Missionaries should be banned

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

There should be zero pressure. Service work done independent of proselytizing.

The doctors in the earlier example should be happy to serve in a secular capacity too, right? No strings attached to their care?

[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?

Lol: I read this as the PP admitting that they, themselves, are a bigot, spewing hate and ignoring what everyone else says, and finally accepting that nobody wants to engage with that.

It seems odd to me that some people use their own religious beliefs or “the Bible” to justify pretty much anything they want to do — without recognizing that their own personal convictions should not govern or influence anyone other than themselves. I wonder how many of these evangelicals have genuinely allowed others to proselytize to them?

DP. People proselytize me all the time. For some reason there's some Jehovah's Witnesses who send me personal letters every couple of months. I read them but I'm not converting and it seems crazy to make that illegal.

Exactly. It happens in the U.S., overseas, everywhere . . . because THE BIBLE SAYS TO DO IT! If you are Christian, the Bible instructs you to teach others about God and Jesus. It says to spread it to all nations, tribes, languages. If anybody read the Bible, they'd get it. Many posters here remind me of something Jesus said - "they have ears, but cannot hear."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

^ what's the difference between what was described and what secular organizations do, other than maybe handing out some pamphlets?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

There should be zero pressure. Service work done independent of proselytizing.

The doctors in the earlier example should be happy to serve in a secular capacity too, right? No strings attached to their care?

Jesus healed the sick, fed the hungry. Why shouldn't missionaries if nobody else steps up to do it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

There should be zero pressure. Service work done independent of proselytizing.

The doctors in the earlier example should be happy to serve in a secular capacity too, right? No strings attached to their care?

Jesus healed the sick, fed the hungry. Why shouldn't missionaries if nobody else steps up to do it.

They can do it via secular organizations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Asking people to justify why they should be free to practice their religion is a tyrant's way of thinking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

^ what's the difference between what was described and what secular organizations do, other than maybe handing out some pamphlets?

No pamphlets. No branding.

The doctors will still want to help people even if they don’t hand out pamphlets, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Asking people to justify why they should be free to practice their religion is a tyrant's way of thinking.

Practicing your religion independently is one thing. Imposing it on others is another.

You can do what you want in your own home and church. Once you step out into the world you need to respect others’ beliefs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Asking people to justify why they should be free to practice their religion is a tyrant's way of thinking.

Practicing your religion independently is one thing. Imposing it on others is another.

You can do what you want in your own home and church. Once you step out into the world you need to respect others’ beliefs.

No. That's not what God said to do. We answer to God, NOT you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

There should be zero pressure. Service work done independent of proselytizing.

The doctors in the earlier example should be happy to serve in a secular capacity too, right? No strings attached to their care?

Jesus healed the sick, fed the hungry. Why shouldn't missionaries if nobody else steps up to do it.

They can do it via secular organizations.

Can vs. do. Can doesn't accomplish anything. It's hypothetical. In jammies in DC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Asking people to justify why they should be free to practice their religion is a tyrant's way of thinking.

Practicing your religion independently is one thing. Imposing it on others is another.

You can do what you want in your own home and church. Once you step out into the world you need to respect others’ beliefs.

No. That's not what God said to do. We answer to God, NOT you.

You answer to laws and society if you want to live in the broader world.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

There should be zero pressure. Service work done independent of proselytizing.

The doctors in the earlier example should be happy to serve in a secular capacity too, right? No strings attached to their care?

Jesus healed the sick, fed the hungry. Why shouldn't missionaries if nobody else steps up to do it.

They can do it via secular organizations.

Can vs. do. Can doesn't accomplish anything. It's hypothetical. In jammies in DC.

So only justification for missionaries is that there aren’t enough secular organizations at the moment?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Asking people to justify why they should be free to practice their religion is a tyrant's way of thinking.

Practicing your religion independently is one thing. Imposing it on others is another.

You can do what you want in your own home and church. Once you step out into the world you need to respect others’ beliefs.

My belief is that sharing my faith is important, why won't you respect that? You're perfectly happy to impose your lack of religion on me and force me to abandon a central part of my faith. You want to "ban" it even so what would you do to people who break your law? Jail? You're a tyrant, like I said.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Asking people to justify why they should be free to practice their religion is a tyrant's way of thinking.

Practicing your religion independently is one thing. Imposing it on others is another.

You can do what you want in your own home and church. Once you step out into the world you need to respect others’ beliefs.

It’s been said multiple times that nobody “imposes” religion as a condition for getting medical help anymore. Nonbelievers are free to eat the food and attend the clinics. You guys need to stop with the incorrect accusations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Asking people to justify why they should be free to practice their religion is a tyrant's way of thinking.

Practicing your religion independently is one thing. Imposing it on others is another.

You can do what you want in your own home and church. Once you step out into the world you need to respect others’ beliefs.

My belief is that sharing my faith is important, why won't you respect that? You're perfectly happy to impose your lack of religion on me and force me to abandon a central part of my faith. You want to "ban" it even so what would you do to people who break your law? Jail? You're a tyrant, like I said.

Because it involves other people. You can’t force yourself on other people.