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]Service is a very real part of many religions. Pp may think writing a check is the universal answer, but for many religions it’s important to serve other people directly. There’s a reason ministers wash the feet of their congregants. [/quote]

But they can “serve” via secular organizations.  [/quote]

But given the way missionaries work today—little pressure—what’s the difference? What is your problem with mission work today?[/quote]

There should be zero pressure. Service work done independent of proselytizing.

The doctors in the earlier example should be happy to serve in a secular capacity too, right? No strings attached to their care? 
[/quote]

Jesus healed the sick, fed the hungry.  Why shouldn't missionaries if nobody else steps up to do it.[/quote]

They can do it via secular organizations. 
[/quote]

Can vs. do.  Can doesn't accomplish anything.  It's hypothetical.  In jammies in DC.[/quote]

So only justification for missionaries is that there aren’t enough secular organizations at the moment? 
[/quote]

Secular orgs and check-writing are no substitute. Missionaries/some religious people seek to perform charity/service to real people as part of their faith. And they seek to testify through example (not coercion). None of this is available through secular organizations. And writing a check from DC doesn’t accomplish any of this.

If you ban mission work in foreign countries under some misapprehension that it’s still coercive, these religious people will focus exclusively on Appalachia and inner cities in the USA. No, they aren’t giving up service, they’d just have to refocus it domestically. And total aid abroad will decline massively.

You sit on your restoration hardware sofa in your jammies and wave your glass of Nebbiolo around, as you talk about taking away services to people in developing countries. 
[/quote]

Believers could still perform charity work through secular organizations.

They aren't just giving out of the kindness of their heart? They need to have strings attached to their aid?

[/quote]

Did you read the first para? No?[/quote]

Yes, that is why I asked about them giving out of the kindness of their heart. Sounds like their help has strings attached if they would refuse to donate/volunteer via a secular organization. 
[/quote]

Sounds like you have the same objection to Christians volunteering through secular organizations. If they attend local services, or set up their own, bam, they’re banned.

Your goal in both cases would be to reduce aid in both countries. [/quote]

The goal is to not intermingle aid and religion.

There is no reason why believers couldn't provide aid without religion. Unless they are only volunteering for personal reasons, not the benefit of those they are helping. 
[/quote]

It can be both. Why can’t you understand this?

And whose goal, and why? You don’t seem to be able to explain any of this. [/quote]

DP: You seem to think that in sharing / foisting your religion on other people, you are offering them a valuable gift.  Some of us see that as an imposition, and see it in the context of a history, where missionary work has been used as a selfish justification for many harmful things, including the destruction of cultural traditions.  Why can’t you understand this?  Or, do you actually understand this, but believe that your “freedom “ to exercise your own religious beliefs supersedes the freedom of others to NOT be exposed to your religious beliefs?  
    I’m curious. If people in a given community are genuinely attracted by your example, why do you have to evangelize? Wouldn’t they seek you out?  
   
   [/quote]

It’s been explained to you multiple times: there’s no “foisting” going on these days. Missionaries don’t do that in the 21st century. You’ve been asked multiple times to provide examples of said “foisting” and you failed to provide anything.

At the same time, you can’t explain why foist-less missionary aid is worse than secular aid.

Why can’t you back up any of your claims? [/quote]

Because I’m not the one that made those claims?  “ Foisting” as I’m using it, means anything other than allowing the recipients of your chastity to actively seek out more information or involvement. If that truly isn’t happening, then, I, for one, am cool with it.

I’m glad to learn that white people bearing guitars and forcing kids to sing Kumbayah are no longer a thing. [/quote]

Oops: CHARITY not chastity.  Sorry for the very weird autocorrect. [/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