Missionaries should be banned

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the OP is talking about those who come to her part of the world to "convert us." I don't thinks she's talking about the ones who just duig wells, provide medical services and, you know, spread the love. So to stay on topic the responses should be about those missionaries who try to spread the word, tell the people how to obtain eternal salvation and so forth.

Does “spreading the love” mean encouraging indigenous people to “let go” of traditional beliefs?

you should ask the person who said that. I don't think anyone really believes that's all missionaries do.

Is that ok for any missionaries to do?

It depends on what you believe I guess. The missionaries in Hawaii got the females to cover up their toplessness because the Bible (from the midd-east) deemed it immoral. Is that ok with you?

The missionaries shouldn’t have been there in the first place.
They certainly shouldn’t have have forced any changes to local traditions & customs & religion.

At the same time, some local traditions would have prevented them from catching up to the modern times.
They needed to learn to read and write, do away with the custom of walking topless and the taboo of men and women eating together.
A new century was on their doorstep and they needed the skills to navigate it in order to survive as a people

“Local traditions” in the Hawaiian culture included the abandonment/exposure of infants deemed “defective.” Also the maintenance of a caste system that included a slave caste others considered disgusting. Incestuous marriages among the elite, death penalty inflicted at whim by the ruling class, and human sacrifice were also traditional practices.

In other parts of the world, “traditional practices” to this day include “honor killings,” forcible concubinage, involuntary servitude, and the murder of homosexuals, among other things.

The notion that “traditional practices” represent some sort of divine Eden that must never be interfered with is juvenile and ill-informed at best.

None of that justifies missionaries from forcing themselves and their beliefs on the Hawaiian people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the OP is talking about those who come to her part of the world to "convert us." I don't thinks she's talking about the ones who just duig wells, provide medical services and, you know, spread the love. So to stay on topic the responses should be about those missionaries who try to spread the word, tell the people how to obtain eternal salvation and so forth.

Does “spreading the love” mean encouraging indigenous people to “let go” of traditional beliefs?

you should ask the person who said that. I don't think anyone really believes that's all missionaries do.

Is that ok for any missionaries to do?

It depends on what you believe I guess. The missionaries in Hawaii got the females to cover up their toplessness because the Bible (from the midd-east) deemed it immoral. Is that ok with you?

The missionaries shouldn’t have been there in the first place.
They certainly shouldn’t have have forced any changes to local traditions & customs & religion.

At the same time, some local traditions would have prevented them from catching up to the modern times.
They needed to learn to read and write, do away with the custom of walking topless and the taboo of men and women eating together.
A new century was on their doorstep and they needed the skills to navigate it in order to survive as a people

“Local traditions” in the Hawaiian culture included the abandonment/exposure of infants deemed “defective.” Also the maintenance of a caste system that included a slave caste others considered disgusting. Incestuous marriages among the elite, death penalty inflicted at whim by the ruling class, and human sacrifice were also traditional practices.

In other parts of the world, “traditional practices” to this day include “honor killings,” forcible concubinage, involuntary servitude, and the murder of homosexuals, among other things.

The notion that “traditional practices” represent some sort of divine Eden that must never be interfered with is juvenile and ill-informed at best.

None of that justifies missionaries from forcing themselves and their beliefs on the Hawaiian people.

I wonder how you feel about authorities and governments “forcing themselves and their beliefs” on practitioners of FGM in the modern age.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the OP is talking about those who come to her part of the world to "convert us." I don't thinks she's talking about the ones who just duig wells, provide medical services and, you know, spread the love. So to stay on topic the responses should be about those missionaries who try to spread the word, tell the people how to obtain eternal salvation and so forth.

Does “spreading the love” mean encouraging indigenous people to “let go” of traditional beliefs?

you should ask the person who said that. I don't think anyone really believes that's all missionaries do.

Is that ok for any missionaries to do?

It depends on what you believe I guess. The missionaries in Hawaii got the females to cover up their toplessness because the Bible (from the midd-east) deemed it immoral. Is that ok with you?

The missionaries shouldn’t have been there in the first place.
They certainly shouldn’t have have forced any changes to local traditions & customs & religion.

At the same time, some local traditions would have prevented them from catching up to the modern times.
They needed to learn to read and write, do away with the custom of walking topless and the taboo of men and women eating together.
A new century was on their doorstep and they needed the skills to navigate it in order to survive as a people

“Local traditions” in the Hawaiian culture included the abandonment/exposure of infants deemed “defective.” Also the maintenance of a caste system that included a slave caste others considered disgusting. Incestuous marriages among the elite, death penalty inflicted at whim by the ruling class, and human sacrifice were also traditional practices.

In other parts of the world, “traditional practices” to this day include “honor killings,” forcible concubinage, involuntary servitude, and the murder of homosexuals, among other things.

The notion that “traditional practices” represent some sort of divine Eden that must never be interfered with is juvenile and ill-informed at best.

None of that justifies missionaries from forcing themselves and their beliefs on the Hawaiian people.

I wonder how you feel about authorities and governments “forcing themselves and their beliefs” on practitioners of FGM in the modern age.

Local governments have the authority to change their own communities.

Foreign people trying to play "savior" don't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the OP is talking about those who come to her part of the world to "convert us." I don't thinks she's talking about the ones who just duig wells, provide medical services and, you know, spread the love. So to stay on topic the responses should be about those missionaries who try to spread the word, tell the people how to obtain eternal salvation and so forth.

Does “spreading the love” mean encouraging indigenous people to “let go” of traditional beliefs?

you should ask the person who said that. I don't think anyone really believes that's all missionaries do.

Is that ok for any missionaries to do?

It depends on what you believe I guess. The missionaries in Hawaii got the females to cover up their toplessness because the Bible (from the midd-east) deemed it immoral. Is that ok with you?

The missionaries shouldn’t have been there in the first place.
They certainly shouldn’t have have forced any changes to local traditions & customs & religion.

At the same time, some local traditions would have prevented them from catching up to the modern times.
They needed to learn to read and write, do away with the custom of walking topless and the taboo of men and women eating together.
A new century was on their doorstep and they needed the skills to navigate it in order to survive as a people

“Local traditions” in the Hawaiian culture included the abandonment/exposure of infants deemed “defective.” Also the maintenance of a caste system that included a slave caste others considered disgusting. Incestuous marriages among the elite, death penalty inflicted at whim by the ruling class, and human sacrifice were also traditional practices.

In other parts of the world, “traditional practices” to this day include “honor killings,” forcible concubinage, involuntary servitude, and the murder of homosexuals, among other things.

The notion that “traditional practices” represent some sort of divine Eden that must never be interfered with is juvenile and ill-informed at best.

None of that justifies missionaries from forcing themselves and their beliefs on the Hawaiian people.

I wonder how you feel about authorities and governments “forcing themselves and their beliefs” on practitioners of FGM in the modern age.

Local governments have the authority to change their own communities.

Foreign people trying to play "savior" don't.

Especially when they bring their bible with them. And make no mistake, that always comes along with any assistance they provide.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the OP is talking about those who come to her part of the world to "convert us." I don't thinks she's talking about the ones who just duig wells, provide medical services and, you know, spread the love. So to stay on topic the responses should be about those missionaries who try to spread the word, tell the people how to obtain eternal salvation and so forth.

Does “spreading the love” mean encouraging indigenous people to “let go” of traditional beliefs?

you should ask the person who said that. I don't think anyone really believes that's all missionaries do.

Is that ok for any missionaries to do?

It depends on what you believe I guess. The missionaries in Hawaii got the females to cover up their toplessness because the Bible (from the midd-east) deemed it immoral. Is that ok with you?

The missionaries shouldn’t have been there in the first place.
They certainly shouldn’t have have forced any changes to local traditions & customs & religion.

At the same time, some local traditions would have prevented them from catching up to the modern times.
They needed to learn to read and write, do away with the custom of walking topless and the taboo of men and women eating together.
A new century was on their doorstep and they needed the skills to navigate it in order to survive as a people

“Local traditions” in the Hawaiian culture included the abandonment/exposure of infants deemed “defective.” Also the maintenance of a caste system that included a slave caste others considered disgusting. Incestuous marriages among the elite, death penalty inflicted at whim by the ruling class, and human sacrifice were also traditional practices.

In other parts of the world, “traditional practices” to this day include “honor killings,” forcible concubinage, involuntary servitude, and the murder of homosexuals, among other things.

The notion that “traditional practices” represent some sort of divine Eden that must never be interfered with is juvenile and ill-informed at best.

None of that justifies missionaries from forcing themselves and their beliefs on the Hawaiian people.

I wonder how you feel about authorities and governments “forcing themselves and their beliefs” on practitioners of FGM in the modern age.

Local governments have the authority to change their own communities.

Foreign people trying to play "savior" don't.

Especially when they bring their bible with them. And make no mistake, that always comes along with any assistance they provide.

How many people in this thread have told you that’s not always the case, especially today. Please read all the responses, not just the ones from people you already agree with.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think the OP is talking about those who come to her part of the world to "convert us." I don't thinks she's talking about the ones who just duig wells, provide medical services and, you know, spread the love. So to stay on topic the responses should be about those missionaries who try to spread the word, tell the people how to obtain eternal salvation and so forth.

You can’t separate these into “good missionaries” and “bad missionaries” and then keep condemning *all* missionaries like a few here are doing. That isn’t logical.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the OP is talking about those who come to her part of the world to "convert us." I don't thinks she's talking about the ones who just duig wells, provide medical services and, you know, spread the love. So to stay on topic the responses should be about those missionaries who try to spread the word, tell the people how to obtain eternal salvation and so forth.

You can’t separate these into “good missionaries” and “bad missionaries” and then keep condemning *all* missionaries like a few here are doing. That isn’t logical.

I wrote that, and I agree with you. I was just pointing out the OP is about the kind of missionaries who try to convert people -- so those who say we don't do that aren't the kind this thread is about. (Assuming there actually are some who avoid any evangelism).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the OP is talking about those who come to her part of the world to "convert us." I don't thinks she's talking about the ones who just duig wells, provide medical services and, you know, spread the love. So to stay on topic the responses should be about those missionaries who try to spread the word, tell the people how to obtain eternal salvation and so forth.

Does “spreading the love” mean encouraging indigenous people to “let go” of traditional beliefs?

you should ask the person who said that. I don't think anyone really believes that's all missionaries do.

Is that ok for any missionaries to do?

It depends on what you believe I guess. The missionaries in Hawaii got the females to cover up their toplessness because the Bible (from the midd-east) deemed it immoral. Is that ok with you?

The missionaries shouldn’t have been there in the first place.
They certainly shouldn’t have have forced any changes to local traditions & customs & religion.

At the same time, some local traditions would have prevented them from catching up to the modern times.
They needed to learn to read and write, do away with the custom of walking topless and the taboo of men and women eating together.
A new century was on their doorstep and they needed the skills to navigate it in order to survive as a people

“Local traditions” in the Hawaiian culture included the abandonment/exposure of infants deemed “defective.” Also the maintenance of a caste system that included a slave caste others considered disgusting. Incestuous marriages among the elite, death penalty inflicted at whim by the ruling class, and human sacrifice were also traditional practices.

In other parts of the world, “traditional practices” to this day include “honor killings,” forcible concubinage, involuntary servitude, and the murder of homosexuals, among other things.

The notion that “traditional practices” represent some sort of divine Eden that must never be interfered with is juvenile and ill-informed at best.

None of that justifies missionaries from forcing themselves and their beliefs on the Hawaiian people.

I wonder how you feel about authorities and governments “forcing themselves and their beliefs” on practitioners of FGM in the modern age.

Local governments have the authority to change their own communities.

Foreign people trying to play "savior" don't.

Especially when they bring their bible with them. And make no mistake, that always comes along with any assistance they provide.

How many people in this thread have told you that’s not always the case, especially today. Please read all the responses, not just the ones from people you already agree with.

If you are merely bringing welcomed assistance with zero religion is that really "missionary" work? Maybe just call it charity work?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the OP is talking about those who come to her part of the world to "convert us." I don't thinks she's talking about the ones who just duig wells, provide medical services and, you know, spread the love. So to stay on topic the responses should be about those missionaries who try to spread the word, tell the people how to obtain eternal salvation and so forth.

Does “spreading the love” mean encouraging indigenous people to “let go” of traditional beliefs?

you should ask the person who said that. I don't think anyone really believes that's all missionaries do.

Is that ok for any missionaries to do?

It depends on what you believe I guess. The missionaries in Hawaii got the females to cover up their toplessness because the Bible (from the midd-east) deemed it immoral. Is that ok with you?

The missionaries shouldn’t have been there in the first place.
They certainly shouldn’t have have forced any changes to local traditions & customs & religion.

At the same time, some local traditions would have prevented them from catching up to the modern times.
They needed to learn to read and write, do away with the custom of walking topless and the taboo of men and women eating together.
A new century was on their doorstep and they needed the skills to navigate it in order to survive as a people

“Local traditions” in the Hawaiian culture included the abandonment/exposure of infants deemed “defective.” Also the maintenance of a caste system that included a slave caste others considered disgusting. Incestuous marriages among the elite, death penalty inflicted at whim by the ruling class, and human sacrifice were also traditional practices.

In other parts of the world, “traditional practices” to this day include “honor killings,” forcible concubinage, involuntary servitude, and the murder of homosexuals, among other things.

The notion that “traditional practices” represent some sort of divine Eden that must never be interfered with is juvenile and ill-informed at best.

None of that justifies missionaries from forcing themselves and their beliefs on the Hawaiian people.

I wonder how you feel about authorities and governments “forcing themselves and their beliefs” on practitioners of FGM in the modern age.

Local governments have the authority to change their own communities.

Foreign people trying to play "savior" don't.

Especially when they bring their bible with them. And make no mistake, that always comes along with any assistance they provide.

Some beliefs and practices don't die unless they are replaced by new beliefs
In India widows are no longer burned alive at their husbands funerals, but female fetuses are aborted, dowry system is alive and well
China has it's own problem with baby girls
Saudi Arabia is still a brutal place for a woman to be in

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:On the contrary, I see mission work as having accomplished a lot good.
Missionaries have translated the bible to indigenous languages, therefore being the first to provide them with a written language.
The new faith doesn't require sacrifices of food to a god, burning of widows, sets people free from a fear of the witches and superstitions.
Has no concept of caste, the idea that your misfortune is earned because you lived a bad life previously.

There is a lot in the traditional beliefs that people need to let go off so that they can adjust to the current century and catch up with the modern world.

"The accuser" in the Bible was, in Hebrew language, "Satan." The spirit of accusation is Satanic. And blasphemy against the holy spirit is the ONLY unforgivable sin.

Carry on

Wow. Such an entitled narcissist.

Is this really how you rationalize missionaries forcing themselves on vulnerable people?

You are confusing proselytizing, the traditional door to door activity in the US with what is actual mission work in a third world country.
Like the former Mormon missionary.
Mormon church is only interested in converting people who are wealthy enough to tithe
Religion is mostly business.
An outreach is kind of like inviting new people to your place of worship to keep the business going

Actual mission work in a 3rd world country is wildly different

The disgusting part is thinking that your beliefs and ways are inherently better than traditional beliefs and ways. Forcing yourself on them is somehow ok because they are poor.

So vile.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:On the contrary, I see mission work as having accomplished a lot good.
Missionaries have translated the bible to indigenous languages, therefore being the first to provide them with a written language.
The new faith doesn't require sacrifices of food to a god, burning of widows, sets people free from a fear of the witches and superstitions.
Has no concept of caste, the idea that your misfortune is earned because you lived a bad life previously.

There is a lot in the traditional beliefs that people need to let go off so that they can adjust to the current century and catch up with the modern world.

Wow. Such an entitled narcissist.

Is this really how you rationalize missionaries forcing themselves on vulnerable people?

You are confusing proselytizing, the traditional door to door activity in the US with what is actual mission work in a third world country.
Like the former Mormon missionary.
Mormon church is only interested in converting people who are wealthy enough to tithe
Religion is mostly business.
An outreach is kind of like inviting new people to your place of worship to keep the business going

Actual mission work in a 3rd world country is wildly different

The disgusting part is thinking that your beliefs and ways are inherently better than traditional beliefs and ways. Forcing yourself on them is somehow ok because they are poor.

So vile.

"The accuser" in the Bible was, in Hebrew language, "Satan." The spirit of accusation is Satanic. And blasphemy against the holy spirit is the ONLY unforgivable sin.

Carry on

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the OP is talking about those who come to her part of the world to "convert us." I don't thinks she's talking about the ones who just duig wells, provide medical services and, you know, spread the love. So to stay on topic the responses should be about those missionaries who try to spread the word, tell the people how to obtain eternal salvation and so forth.

Does “spreading the love” mean encouraging indigenous people to “let go” of traditional beliefs?

you should ask the person who said that. I don't think anyone really believes that's all missionaries do.

Is that ok for any missionaries to do?

It depends on what you believe I guess. The missionaries in Hawaii got the females to cover up their toplessness because the Bible (from the midd-east) deemed it immoral. Is that ok with you?

The missionaries shouldn’t have been there in the first place.
They certainly shouldn’t have have forced any changes to local traditions & customs & religion.

At the same time, some local traditions would have prevented them from catching up to the modern times.
They needed to learn to read and write, do away with the custom of walking topless and the taboo of men and women eating together.
A new century was on their doorstep and they needed the skills to navigate it in order to survive as a people

“Local traditions” in the Hawaiian culture included the abandonment/exposure of infants deemed “defective.” Also the maintenance of a caste system that included a slave caste others considered disgusting. Incestuous marriages among the elite, death penalty inflicted at whim by the ruling class, and human sacrifice were also traditional practices.

In other parts of the world, “traditional practices” to this day include “honor killings,” forcible concubinage, involuntary servitude, and the murder of homosexuals, among other things.

The notion that “traditional practices” represent some sort of divine Eden that must never be interfered with is juvenile and ill-informed at best.

None of that justifies missionaries from forcing themselves and their beliefs on the Hawaiian people.

I wonder how you feel about authorities and governments “forcing themselves and their beliefs” on practitioners of FGM in the modern age.

Local governments have the authority to change their own communities.

Foreign people trying to play "savior" don't.

DP. The Uighers in China have zero authority to change their plight. I wonder if you’re as concerned about them and, if so, where is your DCUM thread on it?

Meanwhile, people being visited by missionaries can always say “no.” Or they can say “yes” for as long as it takes to get the medical care or get the well built, and then they can say “no” again.

Seems to me you have the relative burdens mixed up.

[Anonymous]

Need a cookbook!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the OP is talking about those who come to her part of the world to "convert us." I don't thinks she's talking about the ones who just duig wells, provide medical services and, you know, spread the love. So to stay on topic the responses should be about those missionaries who try to spread the word, tell the people how to obtain eternal salvation and so forth.

Does “spreading the love” mean encouraging indigenous people to “let go” of traditional beliefs?

you should ask the person who said that. I don't think anyone really believes that's all missionaries do.

Is that ok for any missionaries to do?

It depends on what you believe I guess. The missionaries in Hawaii got the females to cover up their toplessness because the Bible (from the midd-east) deemed it immoral. Is that ok with you?

The missionaries shouldn’t have been there in the first place.
They certainly shouldn’t have have forced any changes to local traditions & customs & religion.

At the same time, some local traditions would have prevented them from catching up to the modern times.
They needed to learn to read and write, do away with the custom of walking topless and the taboo of men and women eating together.
A new century was on their doorstep and they needed the skills to navigate it in order to survive as a people

“Local traditions” in the Hawaiian culture included the abandonment/exposure of infants deemed “defective.” Also the maintenance of a caste system that included a slave caste others considered disgusting. Incestuous marriages among the elite, death penalty inflicted at whim by the ruling class, and human sacrifice were also traditional practices.

In other parts of the world, “traditional practices” to this day include “honor killings,” forcible concubinage, involuntary servitude, and the murder of homosexuals, among other things.

The notion that “traditional practices” represent some sort of divine Eden that must never be interfered with is juvenile and ill-informed at best.

None of that justifies missionaries from forcing themselves and their beliefs on the Hawaiian people.

I wonder how you feel about authorities and governments “forcing themselves and their beliefs” on practitioners of FGM in the modern age.

Local governments have the authority to change their own communities.

Foreign people trying to play "savior" don't.

Especially when they bring their bible with them. And make no mistake, that always comes along with any assistance they provide.

How many people in this thread have told you that’s not always the case, especially today. Please read all the responses, not just the ones from people you already agree with.

If you are merely bringing welcomed assistance with zero religion is that really "missionary" work? Maybe just call it charity work?

A big part of testifying is by example. So giving welcome assistance in itself is missionary work. A few posters above have said that about some Christian missionaries, and a Muslim poster above makes that point very clearly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Discuss...