Atheists and Fundamentalists

[Mr. Miyagi]

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]

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 June 29, 2010 by The Silver Thong

[Mr. Miyagi]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 June 30, 2010 by Leonardo

[mklsgl]

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]

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]

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.

[The Silver Thong]

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.

I have heard that as well most aren't that low .12 cents. However it gives people an idea of just how little trickles down. I was trying to find some numbers last night online but it appears charities are very tight lipped about this subject.

[Mr. Miyagi]

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.

There have been many, particularly with the United Way. Remember Aramony? the issue with the United way is how it's structured. I just don't think there are enough checks and balances on a national level. Every smaller "satellite" seems largely responsible for itself. Which can be a huge problem especially when the president is a thief.

Sick sad and sorry.

[Mr. Miyagi]

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.

I understand where you're coming from here, as I've made similar statements in my own posts on the subject. I guess, my outlook upon the spiritual is that if an individual feels they need "spiritual" aid they can gain that from Christianity, Judaism, Islam, you choose, etc... I'm not so much concerned with where that comes from, only that the need is indeed a genuine need and not the result of living within extreme circumstances. The much more pressing issue is physical need imho. There are no gray areas here unless it's a community of ascetics or something.

Thanks agin Leo! much appreciated brother.

Lighten the mood abit lol.

[mklsgl]

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.

You are thinking of The Mission with De Niro and Jeremy Irons, which is just as apt, but the film I am speaking of is detailed here: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0101465/

Edited July 1, 2010 by mklsgl

[The Silver Thong]

You are thinking of The Mission with De Niro and Jeremy Irons, which is just as apt, but the film I am speaking of is detailed here: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0101465/

Quit right, thx now I have two movies I look forward to visiting again.

[Blood_Sacrifice]

On the basis that the most religious Western country is a place where two thirds of people believe that the Sun revolves around the Earth, and still hasn't worked out that sexuality doesn't matter, you'll have to excuse me if I don't buy your assertion about Science and tolerance being the norm.

Huh, is it, really? I can understand belief in creationism overriding evolution in numbers, but this one seems a bit too implausible, in today's day and age and that too in US. Do you have a source?

[Beckys_Mom]

Huh, is it, really? I can understand belief in creationism overriding evolution in numbers, but this one seems a bit too implausible, in today's day and age and that too in US. Do you have a source?

Probing a more universal measure of knowledge, Gallup also asked the following basic science question, which has been used to indicate the level of public knowledge in two European countries in recent years: "As far as you know, does the earth revolve around the sun or does the sun revolve around the earth?" In the new poll, about four out of five Americans (79%) correctly respond that the earth revolves around the sun, while 18% say it is the other way around. These results are comparable to those found in Germany when a similar question was asked there in 1996; in response to that poll, 74% of Germans gave the correct answer, while 16% thought the sun revolved around the earth, and 10% said they didn't know. When the question was asked in Great Britain that same year, 67% answered correctly, 19% answered incorrectly, and 14% didn't know.

Source - http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread335216/pg1

[Blood_Sacrifice]

^ Thanks. So more people believe in the heliocentric model in US.

[Tiggs]

Apparently so. Goodness knows where I magic'd two-thirds up from.