293 replies to this topic

[Mr. Miyagi]

IamsSon, on 29 June 2010 - 03:04 PM, said:

Of course it is!  The gaping chest wound should receive  attention way before the bullet wound on the arm!  Understand, from a  Christian perspective the spiritual need has an eternal consequence  while the physical one has a temporary (hours, days, weeks, years,  decades) impact.


Frankly I think you're setting up a no-win situation for the missionaries because if they go out and try to meet the spiritual needs along with the physical needs then you say they are taking advantage of the "weakened" state of the recipients to "Sell" them the Bible.  But if they instead go out and just do "good physical works" then the accusation could easily become that they are just doing that to build up a sense of indebtedness on the recipients that they could take advantage of later on or even that they do not care about the eternal situation of these people.  Now while there may be people/organizations that are being callously calculating, I think your stance does not allow for the fact that from the missionary's perspective they are attempting to save someone from an eternal situation while also helping with a temporal one while undergoing many personal sacrifices and risks to do so.  It's a labor of love and concern.

You wouldn't hear that argument from me personally, but yes, I understand where you are coming from. As far as the Missionary's perspective is concerned, I am allowing for and support it often times, despite disagreeing with the priorities of said perspective.

Thanks again!

[IamsSon]

Mr. Miyagi, on 29 June 2010 - 03:15 PM, said:

You wouldn't hear that argument from me personally, but yes, I understand where you are coming from. As far as the Missionary's perspective is concerned, I am allowing for and support it often times, despite disagreeing with the priorities of said perspective.

Thanks again!

OK, I would like you to clarify this (the highlighted part):  Do you disagree with the priorities because you do not believe in eternal consequences or do you disagree with them because even if the Missionary does believe in eternal consequences they should still not be given a higher priority than temporal ones?  In other words do you disagree with them because of your personal perspective or in spite of the Missionary's perspective?

Thanks for continuing the conversations Mr. M.  I think it could lead to some interesting conclusions.  

[Mr. Miyagi]

IamsSon, on 29 June 2010 - 11:00 PM, said:

OK, I would like you to clarify this (the highlighted part):  Do you disagree with the priorities because you do not believe in eternal consequences or do you disagree with them because even if the Missionary does believe in eternal consequences they should still not be given a higher priority than temporal ones?  In other words do you disagree with them because of your personal perspective or in spite of the Missionary's perspective?

Thanks for continuing the conversations Mr. M.  I think it could lead to some interesting conclusions.  

No problem Iams! I disagree with the priorities because I do not believe in permanent consequences on a spiritual level and feel that physical aid is more important in most circumstances. Indeed as I've said, I feel that spiritual growth can be easier and more genuine to the individual and to "God" if you will, once physical needs are cared for. My hopes and reasons for supporting mission work are twofold. First, for individuals to receive the physical and spiritual care they need and in that order because of my previously mentioned reasons. Secondly, in the hopes that these individuals and communities will begin to help those around them in the same way that they were helped, regardless if God is the reason for them doing it or not. That being said, in the end as long as they continue to receive aid, the order in which they receive the types of aid is less important to me as long as the acceptance or refusal of either type has no effect on the offering of said aid.

Thanks again brother.

[Leonardo]

IamsSon, on 29 June 2010 - 11:00 PM, said:

OK, I would like you to clarify this (the highlighted part):  Do you disagree with the priorities because you do not believe in eternal consequences or do you disagree with them because even if the Missionary does believe in eternal consequences they should still not be given a higher priority than temporal ones?  In other words do you disagree with them because of your personal perspective or in spite of the Missionary's perspective?

Thanks for continuing the conversations Mr. M.  I think it could lead to some interesting conclusions.  

Why are you entitled to chose what belief to teach another to follow, Iams? Because the belief you adhere to tells you so?

Does following your belief grant you "speshul powers" to see exactly what 'spiritual wounds' a person has, and exactly what needs to be done (via their indoctrination) to heal those wounds?

Does missionary work entail teaching the basics of several beliefs, and letting the recipient of that teaching choose what seems best for them, or do you effectively make their choice for them by only teaching the belief you happen to follow?

[IamsSon]

Leonardo, on 29 June 2010 - 11:37 PM, said:

Why are you entitled to chose what belief to teach another to follow, Iams? Because the belief you adhere to tells you so?

Leo, they can choose to learn whatever beliefs they want... just not from me, because I would have to be a hypocrite to teach someone something I consider to be false.  I will teach someone about Christ's sacrifice because that is the truth as far as I am concerned.

Quote

Does following your belief grant you "speshul powers" to see exactly what 'spiritual wounds' a person has, and exactly what needs to be done (via their indoctrination) to heal those wounds?

No, which is why not everyone responds to our message.  If I had "speshul powers" then I would reach everyone I spoke with because they would be unable to resist me.

Quote

Does missionary work entail teaching the basics of several beliefs, and letting the recipient of that teaching choose what seems best for them, or do you effectively make their choice for them by only teaching the belief you happen to follow?

No.  Missionary work (at least for me and my church) means telling people about the TRUTH of Christ's sacrifice.  If those of another religion want to reach these people then they can send their own missionaries.  Why would I become a hypocrite to teach someone something I consider to be wrong?

[Mr. Miyagi]

Leonardo, on 29 June 2010 - 11:37 PM, said:

Why are you entitled to chose what belief to teach another to follow, Iams? Because the belief you adhere to tells you so?

Does following your belief grant you "speshul powers" to see exactly what 'spiritual wounds' a person has, and exactly what needs to be done (via their indoctrination) to heal those wounds?

Does missionary work entail teaching the basics of several beliefs, and letting the recipient of that teaching choose what seems best for them, or do you effectively make their choice for them by only teaching the belief you happen to follow?

Depends on the organization behind the mission. Like Iams has said, hopefully the organization is not so callous as to refuse continued physical aid to someone or a community for not needing or wanting spiritual aid. I could not support such an organization.

I look at it like this. If someone asks a missionary why they are helping them, I fully expect them to tell them why. It's up to that individual if they want to know more. The physical aid is most important imho. I cannot entirely disapprove of an organization that provides it.

What do you think Leo?

[The Silver Thong]

Leonardo, on 29 June 2010 - 11:37 PM, said:

Why are you entitled to chose what belief to teach another to follow, Iams? Because the belief you adhere to tells you so?

Does following your belief grant you "speshul powers" to see exactly what 'spiritual wounds' a person has, and exactly what needs to be done (via their indoctrination) to heal those wounds?

Does missionary work entail teaching the basics of several beliefs, and letting the recipient of that teaching choose what seems best for them, or do you effectively make their choice for them by only teaching the belief you happen to follow?

Exactly, I have yet to figure out how or why one religion can or believe that one god trumps another. Or one belief is to be held in higher regard over another.

On another note I have a friend that worked for a non profit organization that process donations from many charities and I wish when she quit she would have printed off the percentages the actual people get after all the money has gone through many many hands. It was quit said to hear a fifty dollar donation equates to very little getting to the ones that need it. If I can find some numbers I will post them.

Edited by The Silver Thong, 29 June 2010 - 11:55 PM.

[Mr. Miyagi]

The Silver Thong, on 29 June 2010 - 11:54 PM, said:

Exactly, I have yet to figure out how or why one religion can or believe that one god trumps another. Or one belief is to be held in higher regard over another.

On another note I have a friend that worked for a non profit organization that process donations from many charities and I wish when she quit she would have printed off the percentages the actual people get after all the money has gone through many many hands. It was quit said to hear a fifty dollar donation equates to very little getting to the ones that need it. If I can find some numbers I will post them.

Personally, I don't feel that any God or non-God, religion, non religion etc.. trumps another one. Of course as Iams said, the actual missionaries don't feel that way. To myself, ultimately it is less important to me than the actual physical aid being given. The missionaries I support are friends that I trust, I give money directly to them to support them during the mission and not to the organization itself. I'd definitely be interested in those numbers if you can find em' man. I think we all would.

Thanks man.

[The Silver Thong]

Mr. Miyagi, on 30 June 2010 - 12:02 AM, said:

Personally, I don't feel that any God or non-God, religion, non religion etc.. trumps another one. Of course as Iams said, the actual missionaries don't feel that way. To myself, ultimately it is less important to me than the actual physical aid being given. The missionaries I support are friends that I trust, I give money directly to them to support them during the mission and not to the organization itself. I'd definitely be interested in those numbers if you can find em' man. I think we all would.

Thanks man.

Doctor Miyagi you are a wise man and I respect your posts big time. Always great to read. If the actual missionaries don't feel that way, religion would not be a part of the mission. I would have much more appreciation for them (missionaries) if they did more for selfish reasons such as increasing there odds of heaven. To take a community in dire need of help and using that help to influence there beliefs is not truly noble. To take ones very personal beliefs and ask them to turn there back on a history they only know and replaced with another is asking far to much.

Keep up the good work friend and yes, I'll try to dig some numbers up as well. My friend worked at a center that not only processed Canadian donations but American donations as well.

[Mr. Miyagi]

The Silver Thong, on 30 June 2010 - 12:20 AM, said:

Doctor Miyagi you are a wise man and I respect your posts big time. Always great to read. If the actual missionaries don't feel that way, religion would not be a part of the mission. I would have much more appreciation for them (missionaries) if they did more for selfish reasons such as increasing there odds of heaven. To take a community in dire need of help and using that help to influence there beliefs is not truly noble. To take ones very personal beliefs and ask them to turn there back on a history they only know and replaced with another is asking far to much.

Keep up the good work friend and yes, I'll try to dig some numbers up as well. My friend worked at a center that not only processed Canadian donations but American donations as well.

There are certainly instances where religion has been introduced into an already superstitious native community with disastrous results. In those situations, clearly more harm than good was done. I think consideration must be given as to their approach in dealing with certain communities when it comes to the spiritual and cultural as well. Hopefully the people that involve themselves do so out of a genuine concern and a need to help. However, as Iamsson mentioned, with Christians in particular, that means giving the message of Jesus. As long as the acceptance of that message does not determine whether or not aid continues to come to that individual or community, I'm OK with it. That's me though. I can understand the perspective that would not be alright with it for sure.

Thanks again man.

[The Silver Thong]

Mr. Miyagi, on 30 June 2010 - 12:31 AM, said:

There are certainly instances where religion has been introduced into an already superstitious native community with disastrous results. In those situations, clearly more harm than good was done. I think consideration must be given as to their approach in dealing with certain communities when it comes to the spiritual and cultural as well. Hopefully the people that involve themselves do so out of a genuine concern and a need to help. However, as Iamsson mentioned, with Christians in particular, that means giving the message of Jesus. As long as the acceptance of that message does not determine whether or not aid continues to come to that individual or community, I'm OK with it. That's me though. I can understand the perspective that would not be alright with it for sure.

Thanks again man.

It can be said any aid is better then no aid. I agree with people of faith helping as it does make them feel good and to the individual it is very genuine. My folks about 10 years ago shortly after retirement got involved with there little church in a small town about 1300 people and my folks now help send people around the world on humanitarian needs and have been on a few themselves.

My folk's, well my dad made a pretty good penny during his days in the Alberta oil game and took it upon himself to organize this trips and and help fund and raise money for them. He doesn't consider himself a missionary even though my folks are religious. Nothing they do as far as a charity goes comes with any obligations but I'm sure Christianity is brought up. My folks group plan a location small village (so far mostly India and south east Asia) and help villages build the basic necessities needed by the community and then leave probably to never return but leave something that the people can use for years to come. I can't be against something that does help.  

I don't consider that type of work harmful at all but there are mega charities where admin cost's are through the roof. Some of those 30 min ad's on sunday t.v. where they send a picture and one can write back and forth are not what they are cracked up to be.

[Leonardo]

Mr. Miyagi, on 29 June 2010 - 11:49 PM, said:

Depends on the organization behind the mission. Like Iams has said, hopefully the organization is not so callous as to refuse continued physical aid to someone or a community for not needing or wanting spiritual aid. I could not support such an organization.

I look at it like this. If someone asks a missionary why they are helping them, I fully expect them to tell them why. It's up to that individual if they want to know more. The physical aid is most important imho. I cannot entirely disapprove of an organization that provides it.

What do you think Leo?

It is a difficult proposition, Miyagi-san.

If we take the view that spiritual aid is irrelevant, then we can view the physical aid as 'trumping' the teaching of a belief. However, the simple act of teaching a belief can result in future behaviour which is detrimental to the society through the very interpretive nature of belief.

Beliefs are dangerous because people can choose how to interpret them and behave accordingly. Teaching someone that holding a particular belief results in a particular benefit can lead to division, bigotry and even violence.

If these missionary organisations are focussed solely on providing physical aid, I would prefer to see them provide that aid through non-denominational organisations like Medicins Sans Frontiers, etc. There is no need for them to send their religion with the aid.

If we take the view that the spiritual aid is relevant, then we have to consider what particular 'brand' of religious aid is 'true'. Both in 'eternal terms' and for the immediate succor of the recipient. Teaching only the belief held by the missionary is gambling with the 'eternal well-being' of that recipient. As I said earlier, fine to gamble with your own eternal well-being, but one does not have the right to gamble with another's. That smacks of arrogance.

Edited by Leonardo, 30 June 2010 - 10:46 AM.

[mklsgl]

The Silver Thong, on 30 June 2010 - 12:20 AM, said:

Doctor Miyagi you are a wise man and I respect your posts big time. Always great to read. If the actual missionaries don't feel that way, religion would not be a part of the mission. I would have much more appreciation for them (missionaries) if they did more for selfish reasons such as increasing there odds of heaven. To take a community in dire need of help and using that help to influence there beliefs is not truly noble. To take ones very personal beliefs and ask them to turn there back on a history they only know and replaced with another is asking far to much.

Keep up the good work friend and yes, I'll try to dig some numbers up as well. My friend worked at a center that not only processed Canadian donations but American donations as well.

See the film Black Robe.

[mklsgl]

The Silver Thong, on 29 June 2010 - 11:54 PM, said:

Exactly, I have yet to figure out how or why one religion can or believe that one god trumps another. Or one belief is to be held in higher regard over another.

On another note I have a friend that worked for a non profit organization that process donations from many charities and I wish when she quit she would have printed off the percentages the actual people get after all the money has gone through many many hands. It was quit said to hear a fifty dollar donation equates to very little getting to the ones that need it. If I can find some numbers I will post them.

Check out the United Way scandal, ST. If my memory is not suffering from "Too Many Grateful Dead Tours-itis," I think the numbers involved were somewhere around 12 cents per dollar.

[The Silver Thong]

mklsgl, on 30 June 2010 - 04:25 PM, said:

See the film Black Robe.

Robert De Niro right? Wow it's been awhile since i'v seen that, pretty good flick. Think I'll watch it tonight, refresh my memory.