Missionaries should be banned

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How about this:
-All missionaries are motivated to serve for religion reasons, varies by religion and individual.
-Some missionaries proselytize with deeds.
-Some missionaries proselytize with words.
-It's unethical to proselytize during vulnerable moments.

Anyone disagree?

Are you op? What country are you originally from? What negative impact did you see missionaries having in your country?

[Anonymous]

I guess you don't want Catholic schools to operate anywhere.
They've done a large amount of evangelizing in the last two years in blue states where the public schools refused to open.
Some Catholic high schools only have enrollment of 10% Catholic kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I guess you don't want Catholic schools to operate anywhere.
They've done a large amount of evangelizing in the last two years in blue states where the public schools refused to open.
Some Catholic high schools only have enrollment of 10% Catholic kids.

This is very true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I guess you don't want Catholic schools to operate anywhere.
They've done a large amount of evangelizing in the last two years in blue states where the public schools refused to open.
Some Catholic high schools only have enrollment of 10% Catholic kids.

Those parents had options and freely made the choice. Their kids didn’t need critical surgery.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How about this:
-All missionaries are motivated to serve for religion reasons, varies by religion and individual.
-Some missionaries proselytize with deeds.
-Some missionaries proselytize with words.
-It's unethical to proselytize during vulnerable moments.

Anyone disagree?

Good lord

The “we’ve all agreed, here’s the list we’ve agreed to, it’s settled!” posts are continuing. It’s obsessive.

Should be easy enough to come to some consensus. Nothing controversial above.

Topic is missionaries. Can you comment on points above? You agree?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How about this:
-All missionaries are motivated to serve for religion reasons, varies by religion and individual.
-Some missionaries proselytize with deeds.
-Some missionaries proselytize with words.
-It's unethical to proselytize during vulnerable moments.

Anyone disagree?

Good lord

The “we’ve all agreed, here’s the list we’ve agreed to, it’s settled!” posts are continuing. It’s obsessive.

Should be easy enough to come to some consensus. Nothing controversial above.

Topic is missionaries. Can you comment on points above? You agree?

DP. Aww, how cute that you spent your Saturday night trying to gorge a consensus among 5 posters on a mom’s website, for the greater good of the outside world.

It bears repeating: nobody trusts you enough to engage with you except to point out your distortions and omissions—and that’s only so you don’t claim said distortions and omissions represent some sort of fake consensus. Your posts on this thread, including your earlier versions of this very list, demonstrate your pattern of distorting and ignoring what other people say. All the time. You either distort what other people say, or you ignore their facts about what missionaries actually do.

So if we were to agree with you that, say, the grass is green, it’s totally likely that on the next page you’ll post “this thread has proven that everybody agrees the grass is blue.”

You have only yourself to blame.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they just wanted to provide charity they could just do it via secular groups. Why volunteer as a missionary if there isn’t a religious aspect?

Do you even bother reading what anybody else lists? You’ve been told what, ten, or more, times that secular groups just aren’t present in many of the most impoverished or dangerous parts of the world. Several posters who worked in Haiti told you this.

Several posters saying the same thing doesn't make it accurate and a country being impoverished or dangerous doesn't make it OK for only missionaries to offer needed support along with their their religious beliefs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How about this:
-All missionaries are motivated to serve for religion reasons, varies by religion and individual.
-Some missionaries proselytize with deeds.
-Some missionaries proselytize with words.
-It's unethical to proselytize during vulnerable moments.

Anyone disagree?

Are you op? What country are you originally from? What negative impact did you see missionaries having in your country?

DP. I’d like to see answers to these questions too. What is pp’s skin in the game here?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they just wanted to provide charity they could just do it via secular groups. Why volunteer as a missionary if there isn’t a religious aspect?

Do you even bother reading what anybody else lists? You’ve been told what, ten, or more, times that secular groups just aren’t present in many of the most impoverished or dangerous parts of the world. Several posters who worked in Haiti told you this.

Several posters saying the same thing doesn't make it accurate and a country being impoverished or dangerous doesn't make it OK for only missionaries to offer needed support along with their their religious beliefs.

Have you been to Haiti? No?

Then what gives you the right to claim the posters saying they have actually done relief work there, and the secular groups aren’t around in the rural areas, are lying? What makes you think the poster with the story about the useless UN reconciliation trailer while the missionaries actually provided food and healthcare in the wake of the earthquake, was lying?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How about this:
-All missionaries are motivated to serve for religion reasons, varies by religion and individual.
-Some missionaries proselytize with deeds.
-Some missionaries proselytize with words.
-It's unethical to proselytize during vulnerable moments.

Anyone disagree?

Good lord

The “we’ve all agreed, here’s the list we’ve agreed to, it’s settled!” posts are continuing. It’s obsessive.

Should be easy enough to come to some consensus. Nothing controversial above.

Topic is missionaries. Can you comment on points above? You agree?

DP. Aww, how cute that you spent your Saturday night trying to gorge a consensus among 5 posters on a mom’s website, for the greater good of the outside world.

It bears repeating: nobody trusts you enough to engage with you except to point out your distortions and omissions—and that’s only so you don’t claim said distortions and omissions represent some sort of fake consensus. Your posts on this thread, including your earlier versions of this very list, demonstrate your pattern of distorting and ignoring what other people say. All the time. You either distort what other people say, or you ignore their facts about what missionaries actually do.

So if we were to agree with you that, say, the grass is green, it’s totally likely that on the next page you’ll post “this thread has proven that everybody agrees the grass is blue.”

You have only yourself to blame.

Yes, I do try to ignore the ad hominem attacks. Not worth my time.

So, do you agree or disagree with the points above?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they just wanted to provide charity they could just do it via secular groups. Why volunteer as a missionary if there isn’t a religious aspect?

Do you even bother reading what anybody else lists? You’ve been told what, ten, or more, times that secular groups just aren’t present in many of the most impoverished or dangerous parts of the world. Several posters who worked in Haiti told you this.

Several posters saying the same thing doesn't make it accurate and a country being impoverished or dangerous doesn't make it OK for only missionaries to offer needed support along with their their religious beliefs.

Translation: if missionaries are the only available source of aid, they should be banned, because all missionaries proselytize forcefully, and poor people in underserved areas should be SOL.

This pretty much sums up your posts for 45 pages. You hold on to the false ideas that all missionaries proselytize, that this proselytizing is always pressure-filled (as opposed to the work being done out of a religious charitable obligation, or the proselytizing being done by example only), and therefore, you conclude, “it’s not ok” and the missionary work should be banned and poor people should be SOL.

In a nutshell, you’ve ignored 45 pages of people telling you you’re wrong about a lot of this. You’ve failed for 45 pages to provide convincing examples of pressure-filled missionary work. You stomp your feet and simply refuse to believe several posters who tell you the secular aid organizations aren’t present in many places. You’ve refused for 45 pages to explain why you think poor people are too dumb to make their own choices. You’ve ignored pp’s asking you how poor people will get food or medical help if you “ban” missionaries.

Pat yourself on the back for being obsessively obtuse for 45 pages?

[Anonymous]

12:50 is confusing posters

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:12:50 is confusing posters

And has piss poor reading comprehension

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How about this:
-All missionaries are motivated to serve for religion reasons, varies by religion and individual.
-Some missionaries proselytize with deeds.
-Some missionaries proselytize with words.
-It's unethical to proselytize during vulnerable moments.

Anyone disagree?

Are you op? What country are you originally from? What negative impact did you see missionaries having in your country?

DP. I’d like to see answers to these questions too. What is pp’s skin in the game here?

probably the same poster who makes up scenarios about Christian proselytizing and then never answers questions about the situations.

there’s consistent posts here that follow the same pattern:

a poster posts about a situation that complains about Christian proselytizing and then when other people comment, they give vague answers or just disappear.

notice op won’t give the name of the country they are from, or answer what they saw in their country about this issue.

also posts about relatives or caregivers “proselytizing” her as a kid, and she never answers why her parents didn’t protect her from such people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they just wanted to provide charity they could just do it via secular groups. Why volunteer as a missionary if there isn’t a religious aspect?

Do you even bother reading what anybody else lists? You’ve been told what, ten, or more, times that secular groups just aren’t present in many of the most impoverished or dangerous parts of the world. Several posters who worked in Haiti told you this.

Several posters saying the same thing doesn't make it accurate and a country being impoverished or dangerous doesn't make it OK for only missionaries to offer needed support along with their their religious beliefs.

Translation: if missionaries are the only available source of aid, they should be banned, because all missionaries proselytize forcefully, and poor people in underserved areas should be SOL.

This pretty much sums up your posts for 45 pages. You hold on to the false ideas that all missionaries proselytize, that this proselytizing is always pressure-filled (as opposed to the work being done out of a religious charitable obligation, or the proselytizing being done by example only), and therefore, you conclude, “it’s not ok” and the missionary work should be banned and poor people should be SOL.

In a nutshell, you’ve ignored 45 pages of people telling you you’re wrong about a lot of this. You’ve failed for 45 pages to provide convincing examples of pressure-filled missionary work. You stomp your feet and simply refuse to believe several posters who tell you the secular aid organizations aren’t present in many places. You’ve refused for 45 pages to explain why you think poor people are too dumb to make their own choices. You’ve ignored pp’s asking you how poor people will get food or medical help if you “ban” missionaries.

Pat yourself on the back for being obsessively obtuse for 45 pages?

also pp won’t address the issue that countries who ban missionaries or imprison them are communist or under Sharia law. That’s horrifying.