Missionaries should be banned

[Anonymous]

I'm 13:27. Our medical mission trips do not hide the fact that we are sponsored by a church. Most of the countries we go to are countries of faith that happen to be poor countries. Our teams are made up of doctors (mostly surgeons) and RN's who work full time in the hospitals in my town and spend two weeks volunteering on the medical mission trips.

[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:

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?

People should be free to practice their religion, which often includes sharing it with others. Also, the burden should be on the person proposing an infringement on people's religious freedom, not the other way around.

But they can share their religion without missionary work.

Missionary work infringes on indigenous people’s beliefs and customs. Their autonomy supersedes others’ religious freedom.

What do you think missionary work is? It's going somewhere and sharing your religion (including often doing service work as well). No one's autonomy is infringed by someone telling them about Christianity. Indigenous people aren't a museum piece that have to keep the same beliefs forever because you've decided you like it that way.

Indigenous people should decide their own future without high-pressure, predatory tactics.

Just because you use words like “high pressure” and “predatory” doesn’t make it true in many of not most cases these days. Please go back and re-read the posters who have tried to answer with explanations of what missionary work actually looks like in the 21st century. Those posters were posting in good faith—you need to show good faith by reading them.

DP. I have done some Googling around the internet and what you say does have some merit. That does seem to be the trend these days. Consistent with observations in the other threads that people these days are down-playing religiousness, or just hiding I guess. Which is fine. People are becoming more "spiritual" and missionary work is becoming more like any other secular aid.

Thanks for the validation.

PS. Nobody wants to engage with your spam about bogus definitions of “religious” and “spiritual.” Take that boring stuff back to one of the other threads you’ve spammed about it. Especially as missionaries would call themselves “religious” even by your ridiculous definition, so your post makes zero sense.

Hahaha. Multiple posts above about how we don't even mention God or Jesus. We just dig wells and provide medical care - so where's the religion in these "mission trips"? Religion lite has diminished now to "religion undetectable."!

You missed the posts about his “spreading the word” is done by example, then. Doesn’t make these example-setters any less “religious” even by your phony definition. Stop trying to make “fetch” happen, especially with examples that make zero sense.

I have no idea what this means.
But you can't have it both ways -- either the missionaries are on a mission from God to spread the word or they're just doing the same thing as secular, on-religious organizations (digging wells, providing medical care). Why are they trying to hide their religious motives?? Heck, to listen to some of these posters you'd never even know they were sent by a church or religious organization!

“Stop trying to make ‘fetch’ happen” is from Mean Girls. A sad hanger-on is trying to get get everybody to use a phrase she’s coined, “that’s so fetch,” and the Queen Bee tells her to give it up.

I’m not sure why you’re not understanding that mission work these days takes non-predatory forms, like setting examples or giving out free bibles.

If you can find an example of a mission group denying food or medical care to somebody because they won’t attend service, by all means show us. But you can’t.

In that context, your insistence that all foreign aid be done through secular organizations and governments seems not just like pointless nit-picking, but downright patronizing and liable to cut off food, medical care, and more from people in developing countries.

[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:

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?

People should be free to practice their religion, which often includes sharing it with others. Also, the burden should be on the person proposing an infringement on people's religious freedom, not the other way around.

But they can share their religion without missionary work.

Missionary work infringes on indigenous people’s beliefs and customs. Their autonomy supersedes others’ religious freedom.

What do you think missionary work is? It's going somewhere and sharing your religion (including often doing service work as well). No one's autonomy is infringed by someone telling them about Christianity. Indigenous people aren't a museum piece that have to keep the same beliefs forever because you've decided you like it that way.

Indigenous people should decide their own future without high-pressure, predatory tactics.

Just because you use words like “high pressure” and “predatory” doesn’t make it true in many of not most cases these days. Please go back and re-read the posters who have tried to answer with explanations of what missionary work actually looks like in the 21st century. Those posters were posting in good faith—you need to show good faith by reading them.

DP. I have done some Googling around the internet and what you say does have some merit. That does seem to be the trend these days. Consistent with observations in the other threads that people these days are down-playing religiousness, or just hiding I guess. Which is fine. People are becoming more "spiritual" and missionary work is becoming more like any other secular aid.

Thanks for the validation.

PS. Nobody wants to engage with your spam about bogus definitions of “religious” and “spiritual.” Take that boring stuff back to one of the other threads you’ve spammed about it. Especially as missionaries would call themselves “religious” even by your ridiculous definition, so your post makes zero sense.

Hahaha. Multiple posts above about how we don't even mention God or Jesus. We just dig wells and provide medical care - so where's the religion in these "mission trips"? Religion lite has diminished now to "religion undetectable."!

You missed the posts about his “spreading the word” is done by example, then. Doesn’t make these example-setters any less “religious” even by your phony definition. Stop trying to make “fetch” happen, especially with examples that make zero sense.

I have no idea what this means.
But you can't have it both ways -- either the missionaries are on a mission from God to spread the word or they're just doing the same thing as secular, on-religious organizations (digging wells, providing medical care). Why are they trying to hide their religious motives?? Heck, to listen to some of these posters you'd never even know they were sent by a church or religious organization!

“Stop trying to make ‘fetch’ happen” is from Mean Girls. A sad hanger-on is trying to get get everybody to use a phrase she’s coined, “that’s so fetch,” and the Queen Bee tells her to give it up.

I’m not sure why you’re not understanding that mission work these days takes non-predatory forms, like setting examples or giving out free bibles.

If you can find an example of a mission group denying food or medical care to somebody because they won’t attend service, by all means show us. But you can’t.

In that context, your insistence that all foreign aid be done through secular organizations and governments seems not just like pointless nit-picking, but downright patronizing and liable to cut off food, medical care, and more from people in developing countries.

um... ok. But what's that got to do with being a Missionary?" If the work done by the secular organizations are basically indistinguishable?

[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:

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?

People should be free to practice their religion, which often includes sharing it with others. Also, the burden should be on the person proposing an infringement on people's religious freedom, not the other way around.

But they can share their religion without missionary work.

Missionary work infringes on indigenous people’s beliefs and customs. Their autonomy supersedes others’ religious freedom.

What do you think missionary work is? It's going somewhere and sharing your religion (including often doing service work as well). No one's autonomy is infringed by someone telling them about Christianity. Indigenous people aren't a museum piece that have to keep the same beliefs forever because you've decided you like it that way.

Indigenous people should decide their own future without high-pressure, predatory tactics.

Just because you use words like “high pressure” and “predatory” doesn’t make it true in many of not most cases these days. Please go back and re-read the posters who have tried to answer with explanations of what missionary work actually looks like in the 21st century. Those posters were posting in good faith—you need to show good faith by reading them.

DP. I have done some Googling around the internet and what you say does have some merit. That does seem to be the trend these days. Consistent with observations in the other threads that people these days are down-playing religiousness, or just hiding I guess. Which is fine. People are becoming more "spiritual" and missionary work is becoming more like any other secular aid.

Thanks for the validation.

PS. Nobody wants to engage with your spam about bogus definitions of “religious” and “spiritual.” Take that boring stuff back to one of the other threads you’ve spammed about it. Especially as missionaries would call themselves “religious” even by your ridiculous definition, so your post makes zero sense.

Hahaha. Multiple posts above about how we don't even mention God or Jesus. We just dig wells and provide medical care - so where's the religion in these "mission trips"? Religion lite has diminished now to "religion undetectable."!

You missed the posts about his “spreading the word” is done by example, then. Doesn’t make these example-setters any less “religious” even by your phony definition. Stop trying to make “fetch” happen, especially with examples that make zero sense.

I have no idea what this means.
But you can't have it both ways -- either the missionaries are on a mission from God to spread the word or they're just doing the same thing as secular, on-religious organizations (digging wells, providing medical care). Why are they trying to hide their religious motives?? Heck, to listen to some of these posters you'd never even know they were sent by a church or religious organization!

“Stop trying to make ‘fetch’ happen” is from Mean Girls. A sad hanger-on is trying to get get everybody to use a phrase she’s coined, “that’s so fetch,” and the Queen Bee tells her to give it up.

I’m not sure why you’re not understanding that mission work these days takes non-predatory forms, like setting examples or giving out free bibles.

If you can find an example of a mission group denying food or medical care to somebody because they won’t attend service, by all means show us. But you can’t.

In that context, your insistence that all foreign aid be done through secular organizations and governments seems not just like pointless nit-picking, but downright patronizing and liable to cut off food, medical care, and more from people in developing countries.

um... ok. But what's that got to do with being a Missionary?" If the work done by the secular organizations are basically indistinguishable?

Obviously, the locals see the cross and they see the missionaries attending their church. They see the example set by the missionaries. And the missionaries are fulfilling one of the main tenets of their religion, charity.

[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:

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?

People should be free to practice their religion, which often includes sharing it with others. Also, the burden should be on the person proposing an infringement on people's religious freedom, not the other way around.

But they can share their religion without missionary work.

Missionary work infringes on indigenous people’s beliefs and customs. Their autonomy supersedes others’ religious freedom.

What do you think missionary work is? It's going somewhere and sharing your religion (including often doing service work as well). No one's autonomy is infringed by someone telling them about Christianity. Indigenous people aren't a museum piece that have to keep the same beliefs forever because you've decided you like it that way.

Indigenous people should decide their own future without high-pressure, predatory tactics.

Just because you use words like “high pressure” and “predatory” doesn’t make it true in many of not most cases these days. Please go back and re-read the posters who have tried to answer with explanations of what missionary work actually looks like in the 21st century. Those posters were posting in good faith—you need to show good faith by reading them.

DP. I have done some Googling around the internet and what you say does have some merit. That does seem to be the trend these days. Consistent with observations in the other threads that people these days are down-playing religiousness, or just hiding I guess. Which is fine. People are becoming more "spiritual" and missionary work is becoming more like any other secular aid.

Thanks for the validation.

PS. Nobody wants to engage with your spam about bogus definitions of “religious” and “spiritual.” Take that boring stuff back to one of the other threads you’ve spammed about it. Especially as missionaries would call themselves “religious” even by your ridiculous definition, so your post makes zero sense.

Hahaha. Multiple posts above about how we don't even mention God or Jesus. We just dig wells and provide medical care - so where's the religion in these "mission trips"? Religion lite has diminished now to "religion undetectable."!

You missed the posts about his “spreading the word” is done by example, then. Doesn’t make these example-setters any less “religious” even by your phony definition. Stop trying to make “fetch” happen, especially with examples that make zero sense.

I have no idea what this means.
But you can't have it both ways -- either the missionaries are on a mission from God to spread the word or they're just doing the same thing as secular, on-religious organizations (digging wells, providing medical care). Why are they trying to hide their religious motives?? Heck, to listen to some of these posters you'd never even know they were sent by a church or religious organization!

“Stop trying to make ‘fetch’ happen” is from Mean Girls. A sad hanger-on is trying to get get everybody to use a phrase she’s coined, “that’s so fetch,” and the Queen Bee tells her to give it up.

I’m not sure why you’re not understanding that mission work these days takes non-predatory forms, like setting examples or giving out free bibles.

If you can find an example of a mission group denying food or medical care to somebody because they won’t attend service, by all means show us. But you can’t.

In that context, your insistence that all foreign aid be done through secular organizations and governments seems not just like pointless nit-picking, but downright patronizing and liable to cut off food, medical care, and more from people in developing countries.

um... ok. But what's that got to do with being a Missionary?" If the work done by the secular organizations are basically indistinguishable?

Obviously, the locals see the cross and they see the missionaries attending their church. They see the example set by the missionaries. And the missionaries are fulfilling one of the main tenets of their religion, charity.

That's great. But anyone can be charitable. Missionaries apparently have decided to co-opt the secular approach to helping people and eschew the "religious" part demanded of them by Matthew 28:19.. That's cool. Pretty consistent with what I see all the time; religious people down-playing their overt religiousness because ...I don't know, maybe they don't think people want that anymore?

[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:

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?

People should be free to practice their religion, which often includes sharing it with others. Also, the burden should be on the person proposing an infringement on people's religious freedom, not the other way around.

But they can share their religion without missionary work.

Missionary work infringes on indigenous people’s beliefs and customs. Their autonomy supersedes others’ religious freedom.

What do you think missionary work is? It's going somewhere and sharing your religion (including often doing service work as well). No one's autonomy is infringed by someone telling them about Christianity. Indigenous people aren't a museum piece that have to keep the same beliefs forever because you've decided you like it that way.

Indigenous people should decide their own future without high-pressure, predatory tactics.

Just because you use words like “high pressure” and “predatory” doesn’t make it true in many of not most cases these days. Please go back and re-read the posters who have tried to answer with explanations of what missionary work actually looks like in the 21st century. Those posters were posting in good faith—you need to show good faith by reading them.

DP. I have done some Googling around the internet and what you say does have some merit. That does seem to be the trend these days. Consistent with observations in the other threads that people these days are down-playing religiousness, or just hiding I guess. Which is fine. People are becoming more "spiritual" and missionary work is becoming more like any other secular aid.

Thanks for the validation.

PS. Nobody wants to engage with your spam about bogus definitions of “religious” and “spiritual.” Take that boring stuff back to one of the other threads you’ve spammed about it. Especially as missionaries would call themselves “religious” even by your ridiculous definition, so your post makes zero sense.

Hahaha. Multiple posts above about how we don't even mention God or Jesus. We just dig wells and provide medical care - so where's the religion in these "mission trips"? Religion lite has diminished now to "religion undetectable."!

You missed the posts about his “spreading the word” is done by example, then. Doesn’t make these example-setters any less “religious” even by your phony definition. Stop trying to make “fetch” happen, especially with examples that make zero sense.

I have no idea what this means.
But you can't have it both ways -- either the missionaries are on a mission from God to spread the word or they're just doing the same thing as secular, on-religious organizations (digging wells, providing medical care). Why are they trying to hide their religious motives?? Heck, to listen to some of these posters you'd never even know they were sent by a church or religious organization!

“Stop trying to make ‘fetch’ happen” is from Mean Girls. A sad hanger-on is trying to get get everybody to use a phrase she’s coined, “that’s so fetch,” and the Queen Bee tells her to give it up.

I’m not sure why you’re not understanding that mission work these days takes non-predatory forms, like setting examples or giving out free bibles.

If you can find an example of a mission group denying food or medical care to somebody because they won’t attend service, by all means show us. But you can’t.

In that context, your insistence that all foreign aid be done through secular organizations and governments seems not just like pointless nit-picking, but downright patronizing and liable to cut off food, medical care, and more from people in developing countries.

um... ok. But what's that got to do with being a Missionary?" If the work done by the secular organizations are basically indistinguishable?

Obviously, the locals see the cross and they see the missionaries attending their church. They see the example set by the missionaries. And the missionaries are fulfilling one of the main tenets of their religion, charity.

That's great. But anyone can be charitable. Missionaries apparently have decided to co-opt the secular approach to helping people and eschew the "religious" part demanded of them by Matthew 28:19.. That's cool. Pretty consistent with what I see all the time; religious people down-playing their overt religiousness because ...I don't know, maybe they don't think people want that anymore?

Religious groups have come to understand that mission schools and the like were bad, and religion should be adopted voluntarily.

You’ve been told multiple times that this doesn’t make them any less religious, just that they conduct their missions in different ways now—through example. Hope the bolding is helpful and you get it now.

You should be celebrating that instead of trying to make “fetch” happen with this tedious and fake hair-splitting about what “religious” means.

[Anonymous]

Service is a very real part of many religions. Pp may think writing a check is the universal answer, but for many religions it’s important to serve other people directly. There’s a reason ministers wash the feet of their congregants.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

People should be free to practice their religion, which often includes sharing it with others. Also, the burden should be on the person proposing an infringement on people's religious freedom, not the other way around.

But they can share their religion without missionary work.

Missionary work infringes on indigenous people’s beliefs and customs. Their autonomy supersedes others’ religious freedom.

What do you think missionary work is? It's going somewhere and sharing your religion (including often doing service work as well). No one's autonomy is infringed by someone telling them about Christianity. Indigenous people aren't a museum piece that have to keep the same beliefs forever because you've decided you like it that way.

Indigenous people should decide their own future without high-pressure, predatory tactics.

Just because you use words like “high pressure” and “predatory” doesn’t make it true in many of not most cases these days. Please go back and re-read the posters who have tried to answer with explanations of what missionary work actually looks like in the 21st century. Those posters were posting in good faith—you need to show good faith by reading them.

DP. I have done some Googling around the internet and what you say does have some merit. That does seem to be the trend these days. Consistent with observations in the other threads that people these days are down-playing religiousness, or just hiding I guess. Which is fine. People are becoming more "spiritual" and missionary work is becoming more like any other secular aid.

Thanks for the validation.

PS. Nobody wants to engage with your spam about bogus definitions of “religious” and “spiritual.” Take that boring stuff back to one of the other threads you’ve spammed about it. Especially as missionaries would call themselves “religious” even by your ridiculous definition, so your post makes zero sense.

Hahaha. Multiple posts above about how we don't even mention God or Jesus. We just dig wells and provide medical care - so where's the religion in these "mission trips"? Religion lite has diminished now to "religion undetectable."!

You missed the posts about his “spreading the word” is done by example, then. Doesn’t make these example-setters any less “religious” even by your phony definition. Stop trying to make “fetch” happen, especially with examples that make zero sense.

I have no idea what this means.
But you can't have it both ways -- either the missionaries are on a mission from God to spread the word or they're just doing the same thing as secular, on-religious organizations (digging wells, providing medical care). Why are they trying to hide their religious motives?? Heck, to listen to some of these posters you'd never even know they were sent by a church or religious organization!

“Stop trying to make ‘fetch’ happen” is from Mean Girls. A sad hanger-on is trying to get get everybody to use a phrase she’s coined, “that’s so fetch,” and the Queen Bee tells her to give it up.

I’m not sure why you’re not understanding that mission work these days takes non-predatory forms, like setting examples or giving out free bibles.

If you can find an example of a mission group denying food or medical care to somebody because they won’t attend service, by all means show us. But you can’t.

In that context, your insistence that all foreign aid be done through secular organizations and governments seems not just like pointless nit-picking, but downright patronizing and liable to cut off food, medical care, and more from people in developing countries.

um... ok. But what's that got to do with being a Missionary?" If the work done by the secular organizations are basically indistinguishable?

Obviously, the locals see the cross and they see the missionaries attending their church. They see the example set by the missionaries. And the missionaries are fulfilling one of the main tenets of their religion, charity.

That's great. But anyone can be charitable. Missionaries apparently have decided to co-opt the secular approach to helping people and eschew the "religious" part demanded of them by Matthew 28:19.. That's cool. Pretty consistent with what I see all the time; religious people down-playing their overt religiousness because ...I don't know, maybe they don't think people want that anymore?

Religious groups have come to understand that mission schools and the like were bad, and religion should be adopted voluntarily.

You’ve been told multiple times that this [b]doesn’t make them any less religious, just that they conduct their missions in different ways now—through example. Hope the bolding is helpful and you get it now. [/b]

You should be celebrating that instead of trying to make “fetch” happen with this tedious and fake hair-splitting about what “religious” means.

Sorry, but their efforts are undistinguishable from those of secular organizations to me. Regardless of their motives. If the religious folks have given up trying to spread the word of Jesus and God that's a good thing I guess.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

You mean like, hypothetically, the book of Revelation . . . comes true? And the world unites against the remnant seed church spreading God's message?

Throw in there taking away people's ability to buy and sell without a mark of the beast for good measure if you like.

Translation?

Start by reading some of Revelations

12:17
13:5-7
13:15-17
14:6-7

It's singular, not plural.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, I think you don't understand why they do it.

The Bible basically directs Christians to spread the Christian message to **every country** in the world. Many believe Jesus will not return until this has been completed. Thus, these missionaries believe they must come to your country.

They do believe they must, but that’s their own particular evangelical interpretation, not what the Bible necessarily requires. At most, the Bible might justify one pestering her neighbor in Idaho, but it certainly does not command one to “go to foreign countries and force people to read christian literature in exchange for food.”

— Former MK who got the f— out

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Religious groups have come to understand that mission schools and the like were bad, and religion should be adopted voluntarily.

You’ve been told multiple times that this [b]doesn’t make them any less religious, just that they conduct their missions in different ways now—through example. Hope the bolding is helpful and you get it now. [/b]

You should be celebrating that instead of trying to make “fetch” happen with this tedious and fake hair-splitting about what “religious” means.

Sorry, but their efforts are undistinguishable from those of secular organizations to me. Regardless of their motives. If the religious folks have given up trying to spread the word of Jesus and God that's a good thing I guess.

Once more with feeling:

Missionaries have not given up their mission of spreading the word, they just do it differently now, through pamphlets and example. This (1) doesn’t make them any less religious, and (2) it doesn’t change the “mission” nature of what they’re doing.

Missionaries have not given up their mission of spreading the word, they just do it differently now, through pamphlets and example. This (1) doesn’t make them any less religious, and (2) it doesn’t change the “mission” nature of what they’re doing.

Missionaries have not given up their mission of spreading the word, they just do it differently now, through pamphlets and example. This (1) doesn’t make them any less religious, and (2) it doesn’t change the “mission” nature of what they’re doing.

Hope that’s helpful. Do you finally understand?

[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:

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?

People should be free to practice their religion, which often includes sharing it with others. Also, the burden should be on the person proposing an infringement on people's religious freedom, not the other way around.

But they can share their religion without missionary work.

Missionary work infringes on indigenous people’s beliefs and customs. Their autonomy supersedes others’ religious freedom.

What do you think missionary work is? It's going somewhere and sharing your religion (including often doing service work as well). No one's autonomy is infringed by someone telling them about Christianity. Indigenous people aren't a museum piece that have to keep the same beliefs forever because you've decided you like it that way.

Indigenous people should decide their own future without high-pressure, predatory tactics.

Just because you use words like “high pressure” and “predatory” doesn’t make it true in many of not most cases these days. Please go back and re-read the posters who have tried to answer with explanations of what missionary work actually looks like in the 21st century. Those posters were posting in good faith—you need to show good faith by reading them.

DP. I have done some Googling around the internet and what you say does have some merit. That does seem to be the trend these days. Consistent with observations in the other threads that people these days are down-playing religiousness, or just hiding I guess. Which is fine. People are becoming more "spiritual" and missionary work is becoming more like any other secular aid.

Thanks for the validation.

PS. Nobody wants to engage with your spam about bogus definitions of “religious” and “spiritual.” Take that boring stuff back to one of the other threads you’ve spammed about it. Especially as missionaries would call themselves “religious” even by your ridiculous definition, so your post makes zero sense.

Hahaha. Multiple posts above about how we don't even mention God or Jesus. We just dig wells and provide medical care - so where's the religion in these "mission trips"? Religion lite has diminished now to "religion undetectable."!

Right. So if there is no religion involved in this service work, it could be done via secular organizations.

But secular organizations aren’t doing enough of it. That’s the whole point.

You don’t get to sit there in your $600k or more DMV house, wave your glass of Chablis, and tell people in developing countries that they shouldn’t have access to missionary-built wells, health clinics or schools. Can you spell “hubris”?

The women who come to our missionary medical clinics in Guatemala generally walk from their home villages for two days to attend our health clinics. We do a variety of surgeries but the women generally come to get in line to get their tubes tied. They have no other access to health care.[/quote]


+1. And it was the British and American missionaries to China who taught the poor that cholera came from water. And that encasing babies in mud sacks to keep them from moving about led to excruciating Lockjaw deaths. And that female genital mutiliation is not OK, etc. etc. etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Service is a very real part of many religions. Pp may think writing a check is the universal answer, but for many religions it’s important to serve other people directly. There’s a reason ministers wash the feet of their congregants.

But they can “serve” via secular organizations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Service is a very real part of many religions. Pp may think writing a check is the universal answer, but for many religions it’s important to serve other people directly. There’s a reason ministers wash the feet of their congregants.

But they can “serve” via secular organizations.

But given the way missionaries work today—little pressure—what’s the difference? What is your problem with mission work today?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Religious groups have come to understand that mission schools and the like were bad, and religion should be adopted voluntarily.

You’ve been told multiple times that this [b]doesn’t make them any less religious, just that they conduct their missions in different ways now—through example. Hope the bolding is helpful and you get it now. [/b]

You should be celebrating that instead of trying to make “fetch” happen with this tedious and fake hair-splitting about what “religious” means.

Sorry, but their efforts are undistinguishable from those of secular organizations to me. Regardless of their motives. If the religious folks have given up trying to spread the word of Jesus and God that's a good thing I guess.

Once more with feeling:

Missionaries have not given up their mission of spreading the word, they just do it differently now, through pamphlets and example. This (1) doesn’t make them any less religious, and (2) it doesn’t change the “mission” nature of what they’re doing.

Missionaries have not given up their mission of spreading the word, they just do it differently now, through pamphlets and example. This (1) doesn’t make them any less religious, and (2) it doesn’t change the “mission” nature of what they’re doing.

Missionaries have not given up their mission of spreading the word, they just do it differently now, through pamphlets and example. This (1) doesn’t make them any less religious, and (2) it doesn’t change the “mission” nature of what they’re doing.

Hope that’s helpful. Do you finally understand?

DP. Why should they not be banned?