Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So to summarize:
-All missionaries proselytize in some way - words, deeds, etc.
-Some missionaries proselytize with words.
-It's unethical to proselytize during vulnerable moments.
-Some DCUM posters can't face facts.

All your fake “my kid was proselytized by my mom/at a play date” posts failed and it’s really unhinged you.

Anonymous wrote:So to summarize:
-All missionaries proselytize in some way - words, deeds, etc.
-Some missionaries proselytize with words.
-It's unethical to proselytize during vulnerable moments.
-Some DCUM posters can't face facts.

Anonymous wrote:So to summarize:
-All missionaries proselytize in some way - words, deeds, etc.
-Some missionaries proselytize with words.
-It's unethical to proselytize during vulnerable moments.
-Some DCUM posters can't face facts.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So to summarize:
-All missionaries proselytize in some way - words, deeds, etc.
-Some missionaries proselytize with words.
-It's unethical to proselytize during vulnerable moments.
-Some DCUM posters can't face facts.

Missionaries are great. How can you not like the promotion of God?

Anonymous wrote:So to summarize:
-All missionaries proselytize in some way - words, deeds, etc.
-Some missionaries proselytize with words.
-It's unethical to proselytize during vulnerable moments.
-Some DCUM posters can't face facts.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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!

Your lack of disagreement with he post you respond to is noted.

You’re so dishonest it’s appalling. You lie: Nobody is agreeing with you.

I am dishonest? I think that’s the pot calling the kettle black. Where in the post you respond to is me making the claim that people are agreeing with me?

What? It’s not there? Well, I guess that makes you the dishonest one. Now to repeat:

Your lack of disagreement with the post you responded to is noted. A second time.

Your lies are crystal clear, stop pretending otherwise.

“I think we can all agree…” ignores at least 3 posters, of the maybe 5-6 posters here, who totally disagree with your juvenile attempt at spin.

You think there are 3-6 posters here who think that missionaries never talk about Jesus or try to persuade people to “invite him into their lives”?

Math and reading are fundamental. Re-read the post.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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!

Your lack of disagreement with he post you respond to is noted.

You’re so dishonest it’s appalling. You lie: Nobody is agreeing with you.

I am dishonest? I think that’s the pot calling the kettle black. Where in the post you respond to is me making the claim that people are agreeing with me?

What? It’s not there? Well, I guess that makes you the dishonest one. Now to repeat:

Your lack of disagreement with the post you responded to is noted. A second time.

Your lies are crystal clear, stop pretending otherwise.

“I think we can all agree…” ignores at least 3 posters, of the maybe 5-6 posters here, who totally disagree with your juvenile attempt at spin.

You think there are 3-6 posters here who think that missionaries never talk about Jesus or try to persuade people to “invite him into their lives”?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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!

Your lack of disagreement with he post you respond to is noted.

You’re so dishonest it’s appalling. You lie: Nobody is agreeing with you.

I am dishonest? I think that’s the pot calling the kettle black. Where in the post you respond to is me making the claim that people are agreeing with me?

What? It’s not there? Well, I guess that makes you the dishonest one. Now to repeat:

Your lack of disagreement with the post you responded to is noted. A second time.

Your lies are crystal clear, stop pretending otherwise.

“I think we can all agree…” ignores at least 3 posters, of the maybe 5-6 posters here, who totally disagree with your juvenile attempt at spin.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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!

Your lack of disagreement with he post you respond to is noted.

You’re so dishonest it’s appalling. You lie: Nobody is agreeing with you.

I am dishonest? I think that’s the pot calling the kettle black. Where in the post you respond to is me making the claim that people are agreeing with me?

What? It’s not there? Well, I guess that makes you the dishonest one. Now to repeat:

Your lack of disagreement with the post you responded to is noted. A second time.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So we're all agreed then, missionaries Do proselytize?

So do people who are not missionaries

It’s a yes or no question.

DP. The truth? Nobody trusts you enough to answer.

You’re posing a hypothetical where you deliberately fail to define “proselytize.” The word “proselytize” could mean anything from answering questions about that cross on the clinic wall to forcing conversions on people in need of surgery. You clearly mean the latter, even though you’ve utterly failed to document that sort of forced-conversions.

We all know that if we answer your hypothetical, your next post will more dishonest spin along the lines of, “Yes! We all agree missionaries force conversions.”

No takers, no surprise.

You are confusing multiple posters.

I’ll ask this question again - maybe this is less triggering for you:

Is it ethical for missionaries to verbally try to persuade people to “invite Jesus into their lives” - with words not just deeds or props - during vulnerable moments of the people they are helping? To verbally proselytize during service work?

Ways to proselytize:
- by example (several here say that’s what they do)
- answer questions about the cross on the wall
- give out free pamphlets or bibles (the Gideons) with no verbal suasion
- lecturing/verbal persuasion
- require someone convert before receiving food or medical care (you have zero proof this happens, also as many have pointed out, someone can say the words and then go home and believe whatever they believed before, but you apparently think poor people are too stupid to make their own choices)

We all know, as your last sentence confirms, that #4 is what you’re obsessed with. Even though you have zero proof this ever happens today, and several here have said it doesn’t happen. Even though any intelligent person on the receiving end could mouth the words (you can’t seem to understand that poor people can make their own choices).

So anybody engaging with you is going to have their words twisted by you AND by your sock puppet/sad little sidekick who likes to spin things into “we all agree missionaries do XYY.”

Why bother engaging with you? No need to use stupid words like “trigger” when the real reason is that we all know you’re straight-up dishonest.

Are you saying that you think #4 never happens?

You don’t think missionaries ever talk about Jesus and try to persuade people to “invite him into their lives”?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So we're all agreed then, missionaries Do proselytize?

So do people who are not missionaries

It’s a yes or no question.

DP. The truth? Nobody trusts you enough to answer.

You’re posing a hypothetical where you deliberately fail to define “proselytize.” The word “proselytize” could mean anything from answering questions about that cross on the clinic wall to forcing conversions on people in need of surgery. You clearly mean the latter, even though you’ve utterly failed to document that sort of forced-conversions.

We all know that if we answer your hypothetical, your next post will more dishonest spin along the lines of, “Yes! We all agree missionaries force conversions.”

No takers, no surprise.

You are confusing multiple posters.

I’ll ask this question again - maybe this is less triggering for you:

Is it ethical for missionaries to verbally try to persuade people to “invite Jesus into their lives” - with words not just deeds or props - during vulnerable moments of the people they are helping? To verbally proselytize during service work?

Ways to proselytize:
- by example (several here say that’s what they do)
- answer questions about the cross on the wall
- give out free pamphlets or bibles (the Gideons) with no verbal suasion
- lecturing/verbal persuasion
- require someone convert before receiving food or medical care (you have zero proof this happens, also as many have pointed out, someone can say the words and then go home and believe whatever they believed before, but you apparently think poor people are too stupid to make their own choices)

We all know, as your last sentence confirms, that #4 is what you’re obsessed with. Even though you have zero proof this ever happens today, and several here have said it doesn’t happen. Even though any intelligent person on the receiving end could mouth the words (you can’t seem to understand that poor people can make their own choices).

So anybody engaging with you is going to have their words twisted by you AND by your sock puppet/sad little sidekick who likes to spin things into “we all agree missionaries do XYY.”

Why bother engaging with you? No need to use stupid words like “trigger” when the real reason is that we all know you’re straight-up dishonest.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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!

Your lack of disagreement with he post you respond to is noted.

You’re so dishonest it’s appalling. You lie: Nobody is agreeing with you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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!

Your lack of disagreement with he post you respond to is noted.

You’re so dishonest it’s appalling. You lie: Nobody is agreeing with you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So we're all agreed then, missionaries Do proselytize?

So do people who are not missionaries

It’s a yes or no question.

DP. The truth? Nobody trusts you enough to answer.

You’re posing a hypothetical where you deliberately fail to define “proselytize.” The word “proselytize” could mean anything from answering questions about that cross on the clinic wall to forcing conversions on people in need of surgery. You clearly mean the latter, even though you’ve utterly failed to document that sort of forced-conversions.

We all know that if we answer your hypothetical, your next post will more dishonest spin along the lines of, “Yes! We all agree missionaries force conversions.”

No takers, no surprise.

You are confusing multiple posters.

I’ll ask this question again - maybe this is less triggering for you:

Is it ethical for missionaries to verbally try to persuade people to “invite Jesus into their lives” - with words not just deeds or props - during vulnerable moments of the people they are helping? To verbally proselytize during service work?