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.

The notion that because you’re rich, privileged and belong to a different religion than they do, that you have the right to “interfere” with their lives and practices is juvenile and ill-informed at best.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ok, then anti-christians need to stop disrespecting the Christian culture of America, and of Virginia in particular, and trying to force their beliefs on us.

Mayflower Compact (written by my direct ancestor):

"IN THE NAME OF GOD, AMEN. We, whose names are underwritten, . . . by the Grace of God. . . Having undertaken FOR THE GLORY OF GOD, AND ADVANCEMENT OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH, and the Honour of our King and Country, a Voyage TO PLANT THE FIRST COLONY IN THE NORTHERN PARTS OF VIRGINIA."

Virginia Constitution - Article 1, Section 16:

"[I]t is the mutual DUTY OF ALL TO PRACTICE CHRISTIAN FORBEARANCE, LOVE, AND CHARITY towards each other."

That’s nice. And totally irrelevant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Samaritans Purse isn't afraid to come out and say it.

(1:38) Doctor: It’s incredibly amazing to see the interaction of Gospel and medicine together. Just to be able to meet someone at a vulnerable place that just gives us a window of opportunity to be able to share about god and his love.

Do you say this is evil?

It’s unethical.

Proselytize. Or provide critical care.

Don’t do both at the same time because it’s exploiting vulnerability.

Tell that to the parents of the baby with a cleft palate whose only option to get the cleft palate corrected is through mission doctors. The parents have no other options other than dooming the child to live with a cleft palate. This is the reality in much of the world.

The reality is that our mission medical teams are so busy doing surgeries that they don't have a lot of time for small talk. The locals know that
the medical procedures are performed by surgeons from the US. There probably is a cross on a wall somewhere.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Samaritans Purse isn't afraid to come out and say it.

(1:38) Doctor: It’s incredibly amazing to see the interaction of Gospel and medicine together. Just to be able to meet someone at a vulnerable place that just gives us a window of opportunity to be able to share about god and his love.

Do you say this is evil?

It’s unethical.

Proselytize. Or provide critical care.

Don’t do both at the same time because it’s exploiting vulnerability.

Tell that to the parents of the baby with a cleft palate whose only option to get the cleft palate corrected is through mission doctors. The parents have no other options other than dooming the child to live with a cleft palate. This is the reality in much of the world.

The reality is that our mission medical teams are so busy doing surgeries that they don't have a lot of time for small talk. The locals know that
the medical procedures are performed by surgeons from the US. There probably is a cross on a wall somewhere.

That is a great service they provide.

It’s unethical for the medical professionals to then use that “vulnerable period” as a “window of opportunity” to convert the baby’s parents.

Why isn’t helping the baby sufficient?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Samaritans Purse isn't afraid to come out and say it.

(1:38) Doctor: It’s incredibly amazing to see the interaction of Gospel and medicine together. Just to be able to meet someone at a vulnerable place that just gives us a window of opportunity to be able to share about god and his love.

Do you say this is evil?

It’s unethical.

Proselytize. Or provide critical care.

Don’t do both at the same time because it’s exploiting vulnerability.

Jesus preached and healed the sick and dead. Was he doing wrong?

[Anonymous]

Ya'll have never been to these poor countries. If you could get some free dried rice and beans and milk powder for your children you would look at a cross too.

A lot of government aid rotted at the docks in Haiti after the last hurricane. The government was unable to get the aid through.

Many of the religious groups, while smaller, are more nimble in getting aid through.

[Anonymous]

So....the Salvation Army bell ringers should be banned?

Their rehab programs help a lot of people when nothing else (including the government paid for rehabs) failed.

[Anonymous]

Hmmm. Many (if not most) world religions (west and east) forcibly proselytized at one time or another. What evangelical Christians do today is pretty mild in the overall context of world religious history. And the historically Christian west is often far more tolerant to the practice of other religious faiths within its region than other parts of the world are for tolerating the existence of minority faiths.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It's unethical to proselytize during critical care.

Here is an example of "pushing religion".
https://video.samaritanspurse.org/sharing-christs-love-in-waverly/

You don't think he feels some obligation to these people after they did all of that work for him? You don't think there was any pressure for him there at all?

If your standard is that helping someone creates a sense of “obligation” and “pressure,” then you might as well call for banning ALL aid, including NGOs. You could equally argue that USAID is out to win hearts and minds for America, which they partially are. Or that the IMF exists to prop up the international banking system, currencies, and western bank loans to developing countries, which it partially does. All of this is mixed into secular help. Put down your Belgian brown ale and tell us how any of this is different.

If that guy had to look at a cross on the wall or a Bible on a table, then no, I don’t think there was pressure. You continue to dismiss peoples’ ability to make their own choices.

(Also, I’m not clicking on any more questionable links or spending any more of my time watching your minutes-long videos. After you accused missionary groups of “kidnapping” a kid to, gasp, take him to a hospital where Christian hosts, horrors, treated him “like family” (quotes from your post above), your outrage doesn’t carry enough credibility to warrant me spending much time. If you think there’s something objectionable, you need to write it down in a post.)

They did much more than help this guy and have a bible on a table. Did you even watch it?

I didn't say they kidnapped him. More strawman.

Questionable links? It's Samaritans Purse. Listen to what the volunteer in Haiti says. You don't think that's proselytizing?
https://samaritanspurse.org/article/restoring-health-and-hope-in-haiti/

Here’s what you said on the previous page: “Mongolians parents basically held in captivity to get medical care for their children.”

When in fact the parents accompanied their children to a place where their children could get needed heart surgery. So, you know, the children didn’t have to be alone.

Bottom line: you’re not a reliable narrator.

[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.

The notion that because you’re rich, privileged and belong to a different religion than they do, that you have the right to “interfere” with their lives and practices is juvenile and ill-informed at best.

Said the DCUMer on her sofa waving her glass of wine and saying all missionary medical work should be banned because there’s a cross on the wall and those poor Haitians don’t know how to make their own decisions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Samaritans Purse isn't afraid to come out and say it.

(1:38) Doctor: It’s incredibly amazing to see the interaction of Gospel and medicine together. Just to be able to meet someone at a vulnerable place that just gives us a window of opportunity to be able to share about god and his love.

Pp, your objections seem to be around the word “share.” But your own video has no evidence of people actually proselytizing in the sense of telling them to come to Jesus. Instead, your own video has a great example of what everybody here has been telling you, that a lot of missionary work these days is by example.

2:50 (Doctor) Just being able to smile with, to hold a child, to operate, those are gospel messages.

[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.

The notion that because you’re rich, privileged and belong to a different religion than they do, that you have the right to “interfere” with their lives and practices is juvenile and ill-informed at best.

Said the DCUMer on her sofa waving her glass of wine and saying all missionary medical work should be banned because there’s a cross on the wall and those poor Haitians don’t know how to make their own decisions.

Said the DCUMer on her sofa waving her glass of wine and saying all missionary medical work should not be banned just because there’s a cross on the wall and those poor Haitians don’t know how to make their own decisions

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It's unethical to proselytize during critical care.

Here is an example of "pushing religion".
https://video.samaritanspurse.org/sharing-christs-love-in-waverly/

You don't think he feels some obligation to these people after they did all of that work for him? You don't think there was any pressure for him there at all?

If your standard is that helping someone creates a sense of “obligation” and “pressure,” then you might as well call for banning ALL aid, including NGOs. You could equally argue that USAID is out to win hearts and minds for America, which they partially are. Or that the IMF exists to prop up the international banking system, currencies, and western bank loans to developing countries, which it partially does. All of this is mixed into secular help. Put down your Belgian brown ale and tell us how any of this is different.

If that guy had to look at a cross on the wall or a Bible on a table, then no, I don’t think there was pressure. You continue to dismiss peoples’ ability to make their own choices.

(Also, I’m not clicking on any more questionable links or spending any more of my time watching your minutes-long videos. After you accused missionary groups of “kidnapping” a kid to, gasp, take him to a hospital where Christian hosts, horrors, treated him “like family” (quotes from your post above), your outrage doesn’t carry enough credibility to warrant me spending much time. If you think there’s something objectionable, you need to write it down in a post.)

They did much more than help this guy and have a bible on a table. Did you even watch it?

I didn't say they kidnapped him. More strawman.

Questionable links? It's Samaritans Purse. Listen to what the volunteer in Haiti says. You don't think that's proselytizing?
https://samaritanspurse.org/article/restoring-health-and-hope-in-haiti/

Here’s what you said on the previous page: “Mongolians parents basically held in captivity to get medical care for their children.”

When in fact the parents accompanied their children to a place where their children could get needed heart surgery. So, you know, the children didn’t have to be alone.

Bottom line: you’re not a reliable narrator.

Right. I didn't say they were "kidnapped". They weren't physically forced to go.

But they didn't have much of a choice, did they? Their kid is seriously sick and they literally have no other option for treatment? Of course they are going to go.

But that means going to another country where you don't speak the language or have a car. You are totally dependent on your hosts. They provide critical medical care to your kid - you feel indebted. They bring you into their homes and feed you from their table - you feel further indebted. They say you are part of their families. They want to talk to you about God? Of course you will let them. You get stuck there for 5 extra months - you literally cannot leave their home. They want to talk to you about it for months. You let them because you want to show your appreciation and don't want to be rude. Maybe you even agree to go along with some of their beliefs to show your appreciation.

It's a crazy power imbalance. Wouldn't you agree?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok, then anti-christians need to stop disrespecting the Christian culture of America, and of Virginia in particular, and trying to force their beliefs on us.

Mayflower Compact (written by my direct ancestor):

"IN THE NAME OF GOD, AMEN. We, whose names are underwritten, . . . by the Grace of God. . . Having undertaken FOR THE GLORY OF GOD, AND ADVANCEMENT OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH, and the Honour of our King and Country, a Voyage TO PLANT THE FIRST COLONY IN THE NORTHERN PARTS OF VIRGINIA."

Virginia Constitution - Article 1, Section 16:

"[I]t is the mutual DUTY OF ALL TO PRACTICE CHRISTIAN FORBEARANCE, LOVE, AND CHARITY towards each other."

That’s nice. And totally irrelevant.

No, it's not. Plymouth and Virginia were founded as Christian governments. You don't respect our original beliefs. It is you proselytizing to us and trying to change us.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok, then anti-christians need to stop disrespecting the Christian culture of America, and of Virginia in particular, and trying to force their beliefs on us.

Mayflower Compact (written by my direct ancestor):

"IN THE NAME OF GOD, AMEN. We, whose names are underwritten, . . . by the Grace of God. . . Having undertaken FOR THE GLORY OF GOD, AND ADVANCEMENT OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH, and the Honour of our King and Country, a Voyage TO PLANT THE FIRST COLONY IN THE NORTHERN PARTS OF VIRGINIA."

Virginia Constitution - Article 1, Section 16:

"[I]t is the mutual DUTY OF ALL TO PRACTICE CHRISTIAN FORBEARANCE, LOVE, AND CHARITY towards each other."

That’s nice. And totally irrelevant.

No, it's not. Plymouth and Virginia were founded as Christian governments. You don't respect our original beliefs. It is you proselytizing to us and trying to change us.

The Virginia Constitution literally says its our "duty to practice Christian . . charity."

Practicing Christian charity is our founding belief in Virginia. Please respect our original beliefs and customs.