Missionaries should be banned

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For example, PP can watch this video and then perform some crazy mental gymnastics to claim there was no proselytizing.

"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."

Prove to us that the Mongolian mom didn’t ask about the missionaries faith, and they were simply answering. You can’t.

What amazes me is that mom spent weeks with the missionaries, in Mongolia, on the plane, and then in the Cayman Islands, before they finally told her about Jesus. They must be piss-poor missionaries.

They know they need to build trust first.

I'm sure they've thought through their technique.

So 3rd world citizens are ignorant as well as poor? They don’t have the mental capacity to make decisions based on their own feelings and thoughts? I am stunned people here are denigrating 3rd world people so. Just because they are in poverty doesn’t mean they are stupid.

Religious people are called mentally ill here as well. So according to dcum, mentally ill religious missionaries are preying upon ignorant 3rd world people.

What a narrative.

I didn’t say anything about people from “3rd world” countries. And I included an example of proselytizing in the US. Should I repost that one?

I’m talking about the behavior of some missionaries.

It’s unethical.

Do missionaries withdraw offers of help if the person they are offering help to refuses to become a Christian? Or do they help people and only offer testimony and allow the person/people to make a choice?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:so I think we can all agree these missionaries have ulterior motives.

Call the spin doctors! Did someone use the words “weird” and “arrogant” to describe the poster who declares (nonexistent) consensus around her take on something?

And what sane person thinks DCUM consensus among 5 people, if it actually existed (which it doesn’t), would be worth more than a bucket of spit?

Maybe it’s all that wine that ban-missionaries pp is imbibing. Because it looks like a drunkard’s take to the rest of us!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For example, PP can watch this video and then perform some crazy mental gymnastics to claim there was no proselytizing.

"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."

Prove to us that the Mongolian mom didn’t ask about the missionaries faith, and they were simply answering. You can’t.

What amazes me is that mom spent weeks with the missionaries, in Mongolia, on the plane, and then in the Cayman Islands, before they finally told her about Jesus. They must be piss-poor missionaries.

They know they need to build trust first.

I'm sure they've thought through their technique.

So 3rd world citizens are ignorant as well as poor? They don’t have the mental capacity to make decisions based on their own feelings and thoughts? I am stunned people here are denigrating 3rd world people so. Just because they are in poverty doesn’t mean they are stupid.

Religious people are called mentally ill here as well. So according to dcum, mentally ill religious missionaries are preying upon ignorant 3rd world people.

What a narrative.

I didn’t say anything about people from “3rd world” countries. And I included an example of proselytizing in the US. Should I repost that one?

I’m talking about the behavior of some missionaries.

It’s unethical.

Do missionaries withdraw offers of help if the person they are offering help to refuses to become a Christian? Or do they help people and only offer testimony and allow the person/people to make a choice?

Is that the only scenario where you think proselytizing is unethical?

What about proselytizing in high pressure situations? When a person is extremely vulnerable and feels deeply indebted to the missionary? When there is a large imbalance of power?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For example, PP can watch this video and then perform some crazy mental gymnastics to claim there was no proselytizing.

"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."

Prove to us that the Mongolian mom didn’t ask about the missionaries faith, and they were simply answering. You can’t.

What amazes me is that mom spent weeks with the missionaries, in Mongolia, on the plane, and then in the Cayman Islands, before they finally told her about Jesus. They must be piss-poor missionaries.

They know they need to build trust first.

I'm sure they've thought through their technique.

So 3rd world citizens are ignorant as well as poor? They don’t have the mental capacity to make decisions based on their own feelings and thoughts? I am stunned people here are denigrating 3rd world people so. Just because they are in poverty doesn’t mean they are stupid.

Religious people are called mentally ill here as well. So according to dcum, mentally ill religious missionaries are preying upon ignorant 3rd world people.

What a narrative.

I didn’t say anything about people from “3rd world” countries. And I included an example of proselytizing in the US. Should I repost that one?

I’m talking about the behavior of some missionaries.

It’s unethical.

Exactly. You STILL haven’t answered the question about whether poor people (in developing countries or the US) can make their own choices, or do you think they’re too dumb. Because that’s all that’s left when you haven’t been able to prove that people are forcibly converted.

This undermines your whole argument about banning missionaries.

So yeah, time to put down that glass of Malbec, sit up in your deck chair, and answer the question.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For example, PP can watch this video and then perform some crazy mental gymnastics to claim there was no proselytizing.

"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."

Prove to us that the Mongolian mom didn’t ask about the missionaries faith, and they were simply answering. You can’t.

What amazes me is that mom spent weeks with the missionaries, in Mongolia, on the plane, and then in the Cayman Islands, before they finally told her about Jesus. They must be piss-poor missionaries.

They know they need to build trust first.

I'm sure they've thought through their technique.

So 3rd world citizens are ignorant as well as poor? They don’t have the mental capacity to make decisions based on their own feelings and thoughts? I am stunned people here are denigrating 3rd world people so. Just because they are in poverty doesn’t mean they are stupid.

Religious people are called mentally ill here as well. So according to dcum, mentally ill religious missionaries are preying upon ignorant 3rd world people.

What a narrative.

I didn’t say anything about people from “3rd world” countries. And I included an example of proselytizing in the US. Should I repost that one?

I’m talking about the behavior of some missionaries.

It’s unethical.

Exactly. You STILL haven’t answered the question about whether poor people (in developing countries or the US) can make their own choices, or do you think they’re too dumb. Because that’s all that’s left when you haven’t been able to prove that people are forcibly converted.

This undermines your whole argument about banning missionaries.

So yeah, time to put down that glass of Malbec, sit up in your deck chair, and answer the question.

I did answer at 16:05 and have earlier in the thread.

No, I don’t think they are dumb. I think the people receiving critical care/help from missionaries are vulnerable. Sometimes even facing life or death situations.

And I included an example of missionaries proselytizing in the US. Did you miss that? I can repost.

The issue isn’t helping people. Or even proselytizing - if it’s welcomed. It’s proselytizing people when they are extremely vulnerable that is unethical.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For example, PP can watch this video and then perform some crazy mental gymnastics to claim there was no proselytizing.

"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."

Prove to us that the Mongolian mom didn’t ask about the missionaries faith, and they were simply answering. You can’t.

What amazes me is that mom spent weeks with the missionaries, in Mongolia, on the plane, and then in the Cayman Islands, before they finally told her about Jesus. They must be piss-poor missionaries.

They know they need to build trust first.

I'm sure they've thought through their technique.

So 3rd world citizens are ignorant as well as poor? They don’t have the mental capacity to make decisions based on their own feelings and thoughts? I am stunned people here are denigrating 3rd world people so. Just because they are in poverty doesn’t mean they are stupid.

Religious people are called mentally ill here as well. So according to dcum, mentally ill religious missionaries are preying upon ignorant 3rd world people.

What a narrative.

I didn’t say anything about people from “3rd world” countries. And I included an example of proselytizing in the US. Should I repost that one?

I’m talking about the behavior of some missionaries.

It’s unethical.

Do missionaries withdraw offers of help if the person they are offering help to refuses to become a Christian? Or do they help people and only offer testimony and allow the person/people to make a choice?

Is that the only scenario where you think proselytizing is unethical?

What about proselytizing in high pressure situations? When a person is extremely vulnerable and feels deeply indebted to the missionary? When there is a large imbalance of power?

No, because: the people receiving help get help they probably wouldn’t get otherwise
and also it’s not like the missionaries are going to have any power to negatively impact the life of the person/people in the future. Missionaries don’t have legal or financial power over the people in the countries they work in. People can even say oh yes I accept the word of God in my heart and am Christian, and then as soon as they get help, say “whatever” and live as they choose.

[Anonymous]

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?

Post from 2/14 - example of proselytizing during vulnerable time. In the US.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For example, PP can watch this video and then perform some crazy mental gymnastics to claim there was no proselytizing.

"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."

Prove to us that the Mongolian mom didn’t ask about the missionaries faith, and they were simply answering. You can’t.

What amazes me is that mom spent weeks with the missionaries, in Mongolia, on the plane, and then in the Cayman Islands, before they finally told her about Jesus. They must be piss-poor missionaries.

They know they need to build trust first.

I'm sure they've thought through their technique.

So 3rd world citizens are ignorant as well as poor? They don’t have the mental capacity to make decisions based on their own feelings and thoughts? I am stunned people here are denigrating 3rd world people so. Just because they are in poverty doesn’t mean they are stupid.

Religious people are called mentally ill here as well. So according to dcum, mentally ill religious missionaries are preying upon ignorant 3rd world people.

What a narrative.

I didn’t say anything about people from “3rd world” countries. And I included an example of proselytizing in the US. Should I repost that one?

I’m talking about the behavior of some missionaries.

It’s unethical.

Do missionaries withdraw offers of help if the person they are offering help to refuses to become a Christian? Or do they help people and only offer testimony and allow the person/people to make a choice?

Is that the only scenario where you think proselytizing is unethical?

What about proselytizing in high pressure situations? When a person is extremely vulnerable and feels deeply indebted to the missionary? When there is a large imbalance of power?

No, because: the people receiving help get help they probably wouldn’t get otherwise
and also it’s not like the missionaries are going to have any power to negatively impact the life of the person/people in the future. Missionaries don’t have legal or financial power over the people in the countries they work in. People can even say oh yes I accept the word of God in my heart and am Christian, and then as soon as they get help, say “whatever” and live as they choose.

Doesn’t that make it worse though? They literally have no other option.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For example, PP can watch this video and then perform some crazy mental gymnastics to claim there was no proselytizing.

"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."

Prove to us that the Mongolian mom didn’t ask about the missionaries faith, and they were simply answering. You can’t.

What amazes me is that mom spent weeks with the missionaries, in Mongolia, on the plane, and then in the Cayman Islands, before they finally told her about Jesus. They must be piss-poor missionaries.

They know they need to build trust first.

I'm sure they've thought through their technique.

So 3rd world citizens are ignorant as well as poor? They don’t have the mental capacity to make decisions based on their own feelings and thoughts? I am stunned people here are denigrating 3rd world people so. Just because they are in poverty doesn’t mean they are stupid.

Religious people are called mentally ill here as well. So according to dcum, mentally ill religious missionaries are preying upon ignorant 3rd world people.

What a narrative.

I didn’t say anything about people from “3rd world” countries. And I included an example of proselytizing in the US. Should I repost that one?

I’m talking about the behavior of some missionaries.

It’s unethical.

Exactly. You STILL haven’t answered the question about whether poor people (in developing countries or the US) can make their own choices, or do you think they’re too dumb. Because that’s all that’s left when you haven’t been able to prove that people are forcibly converted.

This undermines your whole argument about banning missionaries.

So yeah, time to put down that glass of Malbec, sit up in your deck chair, and answer the question.

I did answer at 16:05 and have earlier in the thread.

No, I don’t think they are dumb. I think the people receiving critical care/help from missionaries are vulnerable. Sometimes even facing life or death situations.

And I included an example of missionaries proselytizing in the US. Did you miss that? I can repost.

The issue isn’t helping people. Or even proselytizing - if it’s welcomed. It’s proselytizing people when they are extremely vulnerable that is unethical.

You still aren’t answering the question. You’re just posting the same old claims without proof. You keep saying “vulnerable” but it proves nothing because…
- You’ve given zero evidence of this actually happening, of vulnerable people being denied care or food because they wouldn’t convert. If you had a Mongolian mom who was denied care that would be something, but you don’t.
- You continue to ignore the people upthread who said they didn’t see proselytizing.
- Even someone who’s vulnerable can pretend to believe and then go back to their original religion after the treatment is over.

Also, people haven’t latched onto your post about missionaries in the US because it proves nothing, except that now it looks like you think people abroad and in the US are dumb.

Please, tell us why even vulnerable people can’t make their own choices. Assuming they aren’t threatened with care being denied, for which you have zero proof.

You don’t think poor people (in the US and abroad) are capable of this. Why?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For example, PP can watch this video and then perform some crazy mental gymnastics to claim there was no proselytizing.

"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."

Prove to us that the Mongolian mom didn’t ask about the missionaries faith, and they were simply answering. You can’t.

What amazes me is that mom spent weeks with the missionaries, in Mongolia, on the plane, and then in the Cayman Islands, before they finally told her about Jesus. They must be piss-poor missionaries.

They know they need to build trust first.

I'm sure they've thought through their technique.

So 3rd world citizens are ignorant as well as poor? They don’t have the mental capacity to make decisions based on their own feelings and thoughts? I am stunned people here are denigrating 3rd world people so. Just because they are in poverty doesn’t mean they are stupid.

Religious people are called mentally ill here as well. So according to dcum, mentally ill religious missionaries are preying upon ignorant 3rd world people.

What a narrative.

I didn’t say anything about people from “3rd world” countries. And I included an example of proselytizing in the US. Should I repost that one?

I’m talking about the behavior of some missionaries.

It’s unethical.

Do missionaries withdraw offers of help if the person they are offering help to refuses to become a Christian? Or do they help people and only offer testimony and allow the person/people to make a choice?

Is that the only scenario where you think proselytizing is unethical?

What about proselytizing in high pressure situations? When a person is extremely vulnerable and feels deeply indebted to the missionary? When there is a large imbalance of power?

No, because: the people receiving help get help they probably wouldn’t get otherwise
and also it’s not like the missionaries are going to have any power to negatively impact the life of the person/people in the future. Missionaries don’t have legal or financial power over the people in the countries they work in. People can even say oh yes I accept the word of God in my heart and am Christian, and then as soon as they get help, say “whatever” and live as they choose.

Doesn’t that make it worse though? They literally have no other option.

So the 3rd world person who needs help should say “no.” The end. Is that ok to you? Notice there’s no option of a secular aid group helping the 3rd world person.

[Anonymous]

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?

Post from 2/14 - example of proselytizing during vulnerable time. In the US.

Ugh, more speculation about what happened and what strangers are feeling.

You have no idea if pressure was applied—or not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For example, PP can watch this video and then perform some crazy mental gymnastics to claim there was no proselytizing.

"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."

Prove to us that the Mongolian mom didn’t ask about the missionaries faith, and they were simply answering. You can’t.

What amazes me is that mom spent weeks with the missionaries, in Mongolia, on the plane, and then in the Cayman Islands, before they finally told her about Jesus. They must be piss-poor missionaries.

They know they need to build trust first.

I'm sure they've thought through their technique.

So 3rd world citizens are ignorant as well as poor? They don’t have the mental capacity to make decisions based on their own feelings and thoughts? I am stunned people here are denigrating 3rd world people so. Just because they are in poverty doesn’t mean they are stupid.

Religious people are called mentally ill here as well. So according to dcum, mentally ill religious missionaries are preying upon ignorant 3rd world people.

What a narrative.

I didn’t say anything about people from “3rd world” countries. And I included an example of proselytizing in the US. Should I repost that one?

I’m talking about the behavior of some missionaries.

It’s unethical.

Do missionaries withdraw offers of help if the person they are offering help to refuses to become a Christian? Or do they help people and only offer testimony and allow the person/people to make a choice?

Is that the only scenario where you think proselytizing is unethical?

What about proselytizing in high pressure situations? When a person is extremely vulnerable and feels deeply indebted to the missionary? When there is a large imbalance of power?

No, because: the people receiving help get help they probably wouldn’t get otherwise
and also it’s not like the missionaries are going to have any power to negatively impact the life of the person/people in the future. Missionaries don’t have legal or financial power over the people in the countries they work in. People can even say oh yes I accept the word of God in my heart and am Christian, and then as soon as they get help, say “whatever” and live as they choose.

Doesn’t that make it worse though? They literally have no other option.

So the 3rd world person who needs help should say “no.” The end. Is that ok to you? Notice there’s no option of a secular aid group helping the 3rd world person.

No, we should ban missionaries entirely because third world people and poor Americans are incapable of making these choices.

That’s the title of the thread and where pp keeps going.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For example, PP can watch this video and then perform some crazy mental gymnastics to claim there was no proselytizing.

"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."

Prove to us that the Mongolian mom didn’t ask about the missionaries faith, and they were simply answering. You can’t.

What amazes me is that mom spent weeks with the missionaries, in Mongolia, on the plane, and then in the Cayman Islands, before they finally told her about Jesus. They must be piss-poor missionaries.

They know they need to build trust first.

I'm sure they've thought through their technique.

So 3rd world citizens are ignorant as well as poor? They don’t have the mental capacity to make decisions based on their own feelings and thoughts? I am stunned people here are denigrating 3rd world people so. Just because they are in poverty doesn’t mean they are stupid.

Religious people are called mentally ill here as well. So according to dcum, mentally ill religious missionaries are preying upon ignorant 3rd world people.

What a narrative.

I didn’t say anything about people from “3rd world” countries. And I included an example of proselytizing in the US. Should I repost that one?

I’m talking about the behavior of some missionaries.

It’s unethical.

Do missionaries withdraw offers of help if the person they are offering help to refuses to become a Christian? Or do they help people and only offer testimony and allow the person/people to make a choice?

Is that the only scenario where you think proselytizing is unethical?

What about proselytizing in high pressure situations? When a person is extremely vulnerable and feels deeply indebted to the missionary? When there is a large imbalance of power?

No, because: the people receiving help get help they probably wouldn’t get otherwise
and also it’s not like the missionaries are going to have any power to negatively impact the life of the person/people in the future. Missionaries don’t have legal or financial power over the people in the countries they work in. People can even say oh yes I accept the word of God in my heart and am Christian, and then as soon as they get help, say “whatever” and live as they choose.

Doesn’t that make it worse though? They literally have no other option.

So the 3rd world person who needs help should say “no.” The end. Is that ok to you? Notice there’s no option of a secular aid group helping the 3rd world person.

No, we should ban missionaries entirely because third world people and poor Americans are incapable of making these choices.

That’s the title of the thread and where pp keeps going.

That’s not what I said at all.

And I’m not OP. I don’t think they need to be banned if they can separate the aid and proselytizing.

[Anonymous]

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?

Post from 2/14 - example of proselytizing during vulnerable time. In the US.

Ugh, more speculation about what happened and what strangers are feeling.

You have no idea if pressure was applied—or not.

So if they pressured that would be bad?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For example, PP can watch this video and then perform some crazy mental gymnastics to claim there was no proselytizing.

"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."

Prove to us that the Mongolian mom didn’t ask about the missionaries faith, and they were simply answering. You can’t.

What amazes me is that mom spent weeks with the missionaries, in Mongolia, on the plane, and then in the Cayman Islands, before they finally told her about Jesus. They must be piss-poor missionaries.

They know they need to build trust first.

I'm sure they've thought through their technique.

So 3rd world citizens are ignorant as well as poor? They don’t have the mental capacity to make decisions based on their own feelings and thoughts? I am stunned people here are denigrating 3rd world people so. Just because they are in poverty doesn’t mean they are stupid.

Religious people are called mentally ill here as well. So according to dcum, mentally ill religious missionaries are preying upon ignorant 3rd world people.

What a narrative.

I didn’t say anything about people from “3rd world” countries. And I included an example of proselytizing in the US. Should I repost that one?

I’m talking about the behavior of some missionaries.

It’s unethical.

Do missionaries withdraw offers of help if the person they are offering help to refuses to become a Christian? Or do they help people and only offer testimony and allow the person/people to make a choice?

Is that the only scenario where you think proselytizing is unethical?

What about proselytizing in high pressure situations? When a person is extremely vulnerable and feels deeply indebted to the missionary? When there is a large imbalance of power?

No, because: the people receiving help get help they probably wouldn’t get otherwise
and also it’s not like the missionaries are going to have any power to negatively impact the life of the person/people in the future. Missionaries don’t have legal or financial power over the people in the countries they work in. People can even say oh yes I accept the word of God in my heart and am Christian, and then as soon as they get help, say “whatever” and live as they choose.

Doesn’t that make it worse though? They literally have no other option.

So the 3rd world person who needs help should say “no.” The end. Is that ok to you? Notice there’s no option of a secular aid group helping the 3rd world person.

So it’s the “price” of getting help? Isn’t that exploiting the situation?