Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
Socks Junior

Atheists and Fundamentalists

294 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

Public Law 94-521 prohibits the US Census Bureau from asking a question on religious affiliation on a mandatory basis, so the source for the CIA figures is unlikely to be from collected Census data.

This only means that the people are free to skip answering - this is the same as anywhere else in the world. Governments cannot force the people to disclose such personal information.

From the pdf I can see that

No religion specified, total 2 . . . 14,331 29,481 34,169

(4)

Atheist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 902 1,621

4

Agnostic. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,186 991 1,985

No religion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13,116 27,486 30,427

Refused to reply to question. . . 4,031 11,246 11,815

which means 46 million people in USA do not wish do discuss to which religion they belong, so hardly there is a sense to highlight only 6 million out of this number (2% of the OP which by the way is nowhere in this pdf too). The same time please note, that Census Bureau works with the population in its entirety, i.e. over 300,000,000 people, while this religious group operates by polling random 50,000 people. This involves absolutely different type of settings and costs, and one certainly cannot be an equivalent of another. Neither of course the data in this part of thye polling is reliable - as a matter of example I can remember myself answering the religion question in the census polls as "atheist", "orthodox christian" and "no religion", the answer being picked up at random just to get rid of the questionnaire. You probably realise that in all three cases my answer meant "atheist", as it is pretty stupid to call oneself an agnostic (despite I admit, I do not mind putting my fingers into the wounds occasionally). In the next census I would probably write that I am God myself :lol:

Edited by MARAB0D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

This only means that the people are free to skip answering - this is the same as anywhere else in the world. Governments cannot force the people to disclose such personal information.

Perhaps I should clarify:

No American Census since 1936 has had a question regarding Religious Belief.

Therefore - there is no religious census data available for the US within modern times.

You can find the full details of the 2008 ARIS report here.

Edited by Tiggs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What exactly in your view makes me your bud?

Your kind dedication to making sure I stay within the rules of the site :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Mike -- the statistics could well be wrong,and as some have pointed out; are wrong. However, that was not what I was thinking about when I wrote:

My guess is that the author is not far from the facts in his last paragraph quoted here, when he wrote, "
The irony is that this current brand of aggressive atheism is just another form of fundamentalism. These particular atheists are zealots on the subject of faith who see no shadings of gray, only black and white. They're dead-set against religion but weirdly obsessed with it
."

What struck me here, was that it seems to me (my opinion) -- and I may well be wrong -- that "aggressive atheists" do seem to "see no shadings of gray, only black and white. They're dead-set against religion but weirdly obsessed with it".

That is why I raised this as a "point of discussion". If I'm wrong, I will (hopefully) :) change my opinion. :tu:

Cheers,

Karlis

Alrighty then K-Man, let's deconstruct this 'point of discussion.' Earlier in the thread, I posted that I couldn't find a valid argument in the pastors Op-Ed piece, and I stand by that statement. Yes, it is merely one man's opinion and nothing else but his opinion is decidedly ill-informed and his presentation of it takes the form of gross generalizations that have no sourced basis at all. How can the claim be made that "aggressive atheists see no shadings of gray, only black and white" without a whiff of proof? Where is his relevant evidence? Do atheists hold protests at churches, synagogues, and mosques? Or at private religious schools? Do Fundamentalists vehemently protest at Abortion Clinics every Saturday morning? Do Fundamentalists take action to change public school curricula to a more Christian Theological education?

I don't see atheists organizing for the sake of changing public policy but I do see Fundamentalists in 'full-frontal attack mode' and "weirdly obsessed" in doing so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Alrighty then K-Man, let's deconstruct this 'point of discussion.' Earlier in the thread, I posted that I couldn't find a valid argument in the pastors Op-Ed piece, and I stand by that statement. Yes, it is merely one man's opinion and nothing else but his opinion is decidedly ill-informed and his presentation of it takes the form of gross generalizations that have no sourced basis at all. How can the claim be made that "aggressive atheists see no shadings of gray, only black and white" without a whiff of proof? Where is his relevant evidence? Do atheists hold protests at churches, synagogues, and mosques? Or at private religious schools? Do Fundamentalists vehemently protest at Abortion Clinics every Saturday morning? Do Fundamentalists take action to change public school curricula to a more Christian Theological education?

I don't see atheists organizing for the sake of changing public policy but I do see Fundamentalists in 'full-frontal attack mode' and "weirdly obsessed" in doing so.

Mike, I saw the article as an "opinion editorial" type of writing. He gave an opinion, elaborated on that opinion, and then left it to the reader to consider that opinion. Yes, he gave some statistics, but the stats were not undergirding his opinion, as I see it.

The theme was left wide open for input and wide-open discussion. It was not written as an abstract for a study.

Again, just my off-the-cuff thoughts on that,

karlis

Edited by Karlis
deleted redundancy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Alrighty then K-Man, let's deconstruct this 'point of discussion.' Earlier in the thread, I posted that I couldn't find a valid argument in the pastors Op-Ed piece, and I stand by that statement. Yes, it is merely one man's opinion and nothing else but his opinion is decidedly ill-informed and his presentation of it takes the form of gross generalizations that have no sourced basis at all. How can the claim be made that "aggressive atheists see no shadings of gray, only black and white" without a whiff of proof? Where is his relevant evidence? Do atheists hold protests at churches, synagogues, and mosques? Or at private religious schools? Do Fundamentalists vehemently protest at Abortion Clinics every Saturday morning? Do Fundamentalists take action to change public school curricula to a more Christian Theological education?

I don't see atheists organizing for the sake of changing public policy but I do see Fundamentalists in 'full-frontal attack mode' and "weirdly obsessed" in doing so.

WIth respect to the part of your post I highlighted, mkl, the 'proof' depends on what is being referred to as 'black and white'.

If this is a reference to the existence/non-existence of deity (as I assume from the context of that part of the article), then I would think all the proof required is in the label 'atheist'. The use of 'aggressive' as a descriptor of the zealousness of the atheists is irrelevant, imo.

Edited by Leonardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given that Jesus Himself said that, like a doctor, He came to heal the sick not the healthy (Matt 9:11-13) it would stand to reason that, whether in a mission field or at work, the subway, or the corner store, the ones who will respond to the message of Salvation, those who will seek it, are those who feel/realize they have a need that is not being fulfilled by anything else in their lives. To then turn around and consider it bad form or dishonest seems to me to be unfair. Would you consider it ridiculous if someone who was in pain accepted the medication they needed when it was offered to them? I've been on mission trips, met people who were living in conditions most of us would consider squalid and deplorable, exactly the kind of people one would expect would be "ripe for the picking" and yet after hearing (most of them very cordially) the message of God's gift of eternal life, decided it was not for them. There may well be people/organizations which are so dishonest and calculating in their approach, but most of us simply feel we are going where those in need of healing are.

My issues are the following. A- In mission work the goal of the mission, in many cases, seems to be spreading God's word primarily, and not providing physical help (food, clothing, shelter etc...). Actual aid is given, but with a condition it seems. B- When a person is living in poor conditions they are often at an emotional low and will do things they ordinarily would not do such as join a religion. This obviously isn't limited to religion. One could to turn to drugs or alcohol, as often is the case. In my opinion, it is much more effective to help a person better their living conditions, which in turn helps them emotionally (spiritually). To explain about God's word after the fact would seem to be a much more genuine situation imho. My other issue is this-

I've been on mission trips, met people who were living in conditions most of us would consider squalid and deplorable, exactly the kind of people one would expect would be "ripe for the picking" and yet after hearing (most of them very cordially) the message of God's gift of eternal life, decided it was not for them.

If after these people refused the gift of God, did you or the mission continue to return and offer them aid? If the answer is no, then the point of the mission is obviously not to help people, but to spread a religion and then only help the followers of said religion. If the answer is yes, then kudos to you and your mission, outstanding work sir. They and yourself are to be commended imho!

Thanks for reading, and thanks for your perspective Iams!

Hope all is well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

The thing is, the people who respond to the message do so because their "hunger" their "illness" is spiritual and a bowl of rice will do nothing to answer their need. It would be like giving Zycam to someone with a gaping chest wound and thinking you healed them. Most mission work does involve some physical help, because people need that also and because even those who do not have that spiritual need will also benefit from the physical help, but it's main intent is to find the sick and bring them healing.

quote

"The thing is, the people who respond to the message do so because their "hunger" their "illness" is spiritual and a bowl of rice will do nothing"

No, they respond because they have no other choice. Like I said, a bowl of rice if you take this bible. Give them food for conversion turns that help into a disease itself. I'm rather disgusted how you think food or medicine does less then praying. Get shot in the knee cap then pray, sorry to say it, but it won't help your knee.

Edited by The Silver Thong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

My issues are the following. A- In mission work the goal of the mission, in many cases, seems to be spreading God's word primarily, and not providing physical help (food, clothing, shelter etc...). Actual aid is given, but with a condition it seems. B- When a person is living in poor conditions they are often at an emotional low and will do things they ordinarily would not do such as join a religion. This obviously isn't limited to religion. One could to turn to drugs or alcohol, as often is the case. In my opinion, it is much more effective to help a person better their living conditions, which in turn helps them emotionally (spiritually). To explain about God's word after the fact would seem to be a much more genuine situation imho. My other issue is this-

So, in your humble opinion if someone had a gaping chest wound you would give them a band aid and consider that you had done a great job of healing them? Of course not! Like I said, there are some who do respond and others who don't.
If after these people refused the gift of God, did you or the mission continue to return and offer them aid? If the answer is no, then the point of the mission is obviously not to help people, but to spread a religion and then only help the followers of said religion. If the answer is yes, then kudos to you and your mission, outstanding work sir. They and yourself are to be commended imho!

Thanks for reading, and thanks for your perspective Iams!

Hope all is well.

No one is forced to accept anything because the work we do is for the community (digging wells, building orphanages, etc.) and we do the work while we are visiting people so the work gets done whether anyone decides to come to Christ or not..

quote

"The thing is, the people who respond to the message do so because their "hunger" their "illness" is spiritual and a bowl of rice will do nothing"

No, they respond because they have no other choice. Like I said, a bowl of rice if you take this bible. Give them food for conversion turns that help into a disease itself. I'm rather disgusted how you think food or medicine does less then praying. Get shot in the knee cap then pray, sorry to say it, but it won't help your knee.

Like I said, there may be organizations that work in such a way, but my church doesn't and the organizations we support don't work that way. They provide help whether a person accepts Christ or not.

Edited by IamsSon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, in your humble opinion if someone had a gaping chest wound you would give them a band aid and consider that you had done a great job of healing them? Of course not! Like I said, there are some who do respond and others who don't.

Of course not. Nor would I provide them with a bible. They need propper medical attention. I understand the point you are trying to make, as I am trying to make a similar point from the opposite point of view. Remove your band aid from your analogy and replace it with a bible. Do you undestand? I feel that in the situations that missions involve themselves with actual physical aid to better the situation is more important than religion and that a more genine discussion can occur about said religion after the fact.

No one is forced to accept anything because the work we do is for the community (digging wells, building orphanages, etc.) and we do the work while we are visiting people so the work gets done whether anyone decides to come to Christ or not..

I understand that. That is not what I am questioning. My question was do you or the mission you are involved with return again despite your religion being rejected? Furthermore, if you do return is religion pushed further or is the issue dropped and only the needed aid focussed upon?

Thanks again Iams.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My issues are the following. A- In mission work the goal of the mission, in many cases, seems to be spreading God's word primarily, and not providing physical help (food, clothing, shelter etc...). Actual aid is given, but with a condition it seems. B- When a person is living in poor conditions they are often at an emotional low and will do things they ordinarily would not do such as join a religion.~~~ ... (snip) ...

... In my opinion, it is much more effective to help a person better their living conditions, which in turn helps them emotionally (spiritually). To explain about God's word after the fact would seem to be a much more genuine situation imho.

Mr. Miyagi, I wonder if it was you or someone else on these threads who mentioned the book, "BRUCHKO", the autobiography by Bruce Olson? If that was you, then you know that Bruce Olson is an ideal example of the ideal missionary to "primitive natives". :tu:

If it was someone else who mentioned this book -- and if you have not read it -- I guarantee you will agree 100% with what Bruce Olson did, and with what he accomplished. A most remarkable man indeed.

My other issue is this-

If after these people refused the gift of God, did you or the mission continue to return and offer them aid? If the answer is no, then the point of the mission is obviously not to help people, but to spread a religion and then only help the followers of said religion. ~~~ ... (snip) ...

And these are the the type of missionaries Bruce Olson met, when he arrived in Venezuela. A fascinating contrast between them, and with what Bruce Olson did as a missionary when he searched out the native Motilone Indians. As I just said, if you have not read the book, please do so, and let us know your thoughts about the contents

Thanks for reading, and thanks for your perspective Iams!

Hope all is well.

And all the best from me,

Karlis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Miyagi, I wonder if it was you or someone else on these threads who mentioned the book, "BRUCHKO", the autobiography by Bruce Olson? If that was you, then you know that Bruce Olson is an ideal example of the ideal missionary to "primitive natives". :tu:

If it was someone else who mentioned this book -- and if you have not read it -- I guarantee you will agree 100% with what Bruce Olson did, and with what he accomplished. A most remarkable man indeed.

And these are the the type of missionaries Bruce Olson met, when he arrived in Venezuela. A fascinating contrast between them, and with what Bruce Olson did as a missionary when he searched out the native Motilone Indians. As I just said, if you have not read the book, please do so, and let us know your thoughts about the contents

And all the best from me,

Karlis

The only missionary work that I'v referenced specifically, athough I don't remember if it was as Venkman or Miyagi, was Dan Everett and specifically his book "Don't Sleep There are Snakes" It is a similar story with the exact opposite result. A quote-

"Although I no longer believe in supernatural beings, for 25 years - after converting to Christianity when I was 17 years old, in 1968 - I was both a minister in the Wesleyan Church and a missionary with SIL International. I believe that although missionary work has some useful social effects (e.g. medical assistance and emergency flights) it is all too often divisive with negative impacts. Teaching indigenous peoples to follow the 'word(s) of god' seems less than useful. There are people who are missionaries that I respect tremendously. But I am not in favor of the enterprise."

After the tribe rejected Christianity Everett did as well resulting in, not only the mission stopping aid, but the church itself including his wife and children leaving him.

I tend to agree with Everett's mindset concerning missions.

Thanks for the Bruchko reference! I'm interested in the book nonetheless!

Have a good one Karlis!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mike, I saw the article as an "opinion editorial" type of writing. He gave an opinion, elaborated on that opinion, and then left it to the reader to consider that opinion. Yes, he gave some statistics, but the stats were not undergirding his opinion, as I see it.

The theme was left wide open for input and wide-open discussion. It was not written as an abstract for a study.

Again, just my off-the-cuff thoughts on that,

karlis

Without question, Karlis, the pastor wrote an Op-Ed piece. Problematic is that he does not frame it as 'one man's thoughts vis-a-vis New Atheists and their Irony'; instead, he posits his ideas from a self-derived authoritative POV in the form of a quasi-rhetorical declarative argument, which makes all the difference.

May I ask you where you see the pastor leaving the theme wide open for input and discussion? Yes, the publisher allowed for reader-comments, but I don't see any attempt by the pastor to invite other opinions. Essentially, he is preaching.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Without question, Karlis, the pastor wrote an Op-Ed piece. Problematic is that he does not frame it as 'one man's thoughts vis-a-vis New Atheists and their Irony'; instead, he posits his ideas from a self-derived authoritative POV in the form of a quasi-rhetorical declarative argument, which makes all the difference.

May I ask you where you see the pastor leaving the theme wide open for input and discussion? Yes, the publisher allowed for reader-comments, but I don't see any attempt by the pastor to invite other opinions. Essentially, he is preaching.

Yep, I'd have to agree that he is preaching. That howver -- being an article -- gives opportunity for comment and discussion, as here for example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WIth respect to the part of your post I highlighted, mkl, the 'proof' depends on what is being referred to as 'black and white'.

If this is a reference to the existence/non-existence of deity (as I assume from the context of that part of the article), then I would think all the proof required is in the label 'atheist'. The use of 'aggressive' as a descriptor of the zealousness of the atheists is irrelevant, imo.

Good pull, Leo. I have to concede your point. I thought he was implying that atheists' world-view was the same 'black and white' as it is regarding the existence of [G-d].

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, I'd have to agree that he is preaching. That howver -- being an article -- gives opportunity for comment and discussion, as here for example.

How very true, Karlis. If you check the OP article, there have been 354 comments by readers as of 12:01pm EDT today, and not a single one from Pastor Prather. Certainly, he is not obligated to interact with his readers, but logic would dictate that if he was interested in furthering the discussion, he would engage his audience--unless, of course, he is barred from doing so by the publisher.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How very true, Karlis. If you check the OP article, there have been 354 comments by readers as of 12:01pm EDT today, and not a single one from Pastor Prather. Certainly, he is not obligated to interact with his readers, but logic would dictate that if he was interested in furthering the discussion, he would engage his audience--unless, of course, he is barred from doing so by the publisher.

Yes -- interesting. We seldom know "what's behind the scenes",

Karlis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Of course not. Nor would I provide them with a bible. They need propper medical attention. I understand the point you are trying to make, as I am trying to make a similar point from the opposite point of view. Remove your band aid from your analogy and replace it with a bible. Do you undestand? I feel that in the situations that missions involve themselves with actual physical aid to better the situation is more important than religion and that a more genine discussion can occur about said religion after the fact.

Come on Mr M., you're an intelligent guy and I'm sure understood that the bandaid here would be any physical act, like handing out rice bowls. The gaping chest wound would be the spiritual need some of the people feel. Giving them physical aid, whether a bowl of rice, medical attention, a new communal water well, electrical power for the village, etc. will have little to no impact on the spiritual need they feel. They need a spiritual response.

I understand that. That is not what I am questioning. My question was do you or the mission you are involved with return again despite your religion being rejected? Furthermore, if you do return is religion pushed further or is the issue dropped and only the needed aid focussed upon?

Thanks again Iams.

Well, I must admit we've never had 100% rejection. There are villages in which only a few feel the spiritual need, and there have been villages in which a great number felt it. Usually we try to go to a new area each year since we feel that those who had the spiritual need either responded during our first visit or now have a fellow villager who can help them. Like I said, the mission work I and my church are involved in usually involves doing something that improves things for the community not individuals.

Edited by IamsSon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Come on Mr M., you're an intelligent guy and I'm sure understood that the bandaid here would be any physical act, like handing out rice bowls. The gaping chest wound would be the spiritual need some of the people feel. Giving them physical aid, whether a bowl of rice, medical attention, a new communal water well, electrical power for the village, etc. will have little to no impact on the spiritual need they feel. They need a spiritual response.

I understand that. What I am saying is that the "physical" needs often exacerbate a percieved need for "spiritual" aid. I feel that a more genuine approach would be to offer "spiritual" aid once they have recieved the physical aid they often desperately need.

Well, I must admit we've never had 100% rejection. There are villages in which only a few feel the spiritual need, and there have been villages in which a great number felt it. Usually we try to go to a new area each year since we feel that those who had the spiritual need either responded during our first visit or now have a fellow villager who can help them. Like I said, the mission work I and my church are involved in usually involves doing something that improves things for the community not individuals.

I wouldn't expect 100% rejection, especially under some of the circumstances. Given what you've said and from my own experiences I feel the spiritual side of mission work is more important to establishments involved in these endeavors. Once either 100% rejection has been established (IE Dan Everett) or a religous foundation has been established within a community then the physical aid diminishes at best and stops alltogether at worst.

I do not agree with the priorties of many missions. That being said, any aid is better than none and I continue to help fund friends who are in more of a position to take part in this type of work over seas, while remaining active within my own community via local charities both religous and non. I only hope that the aid stays just as strong despite the "spiritual" success, or non success of the mission.

Thanks again Iamsson. I admire you for the help you bring to these communites, regardless if we disagree on how to go about it. Bravo sir!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I understand that. What I am saying is that the "physical" needs often exacerbate a percieved need for "spiritual" aid. I feel that a more genuine approach would be to offer "spiritual" aid once they have recieved the physical aid they often desperately need.

I wouldn't expect 100% rejection, especially under some of the circumstances. Given what you've said and from my own experiences I feel the spiritual side of mission work is more important to establishments involved in these endeavors. Once either 100% rejection has been established (IE Dan Everett) or a religous foundation has been established within a community then the physical aid diminishes at best and stops alltogether at worst.

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.

I do not agree with the priorties of many missions. That being said, any aid is better than none and I continue to help fund friends who are in more of a position to take part in this type of work over seas, while remaining active within my own community via local charities both religous and non. I only hope that the aid stays just as strong despite the "spiritual" success, or non success of the mission.

Thanks again Iamsson. I admire you for the help you bring to these communites, regardless if we disagree on how to go about it. Bravo sir!

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.

Edited by IamsSon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. :tu:

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. :tu:

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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.

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.