Reply to Missionaries should be banned

Forum Index » Religion

Reply to "Missionaries should be banned"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]So why [u]shouldn't[/u] missionaries be banned?

Couldn't their charity work continue via secular organizations? 
[/quote]

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? 
[/quote]

And crickets.

No rational explanation for why we need missionaries in 2021. We have secular aid orgs that can fill the need.

[/quote]

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?[/quote]

You are confusing posters.

It’s a very simple question. [b]Why do we need missionaries? 
[/b]
Why shouldn’t they be banned?

There are secular groups providing aid. Couldn’t people easily “spread love” through those organizations?

[/quote]

Dude, it doesn't matter what "we need."  They need to do it. See Matthew 28:19.  They're on a mission from God.  [/quote]

Sure, it matters. Why do we, as a society, need missionaries?

OP says to ban them. Why shouldn’t we?

What is the benefit?

[/quote]

I see - people in 3rd world countries, including people of color in 3rd world countries, need privileged elitists from DC, on the DCurbanmom forum, sipping champagne in their jammies, dictating what they need or want, right?  [/quote]

Hypothetical: the UN is considering whether they should ban missionaries or not.

What are your reasons for why they should not ban missionaries?

[/quote]

People should be free to practice their religion, which often includes sharing it with others. Also, the burden should be on the person proposing an infringement on people's religious freedom, not the other way around. [/quote]

But they can share their religion without missionary work.

Missionary work infringes on indigenous people’s beliefs and customs. Their autonomy supersedes others’ religious freedom. 
[/quote]

What do you think missionary work is? It's going somewhere and sharing your religion (including often doing service work as well). No one's autonomy is infringed by someone telling them about Christianity. Indigenous people aren't a museum piece that have to keep the same beliefs forever because you've decided you like it that way.[/quote]

Indigenous people should decide their own future without high-pressure, predatory tactics.

[/quote]

[b]Just because you use words like “high pressure” and “predatory” doesn’t make it true in many of not most cases these days. Please go back and re-read the posters who have tried to answer with explanations of what missionary work actually looks like in the 21st century. Those posters were posting in good faith—you need to show good faith by reading them[/b]. [/quote]

DP. I have done some Googling around the internet and what you say does have some merit.  That does seem to be the trend these days.  Consistent with observations in the other threads that people these days are down-playing religiousness, or just hiding I guess.  Which is fine.  People are becoming more "spiritual" and missionary work is becoming more like any other secular aid.[/quote]

Thanks for the validation.

PS. Nobody wants to engage with your spam about bogus definitions of “religious” and “spiritual.” Take that boring stuff back to one of the other threads you’ve spammed about it. Especially as missionaries would call themselves “religious” even by your ridiculous definition, so your post makes zero sense. [/quote]

Hahaha. Multiple posts above about how we don't even mention God or Jesus. We just dig wells and provide medical care - so where's the religion in these "mission trips"?  Religion lite has diminished now to "religion undetectable."![/quote]

You missed the posts about his “spreading the word” is done by example, then. Doesn’t make these example-setters any less “religious” even by your phony definition. [b]Stop trying to make “fetch” happen, especially with examples that make zero sense[/b]. [/quote]

I have no idea what this means.
But you can't have it both ways -- either the missionaries are on a mission from God to spread the word or they're just doing the same thing as secular, on-religious organizations (digging wells, providing medical care).  Why are they trying to hide their religious motives?? Heck, to listen to some of these posters you'd never even know they were sent by a church or religious organization![/quote]

“Stop trying to make ‘fetch’ happen” is from Mean Girls. A sad hanger-on is trying to get get everybody to use a phrase she’s coined, “that’s so fetch,” and the Queen Bee tells her to give it up.

I’m not sure why you’re not understanding that mission work these days takes non-predatory forms, like setting examples or giving out free bibles.

If you can find an example of a mission group denying food or medical care to somebody because they won’t attend service, by all means show us. But you can’t.

[b]In that context, your insistence that all foreign aid be done through secular organizations and governments seems not just like pointless nit-picking, but downright patronizing and liable to cut off food, medical care, and more from people in developing countries. 
[/b]
[/quote]

um... ok. But what's that got to do with being a Missionary?"  If the work done by the secular organizations are basically indistinguishable?[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics