Missionaries should be banned

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hehehe. I was just looking at the College forum and there is a thread about average extra-curriculars for college applications. Sure enough, "mission trips" came up. You can't overlook the value and importance to some of these kids of doing them to have an edge on their college apps!

Whoever said that is dead wrong. In fact colleges look askance at sone kid’s essay about how they held Fouad’s hand and looked into his eyes as they gave him sneakers.

That doesn't stop the students and their parents from thinking it's good extra-curricular to put on the college app. Too bad they didn't hire you as their consultant, you could have set them straight.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So why shouldn't missionaries be banned?

Couldn't their charity work continue via secular organizations?

It’s 2021, there are plenty of secular international aid organizations.

Why do we need missionaries? Couldn’t the “love spreading” happen via the secular orgs?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hehehe. I was just looking at the College forum and there is a thread about average extra-curriculars for college applications. Sure enough, "mission trips" came up. You can't overlook the value and importance to some of these kids of doing them to have an edge on their college apps!

Whoever said that is dead wrong. In fact colleges look askance at sone kid’s essay about how they held Fouad’s hand and looked into his eyes as they gave him sneakers.

That doesn't stop the students and their parents from thinking it's good extra-curricular to put on the college app. Too bad they didn't hire you as their consultant, you could have set them straight.

Do you have any college-age kids? Every college counselor knows this and it’s in all the books about applying. Don’t write your essay about your 3-day bonding experience in a developing country.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hehehe. I was just looking at the College forum and there is a thread about average extra-curriculars for college applications. Sure enough, "mission trips" came up. You can't overlook the value and importance to some of these kids of doing them to have an edge on their college apps!

Whoever said that is dead wrong. In fact colleges look askance at sone kid’s essay about how they held Fouad’s hand and looked into his eyes as they gave him sneakers.

That doesn't stop the students and their parents from thinking it's good extra-curricular to put on the college app. Too bad they didn't hire you as their consultant, you could have set them straight.

Do you have any college-age kids? Every college counselor knows this and it’s in all the books about applying. Don’t write your essay about your 3-day bonding experience in a developing country.

This wasn't about the essay. It was about listing mission trips as an extra-curricular activity.

[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.

Wow. So, are you fine with the boarding schools and the genocide of Native American tribes and the Bible waving justifications for slavery in the US? Perhaps you could address the planks embedded in your own eyes. Everything that you’re railing against as “local traditions” has very clear parallels on Christian European cultures. It seems that you might know quite a bit about being “juvenile and I’ll-informed at best” and even more about being hypocritical. DP

Boarding schools native American genocide was the government, not missionaries

It wasn't just the government.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/us-churches-reckon-traumatic-legacy-native-schools-78994651
https://www.washingtonpost.com/religion/2021/10/08/methodist-lutheran-episcopal-native-american-residential-schools/

Nobody is saying missionary schools were good—they weren’t.

You’re incapable of staying in the present, though. OP is criticizing present-day missionaries. But all you can come up with is past history. If you’re going to do that, then bringing up secular oppression of groups like the Uighers is absolutely on point and, what’s more, it’s relevant today.

You STILL haven’t condemned China’s role, let alone started a thread about the Uighers. You don’t seem the least concerned about Wahhabi and ISIS proselytizers who are oppressing people TODAY. Why not?

More than one person commenting here old chap. I’m the one still trying to untangle the horrors that my own ancestors dealt with — and the apparent certainty of some that it should be ignored — ‘cause: past — even as the self-serving beliefs that underlie missionary efforts persist.

Are you holding the position that the religious tenets that underlie religious missionary traditions sprang fully formed at some particular “modern” point, and are politically , spiritually, socially, and culturally completely disconnected from earlier missionary efforts?

If so, then, what or when exactly was that point?

I already said missionary schools were bad. What else do you want? Oh wait, either you never read that or you’re just ignoring it.

What is the point if you won’t READ what people write before you respond? Which you obviously don’t do. You just want to spew insults, without letting other peoples’ posts get in your way.

Bye. Not going to join you in the gutter.

I asked a very specific question: If you are disconnecting current missionary efforts from much of the history of missionary work and forced acculturation that you’re trying to distance your current argument from, where exactly are you drawing a line? What distinctions are you making?

What insults have I spewed? Name one. You’re the one spewing insults. Lol. I guess it’s easier for you to throw a hissy fit and blame your inability to respond to the questions than to give a simple straightforward response.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So why shouldn't missionaries be banned?

Couldn't their charity work continue via secular organizations?

It’s 2021, there are plenty of secular international aid organizations.

Why do we need missionaries? Couldn’t the “love spreading” happen via the secular orgs?

And crickets.

No rational explanation for why we need missionaries in 2021. We have secular aid orgs that can fill the need.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hehehe. I was just looking at the College forum and there is a thread about average extra-curriculars for college applications. Sure enough, "mission trips" came up. You can't overlook the value and importance to some of these kids of doing them to have an edge on their college apps!

Sure, it's an edge for Liberty. An actual college or university? Rejection pile, stat.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So why shouldn't missionaries be banned?

Couldn't their charity work continue via secular organizations?

It’s 2021, there are plenty of secular international aid organizations.

Why do we need missionaries? Couldn’t the “love spreading” happen via the secular orgs?

And crickets.

No rational explanation for why we need missionaries in 2021. We have secular aid orgs that can fill the need.

Oh my, it looks like nobody wants to engage with a bigot whose idea of discourse is to spew hate and ignore what anybody else says. Who could have predicted that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So why shouldn't missionaries be banned?

Couldn't their charity work continue via secular organizations?

It’s 2021, there are plenty of secular international aid organizations.

Why do we need missionaries? Couldn’t the “love spreading” happen via the secular orgs?

And crickets.

No rational explanation for why we need missionaries in 2021. We have secular aid orgs that can fill the need.

And also crickets to the question which churches are sending out people to do work that is basically indistinguishable from the secular aid organizations (as some on here have claimed they do)? I don't buy it for a minute. That's not "missionary work" anyway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So why shouldn't missionaries be banned?

Couldn't their charity work continue via secular organizations?

It’s 2021, there are plenty of secular international aid organizations.

Why do we need missionaries? Couldn’t the “love spreading” happen via the secular orgs?

And crickets.

No rational explanation for why we need missionaries in 2021. We have secular aid orgs that can fill the need.

Oh my, it looks like nobody wants to engage with a bigot whose idea of discourse is to spew hate and ignore what anybody else says. Who could have predicted that?

You are confusing posters.

It’s a very simple question. Why do we need missionaries?

Why shouldn’t they be banned?

There are secular groups providing aid. Couldn’t people easily “spread love” through those organizations?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So why shouldn't missionaries be banned?

Couldn't their charity work continue via secular organizations?

It’s 2021, there are plenty of secular international aid organizations.

Why do we need missionaries? Couldn’t the “love spreading” happen via the secular orgs?

And crickets.

No rational explanation for why we need missionaries in 2021. We have secular aid orgs that can fill the need.

Oh my, it looks like nobody wants to engage with a bigot whose idea of discourse is to spew hate and ignore what anybody else says. Who could have predicted that?

You are confusing posters.

It’s a very simple question. Why do we need missionaries?

Why shouldn’t they be banned?

There are secular groups providing aid. Couldn’t people easily “spread love” through those organizations?

Dude, it doesn't matter what "we need." They need to do it. See Matthew 28:19. They're on a mission from God.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So why shouldn't missionaries be banned?

Couldn't their charity work continue via secular organizations?

It’s 2021, there are plenty of secular international aid organizations.

Why do we need missionaries? Couldn’t the “love spreading” happen via the secular orgs?

And crickets.

No rational explanation for why we need missionaries in 2021. We have secular aid orgs that can fill the need.

Oh my, it looks like nobody wants to engage with a bigot whose idea of discourse is to spew hate and ignore what anybody else says. Who could have predicted that?

You are confusing posters.

It’s a very simple question. Why do we need missionaries?

Why shouldn’t they be banned?

There are secular groups providing aid. Couldn’t people easily “spread love” through those organizations?

Dude, it doesn't matter what "we need." They need to do it. See Matthew 28:19. They're on a mission from God.

Sure, it matters. Why do we, as a society, need missionaries?

OP says to ban them. Why shouldn’t we?

What is the benefit?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So why shouldn't missionaries be banned?

Couldn't their charity work continue via secular organizations?

It’s 2021, there are plenty of secular international aid organizations.

Why do we need missionaries? Couldn’t the “love spreading” happen via the secular orgs?

And crickets.

No rational explanation for why we need missionaries in 2021. We have secular aid orgs that can fill the need.

Oh my, it looks like nobody wants to engage with a bigot whose idea of discourse is to spew hate and ignore what anybody else says. Who could have predicted that?

You are confusing posters.

It’s a very simple question. Why do we need missionaries?

Why shouldn’t they be banned?

There are secular groups providing aid. Couldn’t people easily “spread love” through those organizations?

Dude, it doesn't matter what "we need." They need to do it. See Matthew 28:19. They're on a mission from God.

Sure, it matters. Why do we, as a society, need missionaries?

OP says to ban them. Why shouldn’t we?

What is the benefit?

I see - people in 3rd world countries, including people of color in 3rd world countries, need privileged elitists from DC, on the DCurbanmom forum, sipping champagne in their jammies, dictating what they need or want, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So why shouldn't missionaries be banned?

Couldn't their charity work continue via secular organizations?

It’s 2021, there are plenty of secular international aid organizations.

Why do we need missionaries? Couldn’t the “love spreading” happen via the secular orgs?

And crickets.

No rational explanation for why we need missionaries in 2021. We have secular aid orgs that can fill the need.

Oh my, it looks like nobody wants to engage with a bigot whose idea of discourse is to spew hate and ignore what anybody else says. Who could have predicted that?

You are confusing posters.

It’s a very simple question. Why do we need missionaries?

Why shouldn’t they be banned?

There are secular groups providing aid. Couldn’t people easily “spread love” through those organizations?

Dude, it doesn't matter what "we need." They need to do it. See Matthew 28:19. They're on a mission from God.

Sure, it matters. Why do we, as a society, need missionaries?

OP says to ban them. Why shouldn’t we?

What is the benefit?

I see - people in 3rd world countries, including people of color in 3rd world countries, need privileged elitists from DC, on the DCurbanmom forum, sipping champagne in their jammies, dictating what they need or want, right?

Hypothetical: the UN is considering whether they should ban missionaries or not.

What are your reasons for why they should not ban missionaries?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So why shouldn't missionaries be banned?

Couldn't their charity work continue via secular organizations?

It’s 2021, there are plenty of secular international aid organizations.

Why do we need missionaries? Couldn’t the “love spreading” happen via the secular orgs?

And crickets.

No rational explanation for why we need missionaries in 2021. We have secular aid orgs that can fill the need.

Oh my, it looks like nobody wants to engage with a bigot whose idea of discourse is to spew hate and ignore what anybody else says. Who could have predicted that?

You are confusing posters.

It’s a very simple question. Why do we need missionaries?

Why shouldn’t they be banned?

There are secular groups providing aid. Couldn’t people easily “spread love” through those organizations?

Dude, it doesn't matter what "we need." They need to do it. See Matthew 28:19. They're on a mission from God.

Sure, it matters. Why do we, as a society, need missionaries?

OP says to ban them. Why shouldn’t we?

What is the benefit?

I see - people in 3rd world countries, including people of color in 3rd world countries, need privileged elitists from DC, on the DCurbanmom forum, sipping champagne in their jammies, dictating what they need or want, right?

Hypothetical: the UN is considering whether they should ban missionaries or not.
What are your reasons for why they should not ban missionaries?

Your hypothetical question is playing with the freedom of religion
That could be interpreted as a ban on one congregation helping another through anything, teaching materials, hymn books, building construction