently, some Buddhist monks, together with Catholic priests held discussions with the authorities about banning these groups.

Well, that is the harsh truth about some Missionory Groups (not all).

Anyway I hope I didn't come across as a Christian hater or a British hater :)
I love them both, I really do. My mother is a Catholic and all of my cousins from her side are Catholics as well :) And as for British folks... well, I'm Sri Lanka's biggest Harry Potter fan... need I say more? :D

[DsX Phoenix]

Yes, most of history is a blemish on Christianity/Europe's (including Americans, also) record. And I do not believe anyone anywhere should feel they are being forced into a religion they are against.

However, I think there is a fine line that missionaries sometimes walk, in which forceful persuasion and true educationare separated. And I am completely for anyone going anywhere and offering and intelligent discussion on differing opinions. To me, this is a missionary's job. They should not try to "convert" people, but rather, simply educate people on why they made thier choice. This way, the person can come away from the experience with more knowledge, and can hopefully make the appropriate decision for themselves (not advocating any choice in this post, by the way.).

[SilverStar]

I simply don't think Missionary Work is getting anywhere.

[LewsTherin]

I simply don't think Missionary Work is getting anywhere.
Really? It just so happens that Chritianty is one of the fastest growing religions worldwide. Missionary work is getting somewhere; now more than ever.

[star22]

Well, as the child of missionaries, my opinion is probably biased. However...

It is not missionaries that are bad. It is how they go about it. Personally, I do not believe that there is anything wrong with proceletizing. I am a christian and proad of it.

What is wrong is when christianity is equated with western culture. Then people say that in order to be a christian, you have to think western. That is not true. Christianity transends culture. There are good and bad things about all cultures.

Missionaries should work within the culture. For example, in a relational culture, work through your relationships. That way, you do not offend people and they can become christians without changing who they are.

I simply don't think Missionary Work is getting anywhere.

Now that is simply not true. There is an explosion of christianity going on in Asia right now. That is why countries like Shri Lanka are cracking down on conversions. The church is growing enormously.

[Nelran]

Really? It just so happens that Chritianty is one of the fastest growing religions worldwide. Missionary work is getting somewhere; now more than ever.

Well, that doesn't make it a good thing, just "the done thing."

[LewsTherin]

Well, that doesn't make it a good thing, just "the done thing."
True. However, those people who 'convert' are generally better off than when they were not. Not financially, I mean, but they're happier, have more hope, and have a more positive outlook. Money can't make you happy anyway.

[DsX Phoenix]

True. However, those people who 'convert' are generally better off than when they were not. Not financially, I mean, but they're happier, have more hope, and have a more positive outlook. Money can't make you happy anyway.

Can you honestly prove this whatsoever?

[LewsTherin]

Can you honestly prove this whatsoever?
No, I can't. But, I've heard countless testimonies of people who've turned to Christianity, and most say the same thing. Things improved for them, in both their qaulity of life and their emotional well-being.

[DsX Phoenix]

But, of course, you've heard the hand selected testimonials church officials give you to advertise missionary work. You really can't base anything on that, except that missionary work does touch some people, at least. Which, IMO, is still a positive thing for missionaries.

But to say that this shows a majority of the people do, is like taking an infomercial as gospel.

[Tiberius]

True. However, those people who 'convert' are generally better off than when they were not. Not financially, I mean, but they're happier, have more hope, and have a more positive outlook. Money can't make you happy anyway.

Hmmm, the thread's been quiet lately.

True, people may be happier when they convert to Xtianity, but couldn't this be because Xtianity provides comfort? It says that there is a kind and loving God who will look out for you, and that you can go to heaven when you die (so long as you're a good person).

But does this increased happiness really mean that Xtianity is correct? If so, doesn't this imply that God's playing favorites?

So, if anything, I would say that the increased happiness of converts means that the religion has nothing to do with it. Just that the people are more comfortable with that religion.

[tonks442]

My parents own a restaurant here in the US. We are Pakistani, and they speak Urdu, the Pakistani language. So, yesterday, two couples walk in, one of them white, the other Pakistani. My parents had figured that they were Christian. So, the Pakistani man comes up to my mom and tells her, in Urdu, that he has some literature in his car that is in Urdu. My mom did not want to be rude, so she let him go get the books. He comes back with Urdu Bibles and books in Urdu on why Islam is wrong, and my dad was up front this time. My dad got angry, and told the man to leave them alone. "I don't pressure Islam on you, so don't pressure your religion on me," my dad tells him.

Just wondering what you thought about this. It is sort of missionary work, but it is a little different. I just hate these kind of people who try to convert you. They really peeve me.

[Tiberius]

I agree with you, Tonks. No person has the right to force their beliefs on another person, no matter what the intent. Christian missionaries had noble intentions, I'm sure, but they didn't think that maybe the natives (generic term to refer to the people they were aiming to convert, usually the natives of remote locations, hence the term) were happy with their own religions.