Missionaries should be banned

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whether you think it actual happens or not...
Do you think it's ethical for missionaries to proselytize their religion (with words, not just actions) to vulnerable people during critical times?

I think your blasphemy against the holy spirit is horrifying, and I'm sick of it. It's demonic. Be gone!

So there are heretics on DCUM? OMG

Freedom of religion
In hard times people talk about their beliefs. There is no way to stop that

Don’t feed this troll.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's is another example:

"I was in the waiting room and my daughter was having surgery for four hours. SP's staff shared the Gospel with me. That's when I heard about Jesus Christ. I received Jesus Christ as my savior on the day my daughter had surgery in the Cayman Islands. ... I know that Jesus healed my daughter's heart."

“Shared the gospel with me” tells us nothing.

Did the evil missionaries, after kidnapping mom and flying her and her sick kid to the Cayman Islands, tell her on the day of the surgery, “OK, now you have to accept Jesus or we won’t go through with it!”

Or did mom, after having spent days or weeks with the missionaries, first in Mongolia, then on the plane, and finally in the Cayman Islands, realize that they meant everything they said about helping her kid, that their kindness was unimaginable to her, and so she asked them about their religion.

You don’t know. Stop wasting our time with vague insinuations.

You think the Mongolian mom from the earlier video asked the host family about their religion? They didn't bring it up as part of "sharing the Gospel in both word and deed"? What if they did bring it up? Would that be ethical in that scenario?

And what about this Mongolian mom. They "shared the Gospel" with her in the waiting room. She says that is when they told her about Jesus Christ and accepting Jesus Christ. Was that ethical in that scenario? And it's not vague at all - she very clearly tells us what happened.

Already answered, why are you asking again?

All that we know about what “happened” is that they “shared.” We don’t know anything about who initiated the sharing (mom or missionaries?) or what it looked like (“convert or your kid dies” vs. “what does that hold symbol around your neck mean” or “why are you helping us?” … “we’re helping because that’s what Jesus would do”). The answers to these questions make ALL THE DIFFERENCE, but we simply don’t know.

Sick of speculating with a spoiled DCUMer about who said what in a Mongolian yurt or doctor’s office. Sick of pushing back against your racism about people in developing countries being too dumb to make their own choices and therefore we need to ban the help they need. Enjoy all that wine. Bye.

You never answered if you thought it was ethical or not.

It’s really not a hard question.

Is it ethical for missionaries to verbally try to persuade people to “invite Jesus into their lives” - with words not just deeds or props - during vulnerable moments of the people they are helping? To verbally proselytize during service work?

[Anonymous]

But, these same Christian missionaries don't want Christian Latinos to come in a CARAVAN and come to the USA. LOL!!!

[Anonymous]

I'm amazed that this thread is still going.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm amazed that this thread is still going.

Some posters prefer to gaslight and talk about wine instead of answer real questions.

It’s very telling that they refuse to answer honestly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm amazed that this thread is still going.

Some posters prefer to gaslight and talk about wine instead of answer real questions.

It’s very telling that they refuse to answer honestly.

I liked the wine references. One of the only things I did like about it. And I agree, the missionaries that are motivated to spread the word are annoying AF. Do your charity work and leave the Bible at home. It's disrespectful to the local people to pretend you know better than them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm amazed that this thread is still going.

Some posters prefer to gaslight and talk about wine instead of answer real questions.

It’s very telling that they refuse to answer honestly.

Gaslighting = talking about “kidnapping” and posting 3-minute videos that supposedly document this. Then, when you do watch the video, it shows nothing of the sort. That pp was probably counting on nobody clicking on the video.

And that, my friends, is how we get to 30 pages.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm amazed that this thread is still going.

Some posters prefer to gaslight and talk about wine instead of answer real questions.

It’s very telling that they refuse to answer honestly.

Gaslighting = talking about “kidnapping” and posting 3-minute videos that supposedly document this. Then, when you do watch the video, it shows nothing of the sort. That pp was probably counting on nobody clicking on the video.

And that, my friends, is how we get to 30 pages.

Strawman = mischaracterizing comments because you don’t want to answer honestly.

Still refusing to answer, I see.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:But, these same Christian missionaries don't want Christian Latinos to come in a CARAVAN and come to the USA. LOL!!!

You are right
Perhaps someone should set up a travelling missionary to be among them

[Anonymous]

All I see from this thread is a mess of people not helping truly poverty stricken people, and complaining about the people that actually help.

Get off your duff and put your money where your mouth is.

Chances of that are zero. Missionaries at least help some people. More than the whiners in this thread do.

Move to communist China and get your missionary banning kicks. You will love it there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:All I see from this thread is a mess of people not helping truly poverty stricken people, and complaining about the people that actually help.

Get off your duff and put your money where your mouth is.

Chances of that are zero. Missionaries at least help some people. More than the whiners in this thread do.

Move to communist China and get your missionary banning kicks. You will love it there.

The helping is great. It's the proselytizing while the kid is in surgery that's the issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:All I see from this thread is a mess of people not helping truly poverty stricken people, and complaining about the people that actually help.

Get off your duff and put your money where your mouth is.

Chances of that are zero. Missionaries at least help some people. More than the whiners in this thread do.

Move to communist China and get your missionary banning kicks. You will love it there.

DP here. I'd list what I give and the charitable work I do, but that would make me almost as much of an asshole as you for assuming it to be zero.

What makes the secular gift better is a lack of ulterior motive. Get it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All I see from this thread is a mess of people not helping truly poverty stricken people, and complaining about the people that actually help.

Get off your duff and put your money where your mouth is.

Chances of that are zero. Missionaries at least help some people. More than the whiners in this thread do.

Move to communist China and get your missionary banning kicks. You will love it there.

DP here. I'd list what I give and the charitable work I do, but that would make me almost as much of an asshole as you for assuming it to be zero.

What makes the secular gift better is a lack of ulterior motive. Get it?

62% of religious households give to charity compared to 46% of unaffiliated households (Philanthropy Daily).

So religious household are bad because their religious beliefs encourage them to give more?

The important thing is people donate time and money to help others. Period. Just because you don’t agree with their motivation, doesn’t negate the act nor the charity.

Ridiculous people on this thread would rather poverty stricken people receive no or less help because of “religion.” Get over yourself. Your personal opinions aren’t more important than people in need receiving help and aid.

If religious groups dangled food and water and medical help in front of those in need and demanded the people in need convert publicly before they could receive the help, that would be proselytizing. That’s not what is happening.

Religious groups have the means and infrastructure and funding to help those in need. If that offends you, do something about it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All I see from this thread is a mess of people not helping truly poverty stricken people, and complaining about the people that actually help.

Get off your duff and put your money where your mouth is.

Chances of that are zero. Missionaries at least help some people. More than the whiners in this thread do.

Move to communist China and get your missionary banning kicks. You will love it there.

DP here. I'd list what I give and the charitable work I do, but that would make me almost as much of an asshole as you for assuming it to be zero.

What makes the secular gift better is a lack of ulterior motive. Get it?

62% of religious households give to charity compared to 46% of unaffiliated households (Philanthropy Daily).

So religious household are bad because their religious beliefs encourage them to give more?

The important thing is people donate time and money to help others. Period. Just because you don’t agree with their motivation, doesn’t negate the act nor the charity.

Ridiculous people on this thread would rather poverty stricken people receive no or less help because of “religion.” Get over yourself. Your personal opinions aren’t more important than people in need receiving help and aid.

If religious groups dangled food and water and medical help in front of those in need and demanded the people in need convert publicly before they could receive the help, that would be proselytizing. That’s not what is happening.

Religious groups have the means and infrastructure and funding to help those in need. If that offends you, do something about it.

"Charity" includes tithing. So yeah, the numbers would look different. That doesn't mean they are actually giving to a good cause.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All I see from this thread is a mess of people not helping truly poverty stricken people, and complaining about the people that actually help.

Get off your duff and put your money where your mouth is.

Chances of that are zero. Missionaries at least help some people. More than the whiners in this thread do.

Move to communist China and get your missionary banning kicks. You will love it there.

The helping is great. It's the proselytizing while the kid is in surgery that's the issue.

You haven’t proven that happens at all, let alone routinely. The videos were pointless.

Enjoy that glass of can while you make substance-free allegations aimed at banning aid from poor people.