Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So why shouldn't missionaries be banned?

Couldn't their charity work continue via secular organizations?

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?

And crickets.

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

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?

You are confusing posters.

It’s a very simple question. Why do we need missionaries?

Why shouldn’t they be banned?

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

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

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

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

What is the benefit?

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?

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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."!

Right. So if there is no religion involved in this service work, it could be done via secular organizations.

But secular organizations aren’t doing enough of it. That’s the whole point.

You don’t get to sit there in your $600k or more DMV house, wave your glass of Chablis, and tell people in developing countries that they shouldn’t have access to missionary-built wells, health clinics or schools. Can you spell “hubris”?

The women who come to our missionary medical clinics in Guatemala generally walk from their home villages for two days to attend our health clinics. We do a variety of surgeries but the women generally come to get in line to get their tubes tied. They have no other access to health care.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So why shouldn't missionaries be banned?

Couldn't their charity work continue via secular organizations?

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?

And crickets.

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

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?

You are confusing posters.

It’s a very simple question. Why do we need missionaries?

Why shouldn’t they be banned?

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

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

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

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

What is the benefit?

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?

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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."!

Right. So if there is no religion involved in this service work, it could be done via secular organizations.

But secular organizations aren’t doing enough of it. That’s the whole point.

You don’t get to sit there in your $600k or more DMV house, wave your glass of Chablis, and tell people in developing countries that they shouldn’t have access to missionary-built wells, health clinics or schools. Can you spell “hubris”?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So why shouldn't missionaries be banned?

Couldn't their charity work continue via secular organizations?

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?

And crickets.

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

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?

You are confusing posters.

It’s a very simple question. Why do we need missionaries?

Why shouldn’t they be banned?

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

Lol: I read this as the PP admitting that they, themselves, are a bigot, spewing hate and ignoring what everyone else says, and finally accepting that nobody wants to engage with that.

It seems odd to me that some people use their own religious beliefs or “the Bible” to justify pretty much anything they want to do — without recognizing that their own personal convictions should not govern or influence anyone other than themselves. I wonder how many of these evangelicals have genuinely allowed others to proselytize to them?

DP. People proselytize me all the time. For some reason there's some Jehovah's Witnesses who send me personal letters every couple of months. I read them but I'm not converting and it seems crazy to make that illegal.

You might feel more obligated to listen to them and maybe comply with their customs if they were feeding you and providing you with medical care.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So why shouldn't missionaries be banned?

Couldn't their charity work continue via secular organizations?

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?

And crickets.

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

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?

You are confusing posters.

It’s a very simple question. Why do we need missionaries?

Why shouldn’t they be banned?

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

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

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

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

What is the benefit?

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?

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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."!

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. Stop trying to make “fetch” happen, especially with examples that make zero sense.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So why shouldn't missionaries be banned?

Couldn't their charity work continue via secular organizations?

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?

And crickets.

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

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?

You are confusing posters.

It’s a very simple question. Why do we need missionaries?

Why shouldn’t they be banned?

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

Lol: I read this as the PP admitting that they, themselves, are a bigot, spewing hate and ignoring what everyone else says, and finally accepting that nobody wants to engage with that.

It seems odd to me that some people use their own religious beliefs or “the Bible” to justify pretty much anything they want to do — without recognizing that their own personal convictions should not govern or influence anyone other than themselves. I wonder how many of these evangelicals have genuinely allowed others to proselytize to them?

DP. People proselytize me all the time. For some reason there's some Jehovah's Witnesses who send me personal letters every couple of months. I read them but I'm not converting and it seems crazy to make that illegal.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So why shouldn't missionaries be banned?

Couldn't their charity work continue via secular organizations?

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?

And crickets.

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

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?

You are confusing posters.

It’s a very simple question. Why do we need missionaries?

Why shouldn’t they be banned?

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

Lol: I read this as the PP admitting that they, themselves, are a bigot, spewing hate and ignoring what everyone else says, and finally accepting that nobody wants to engage with that.

It seems odd to me that some people use their own religious beliefs or “the Bible” to justify pretty much anything they want to do — without recognizing that their own personal convictions should not govern or influence anyone other than themselves. I wonder how many of these evangelicals have genuinely allowed others to proselytize to them?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So why shouldn't missionaries be banned?

Couldn't their charity work continue via secular organizations?

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?

And crickets.

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

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?

You are confusing posters.

It’s a very simple question. Why do we need missionaries?

Why shouldn’t they be banned?

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

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So why shouldn't missionaries be banned?

Couldn't their charity work continue via secular organizations?

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?

And crickets.

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

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?

You are confusing posters.

It’s a very simple question. Why do we need missionaries?

Why shouldn’t they be banned?

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

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

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

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

What is the benefit?

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?

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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."!

Right. So if there is no religion involved in this service work, it could be done via secular organizations.

But secular organizations aren’t doing enough of it. That’s the whole point.

You don’t get to sit there in your $600k or more DMV house, wave your glass of Chablis, and tell people in developing countries that they shouldn’t have access to missionary-built wells, health clinics or schools. Can you spell “hubris”?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So why shouldn't missionaries be banned?

Couldn't their charity work continue via secular organizations?

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?

And crickets.

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

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?

You are confusing posters.

It’s a very simple question. Why do we need missionaries?

Why shouldn’t they be banned?

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

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

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

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

What is the benefit?

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?

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

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

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.

Is proselytizing protected as part of “religious freedom”?

Is predatory proselytizing protected?

Why would it be ok for foreign beliefs/religions to infringe on local/indigenous beliefs/religions?

Yes spreading your religion is part of practicing for many religions, and no one has defined what's predatory about modern missionary practice so I can't really respond to that. And what does it mean to "infringe" on a local tradition anyway? No one is making it illegal to practice an indigenous religion. It doesn't infringe my belief in Christianity for someone to share Buddhism with me, why do you think I'm more capable of making decisions for myself than a poor person in a developing country? That's incredibly paternalistic to suggest that they need to be protected by you from hearing about religions other than the one you've decided they should practice.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So why shouldn't missionaries be banned?

Couldn't their charity work continue via secular organizations?

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?

And crickets.

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

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?

You are confusing posters.

It’s a very simple question. Why do we need missionaries?

Why shouldn’t they be banned?

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

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

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

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

What is the benefit?

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?

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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."!

Right. So if there is no religion involved in this service work, it could be done via secular organizations.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So why shouldn't missionaries be banned?

Couldn't their charity work continue via secular organizations?

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?

And crickets.

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

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?

You are confusing posters.

It’s a very simple question. Why do we need missionaries?

Why shouldn’t they be banned?

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

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

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

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

What is the benefit?

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?

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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."!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So why shouldn't missionaries be banned?

Couldn't their charity work continue via secular organizations?

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?

And crickets.

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

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?

You are confusing posters.

It’s a very simple question. Why do we need missionaries?

Why shouldn’t they be banned?

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

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

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

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

What is the benefit?

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?

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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."!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So why shouldn't missionaries be banned?

Couldn't their charity work continue via secular organizations?

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?

And crickets.

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

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?

You are confusing posters.

It’s a very simple question. Why do we need missionaries?

Why shouldn’t they be banned?

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

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

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

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

What is the benefit?

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?

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So why shouldn't missionaries be banned?

Couldn't their charity work continue via secular organizations?

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?

And crickets.

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

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?

You are confusing posters.

It’s a very simple question. Why do we need missionaries?

Why shouldn’t they be banned?

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

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

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

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

What is the benefit?

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?

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So why shouldn't missionaries be banned?

Couldn't their charity work continue via secular organizations?

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?

And crickets.

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

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?

You are confusing posters.

It’s a very simple question. Why do we need missionaries?

Why shouldn’t they be banned?

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

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

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

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

What is the benefit?

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?

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

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

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.

Is proselytizing protected as part of “religious freedom”?

Is predatory proselytizing protected?

Why would it be ok for foreign beliefs/religions to infringe on local/indigenous beliefs/religions?