NationStates Jolt Archive

We're on the verge of a thread-jack in the Writers Thread: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=14303956&posted=1#post14303956 so I thought I'd open a new tread concerning the topic there.

Namely the pros and cons of Missionary work, the concept of hell, and really any other topic you care to throw out.

Eugh.

Eugh.

Did you just step in something?

Was it this thread?

Did you just step in something?

Was it this thread?
Yes.

http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/mission.html

Spreaders of disease and destroyers of cultures.

Well, there was a debate of sorts brewing in the other thread. I suppose I should have let that thread veer off. My apologies.

Pros of missionary work: w00t! Teh natives has no clothez!!1!!
Cons of missionary work: They eat you while you are distracted by their tits.

Or at least I'm pretty sure that's what it was like 250 years ago. Now I'm not so sure.

From the other thread:

Yeah, missionaries were so helpful, for example, to the native cultures in the Americas. :tongue:

The thing is, if you actually want to help people, do relief work. But "missionary" implies that you're more concerned about getting people to believe in (insert deity here) than you are with feeding them or preventing disease or finding people shelter or whatever.

What the colonists did to the Indians was wrong. But the missionaries of today have no control of the 1600's and can not be judged as if they had something to do with that.

Missionaries are concerned with relief work, but yes, Christians are also concerned with saving souls from burning in Hell for eternity.

Let me present a small scenario for you. Let's say you do believe there is a Hell and that if people don't voluntarily accept Christ as their Savior then they will die and go there. They will suffer untold torment for all eternity. Wouldn't you want to save people from that fate?

Yeah, but that belief is silly, so there. :P

But seriously, if belief that one is helping is sufficient, then there's nothing wrong with, say, human sacrifice, as long as you believe that it helps. Yet, somehow, I think you would object if missionaries from some religion started sacrificing people.

And really, the doctrine of Hell is one of the most evil beliefs ever invented. If somebody is wrong about something, they will suffer infinitely horrible torment for eternity...

But... this is quite the threadjack, no? Perhaps somebody should start a new thread on the subject. :p

Pros of missionary work: w00t! Teh natives has no clothez!!1!!
Cons of missionary work: They eat you while you are distracted by their tits.

Or at least I'm pretty sure that's what it was like 250 years ago. Now I'm not so sure.

Id think it would depend on what continent youre on...

Id think it would depend on what continent youre on...

The continent perceived as easy, uncivilized pickings - and hence the most popular.

Although I may be doing religion a disservice by implying they target the vulnerable.:rolleyes:

I tried to volunteer for that once, but when the priest offered me a 'missionary position', I laughed myself into a coma. :(

Let me present a small scenario for you. Let's say you do believe there is a Hell and that if people don't voluntarily accept Christ as their Savior then they will die and go there. They will suffer untold torment for all eternity. Wouldn't you want to save people from that fate?

So, you would have no problem with me trying to save your soul from spending eternity in the region of Thud? What about if you desperately needed my help and couldn't get it without hearing me preach at you about Discordianisim?

Most of those people you're trying to "save" already have a religion and an afterlife they're aiming for, they don't need yours.

So, you would have no problem with me trying to save your soul from spending eternity in the region of Thud? What about if you desperately needed my help and couldn't get it without hearing me preach at you about Discordianisim?

Most of those people you're trying to "save" already have a religion and an afterlife they're aiming for, they don't need yours.

B-but... that's different! Those aren't jeebus!

So, you would have no problem with me trying to save your soul from spending eternity in the region of Thud? What about if you desperately needed my help and couldn't get it without hearing me preach at you about Discordianisim?

Most of those people you're trying to "save" already have a religion and an afterlife they're aiming for, they don't need yours.

Most of the missionaries I know (anecdotal I get it) don't go to "save" anyone, they go on service missions, you know build outhouses for orphans and dig wells for the thirsty and teach women to read.

I posted this in the other thread, but I might as well post it here:


If you cared about helping people, if you REALLY cared about helping people, then do it. Help those who need helping. Do good. But let your motivation be to help, to do good, not to use the help you provide as a method of pushing your faith on others, to manipulate them in their time of need.


That is utterly absurd. If part of your faith is the idea that you will suffer torture for an eternity after you die because you haven't heard of some dude who lived around 2000 years ago, then of course the best thing you can do to help them is to prevent them from having to go through eternal torture. In fact, if I genuinely believed that anyone was going to hell, I would do all I could to prevent it, every last possible annoying measure, if it meant it might save people from hell.

Most of the missionaries I know (anecdotal I get it) don't go to "save" anyone, they go on service missions, you know build outhouses for orphans and dig wells for the thirsty and teach women to read.

And don't discus religion unless asked first? If true that's laudable but it's not, by definition, missionary work.

I posted this in the other thread, but I might as well post it here:



That is utterly absurd. If part of your faith is the idea that you will suffer torture for an eternity after you die because you haven't heard of some dude who lived around 2000 years ago, then of course the best thing you can do to help them is to prevent them from having to go through eternal torture. In fact, if I genuinely believed that anyone was going to hell, I would do all I could to prevent it, every last possible annoying measure, if it meant it might save people from hell.

<begins annoying Hydesland so he will not spend eternity in the region of Thud>

<begins annoying Hydesland so he will not spend eternity in the region of Thud>

But if you genuinely believed that, then I wouldn't find you 'morally despicable'.

Missionary work does not automatically equate to someone going and converting people while thumping a Bible. In fact, I will be doing more humanitarian work than preaching. Of course, I can't deny the fact that I will talk about Christ at some point, but my main goal is to live out the law of love towards others, as is called for in the Gospel. A more cultured person would realize that.:)

I have to repeat: haven't those poor people suffered enough?

Helping the poor,feeding the hungry, and giving hope to people is suffering?

All you'll end up doing them is a disservice so that you can infect them with your particular religious meme. That your meme has nothing to do with "feeding and helping the poor, giving them hope" and has a lot more to do with "striking fear in them lest they perpetuate the meme, getting others into it, and then hoping not to be punished like the horrible, despicable, wretched sinners they are when the 'lamb of love' comes back to slaughter most of them" is just compounding. Fortunately, inevitable secularity will rectify your acts of evil and revert the ignorance you proselytise - unfortunately it'll take some time and these people and those they manage to infect will suffer even more needlessly meanwhile.


Fass, is there really a need to be an asshole to someone who's trying to help people? I'm an atheist, and you, quite honestly, are the biggest insult I've ever met to atheists. It appears that if someone is in any way connected to a religious organization, you assume that they kill puppies and do similarly cruel things. This is more than slightly ironic, as you commit the same mistake as the religious extremists you so decry, forcing your beliefs on people who have already established different ones. Also, your insistence on talking like you are the most worthy creature on earth and someone who's merely trying to help people is a piece of shit is really starting to grate on my nerves. I've heard you say that you are trained in medicine, and I'd rather take my aches and pains to the guy with the spirit mask and the funky-smelling syrup than someone as much of a bastard as yourself. I realize you'll probably never read this post, but at least attempt to think before you speak next time.

gotta agree with Fass here. Sure, missionary work has gotten a bit more tasteful, it's no longer "all you starving people, repent your sins, believe in Jesus and we will feed you", now it's "hey you starving people, come eat...and as long as you're here you might as well listen to what we have to say about Jesus". Sure, it's not so despicable manipulation anymore, but it's still manipulation. It's still playing on people's fears and weaknesses in such a way as to make them more vulnerable to your message. Sure, you feed them, but as long as you keep mixing food and jesus, your motivations will always be intermingled. Not "feed the hungry because they are hungry" but "feed the hungry, so that they may come to us and listen about our faith".

If you cared about helping people, if you REALLY cared about helping people, then do it. Help those who need helping. Do good. But let your motivation be to help, to do good, not to use the help you provide as a method of pushing your faith on others, to manipulate them in their time of need.

Do good things, sure. But leave your bible at home.

Missionaries are concerned with relief work, but yes, Christians are also concerned with saving souls from burning in Hell for eternity.

Let me present a small scenario for you. Let's say you do believe there is a Hell and that if people don't voluntarily accept Christ as their Savior then they will die and go there. They will suffer untold torment for all eternity. Wouldn't you want to save people from that fate?

I'd wonder what twisted God gave the people the choice of follow me or burn in hell for eternity. I'm still not sure what sane person can believe that. That is basically spiritual extortion.

I believe that's all the posts on the subject. Phew. And in the right thread this time.

But if you genuinely believed that, then I wouldn't find you 'morally despicable'.

What if I genuinely believed that people only go to heaven if they die by a certain poison? Would it be morally acceptable, in your view, for me to chuck some of it into the water main?
After all, I would believe I'm saving people from hell, right? If we take your argument at face value, then would my actions not be fine?

But if you genuinely believed that, then I wouldn't find you 'morally despicable'.

Bloody annoying though, surely? Especially if you have to go through a boring sermon just to get a toilet built.

And if you believed something other than was being preached, you'd find it morally despicable as the outcome of being converted would be hell.

Trying to take an objective view of this, I don't see anything wrong with missionary work.

Missionaries help people (modern ones. I'm going to assume we're not counting Cortez and Pizzaro as 'missionaries'), provide food, build shelters, and generally are willing to go to the worst parts of the planet to at least try to make things a little better.
And all they require is a bit of lip service to the deity of their choice. And sometimes they don't even require that.

All things considered, sitting through an hour long sermon two days a week seems a small price to pay if you're a stereotypical starving Ethiopian child.

And the Mormons get to save souls. Everybody wins.

On the culture side of the argument, frankly, by now, it seems that globalization means that we're all going to be the same eventually. We haven't established the First Earth Republic yet, but even the African hunter-gatherer tribes are going to have to join eventually. Might as well get in early.

What if I genuinely believed that people only go to heaven if they die by a certain poison? Would it be morally acceptable, in your view, for me to chuck some of it into the water main?

I didn't say it's OK to violate someone's rights in order to do that, hence the 'every last possible measure', illegal actions not being possible. Regardless, if someone did that, I wouldn't think them so morally despicable, more just insane.

Bloody annoying though, surely? Especially if you have to go through a boring sermon just to get a toilet built.


I don't think that's how modern missionary work is done at all.


And if you believed something other than was being preached, you'd find it morally despicable as the outcome of being converted would be hell.

Sure, if your religion said its morally despicable not to believe it, but that's a stupid reason to think someone is morally despicable.

But if you genuinely believed that, then I wouldn't find you 'morally despicable'.

And what if part of the belief involved human sacrifice of new converts? It doesn't matter one whit about morality really. Only the colossal ego it takes to pronounce your faith as the one supreme one and go about forcibly converting people with threats.

Missionaries in general are like plague bearers. They come in, infect the populace with their brand of mental disease, cause suffering and destruction. The only proper thing to do with missionaries is toss them all out on their ears. The lack of the few actual good people who only intend to do charitable work is far offset by the numbers of fire eating preachers who should be shot on sight.

And what if part of the belief involved human sacrifice of new converts?

Already addressed.


It doesn't matter one whit about morality really. Only the colossal ego it takes to pronounce your faith as the one supreme one

Again, ridiculously absurd (also based on massive assumptions that this is what missionaries even do). If you genuinely believed in your religion, then saying what you believe is not 'colossally egotistical', no more than you pronouncing that the big bang is the true explanation to the beginning of the universe.


and go about forcibly converting people with threats.


Another assumption about what missionaries do.


Missionaries in general are like plague bearers. They come in, infect the populace with their brand of mental disease, cause suffering and destruction. The only proper thing to do with missionaries is toss them all out on their ears. The lack of the few actual good people who only intend to do charitable work is far offset by the numbers of fire eating preachers who should be shot on sight.

Is there supposed be an argument within this emotional moralising rhetoric?

Again, ridiculously absurd (also based on massive assumptions that this is what missionaries even do). If you genuinely believed in your religion, then saying what you believe is not 'colossally egotistical', no more than you pronouncing that the big bang is the true explanation to the beginning of the universe.

Why is it colossally egoistical? Simple. If they actually followed the tenets of their so-called faith, they might think about spreading love, brotherhood and charity, as opposed to their long history of fermenting low level conflicts, hate, and suppression.

The only explanation for the huge disconnect is rewriting their religion and ego.


Another assumption about what missionaries do.


There's a precedent for this.


Is there supposed be an argument within this emotional moralising rhetoric?

The argument is simple. Missionaries do far more damage than good, and should be opposed wherever and whenever possible.

-snip-

This has fuck all to do with 'the history of missionary work', only the action of missionary work itself. There is nothing inherent in missionary work involving threats and forcing beliefs on others, as well as promoting conflict or whatever. Just because some missionary groups may have done this in the past, does not mean EVERY missionary will do this.

This has fuck all to do with 'the history of missionary work', only the action of missionary work itself. There is nothing inherent in missionary work involving threats and forcing beliefs on others, as well as promoting conflict or whatever. Just because some missionary groups may have done this in the past, does not mean EVERY missionary will do this.

And missionary groups still do this, their continued promotion of ignorance with lethal consequences in Africa is an example of this. I've told you before, missionaries do more harm than they do good. Opposing all of them will cause less harm than not opposing them at all.

The kind of people who became missionaries three hundred years ago didn't vanish three hundred years later, and their mentality still prevails.

I don't think that's how modern missionary work is done at all.
I was being somewhat facetious. The point is that aid is not given freely.


Sure, if your religion said its morally despicable not to believe it, but that's a stupid reason to think someone is morally despicable.

Indeed. However plenty of people have plenty of stupid reasons to believe things, and they do so with a passion. And the term 'apostate' has really come back into fashion.

I'm sure some missionaries do hardly any preaching, I'm sure others do a lot. I won't tar them all with the same brush.

I do find it a little insidious that some would consider helping destitute or otherwise suffering people an opportunity to convert them. People in those situations are vulnerable. They become indebted to you.

Since that topic was highjacked for missions, I will hijack this one for writing!
:p

The doctrine of "Hell"--conceived of as eternal punishment for non-believers--is pretty transparently morally abhorrent and disgusting.

I do find it a little insidious that some would consider helping destitute or otherwise suffering people an opportunity to convert them. People in those situations are vulnerable. They become indebted to you.
Is that really so different from what anyone else giving aid does? When the IMF gives a loan, or even when an individual gets a loan from his local bank, there are conditions the borrower must fulfill to get the money. The IMF or bank wants to make sure their loan will not default, that the person has the capability to profit with the money borrowed (so that they can pay the bank back). Missionaries likewise want to see their "investments profit," not just from the material aid, but from whatever their preaching.

The doctrine of "Hell"--conceived of as eternal punishment for non-believers--is pretty transparently morally abhorrent and disgusting.
How so?

I find the whole idea of missionary work deplorable. Some of my friends have gone on mission, and their whole purpose was going to indigenous communities and spreading the Gospel, believing that if the aboriginals would just convert, all the problems facing them would disappear. They also went into foreign countries, where their main mission was to help Christian communities - not ALL communities, just the ones who asserted belief in their particular brand of delusion.

Although, this is anecdotal, it has left rather a bad taste in my mouth regarding the whole concept of missionary work.

Although, this is anecdotal, it has left rather a bad taste in my mouth regarding the whole concept of missionary work.

It's the same as missionaries poaching on the elderly and critically ill in order to get access to their resources once they die.

It's the same as missionaries poaching on the elderly and critically ill in order to get access to their resources once they die.

Yes, yes it is. I'm not tolerant of religious expression on street corners and the like as a general rule, but this kind of insidious blackmail really gets me steamed up. :mad:

I find the whole idea of missionary work deplorable. Some of my friends have gone on mission, and their whole purpose was going to indigenous communities and spreading the Gospel, believing that if the aboriginals would just convert, all the problems facing them would disappear. They also went into foreign countries, where their main mission was to help Christian communities - not ALL communities, just the ones who asserted belief in their particular brand of delusion.

So your friends only went to people who weren't their religion...or people who were their religion?

How so?

Because it involves immense suffering for people who have not committed any moral wrong.

Eternal punishment would be wrong even for the most evil of people, as a matter of fact, because God has no authority to punish anyone and because eternal punishment is inherently incompatible with proportionality, but couple it with the fact that it is attached to things as morally meaningless as not believing that a highly mythologized first century Jew is the Son of God, and you have a doctrine that passes to the point of horrific evil.

So your friends only went to people who weren't their religion...or people who were their religion?

A few of them went overseas after the tsunami, and an earthquake to rebuild. And they would only go to Christian villages and rebuild Christian homes and businesses. I found this repugnant.

Because it involves immense suffering for people who have not committed any moral wrong.
But is it really wrong to preach this? Telling you there's a supernatural, psychotic nut who's going to torture you for eternity unless you bathe with this water and eat this wafer seems very helpful, even morally good.

But is it really wrong to preach this?

If you think it's true? No. It is wrong to think it just, though.

Deceptive manipulation, however, is wrong even if it's for moral improvement.

If you think it's true? No. It is wrong to think it just, though.
Wrong in a moral sense, or just incorrect?

Yes, yes it is. I'm not tolerant of religious expression on street corners and the like as a general rule

Neither is the bible. Street preachers hate it when you bring that up.

Wrong in a moral sense, or just incorrect?

Considering that most of the people who believe it to be just do so based on arbitrarily-founded conviction rather than (mistaken) rational judgment, I'd classify it as morally wrong for the same sort of reason that racial prejudice is morally wrong.

Considering that most of the people who believe it to be just do so based on arbitrarily-founded conviction rather than (mistaken) rational judgment, I'd classify it as morally wrong for the same sort of reason that racial prejudice is morally wrong.
Most, maybe, but not all. Plenty of people spend lots of time thinking about it and come to the same conclusion; these would be the ones using what you call mistaken rational judgment. Is their belief immoral?

Most, maybe, but not all. Plenty of people spend lots of time thinking about it and come to the same conclusion; these would be the ones using what you call mistaken rational judgment. Is their belief immoral?

I would say if they both believe in the Doctrine of Hell, and believe that God is just or even do not believe that He is evil, then yes, it is immoral. They think that people suffering infinitely horrible torture for an eternity just for being mistaken about something is a good and just thing. I mean, coming to an incorrect conclusion is not inherently punishment-worthy; everybody is wrong sometimes. But even if it was, Hell goes completely against any principle of proportionality. Infinite punishment for a finite crime can never be just. Even, to use the stereotypical example of evil, Hitler would not deserve Hell-- as horrible as he was, his actions only caused a finite amount of suffering, and thus a just punishment for him, would be finite as well, though it would be a pretty harsh one.

So, you would have no problem with me trying to save your soul from spending eternity in the region of Thud? What about if you desperately needed my help and couldn't get it without hearing me preach at you about Discordianisim?

Most of those people you're trying to "save" already have a religion and an afterlife they're aiming for, they don't need yours.

Good missionaries would not force preaching on someone as a condition for obtaining the care they need. That's crazy. If some are indeed doing that, they need to take a good hard look at what they are doing. That is not the way good Christian missionaries operate.

What if I genuinely believed that people only go to heaven if they die by a certain poison? Would it be morally acceptable, in your view, for me to chuck some of it into the water main?
After all, I would believe I'm saving people from hell, right? If we take your argument at face value, then would my actions not be fine?

My view does not intentionally kill people. You, on the other hand, by knowingly dumping poision into the watermain would be intentionally killing people. Murdering them to be exact, which is punishable by law. You would be more than fined.

I want to explain something in case people might have misunderstood what I said. Missionaries--Christian missionaries--do not force their faith on anyone. As a matter of fact, it is common for missionaries to not share about their faith a lot. People in underdeveloped countries are more greatful for hope and the Gospel as some in the Western world who have heard it all their lives and now dispise it for some reason.

That's not to say that anyone dispises Christianity here, I am not implying that at all. But things are different in other countries.

My view does not intentionally kill people. You, on the other hand, by knowingly dumping poision into the watermain would be intentionally killing people. Murdering them to be exact, which is punishable by law. You would be more than fined.

that completely avoids the question. The question was simple. If I believed, if I TRULY believed, that unless a person was killed in a specific way, they will suffer unimaginable, never ending, eternal torture, would I be morally correct in killing them in that way?

Keep in mind that I believe, I truly believe, that I am helping them, because if I do not do so, they will suffer unimaginably for eternity. Is that not the right thing to do?

People in underdeveloped countries are more greatful for hope and the Gospel as some in the Western world who have heard it all their lives


And that's likely what the missionaries said too when they were going around desecrating the dead of other cultures or encouraging local kings to start up pogroms and oppress their people.

Missionaries are a disease. Any good they can do is far outweighed by the harm they have done, and will continue to do.

Ages ago, if you wanted to convert someone to Christianity, you had some work to do. You had to make Christianity appealing. This is why Christmas is celebrated in the beginning of winter. To make believing in Christ and heaven more appealing than believing that there's only suffering down the road.

It was only later when people really began abusing Christianity and using it as an excuse to do as they please.

Personally, I don't believe in a single true religion. From what I have been told from people who have died, supposedly talked to God, and came back for whatever reason, God apparently says that every religion, every belief system, even your "holy super-duper uber holy atheism", is flawed. Why listen to something you know is flawed when you can try finding the truth yourself.

I've thought about starting my own religion. Jesus would be believed in, of course. Don't want to be like those crazy Scientologists and their wacky Xenus and loony Thetans, now do I? I suppose I can add Zeppelin, Lincoln, Anpu (Anubis to those of you who let those ancient Greeks boss you aorund and tell you what to call stuff), and Santa. How can you not believe in Santa? Saying Santa is fake is like informing people there's a chance that they could die in a way so horrible, so painful and grusome, that the mere thought of it is enough to kill even the most sadistic/masichistic person.

And of course you can't not believe in Zeppelin. Zeppelin is almighty. They've made songs that would literally warp your mind.....for the better. All hail Bonham.

I came here from the writer thread more interested in this discussion than that one, and I feel the need to post what I think about the situation. What started all of this was taking words way out of proportion and adding all sorts of irrelevant information to back an attack.

Now, I'm going to try to express as little bias toward either pro or anti side. This all started when a guy said he was going on missionary work. I will say--part of what the opposition argued was true. Missionary work is in fact the work of converting others to a particular doctrine. On the pro side, we have arguments that missionaries sometimes don't even try to spread their doctrine; that their job is to help others. This isn't true. The job of a "missionary" is to spread a doctrine as described in the very definition of "missionary."

How the missionary does this or anything else the missionary does is irrelevant to the job description. Some missionaries can lock food in front of a hungry population and tell them to convert to a doctrine in order to get access to said food. Some missionaries can spread food around and rebuild lost homes. Regardless of the method, unless an attempt to convert to a doctrine is made, it is not "missionary work," but rather just charity. To say that a missionary can avoid attempting to convert to a doctrine is completely false because a missionary by definition of the term is one who attempts to convert others to a doctrine; period.

In reply to those who are preaching that opposing all missionaries is more practical than to allow all, I completely disagree. The same way the pro side is bunching up irrelevant charity with the missionary's job, you're bunching up irrelevant cruelty with it. In the end, the only way to judge a missionary's job is to strip away all of the irrelevant excess and focus on the core - attempting to convert others to a particular doctrine.

On one hand, we can say that it's forcing one's beliefs onto another, and thus it is wrong. But that is again a 'method' of performing the mission. What we need to do is judge not the missionary or even the mission (because we each have our own mission), but rather the method used to carry the mission out. Don't even oppose missionaries who torture to convert; oppose the method of torturing to convert.

When people stop pointing fingers at other people and instead try to focus on getting rid of very specific acts, we will be able to move away from all the persecution and intolerance.

EDIT: I forgot to mention (though I wanted to while typing this up)... about the forcing beliefs onto others, while I mentioned that it's only one method, I didn't explain with a counter-example. What I want to add is that another means of doing missionary work is to simply tell someone else about your doctrine with the hope that they'll adopt your way of thinking, but then backing off if they reject. This is also missionary work, but it's far from "forcing."

In reply to those who are preaching that opposing all missionaries is more practical than to allow all, I completely disagree. The same way the pro side is bunching up irrelevant charity with the missionary's job, you're bunching up irrelevant cruelty with it. In the end, the only way to judge a missionary's job is to strip away all of the irrelevant excess and focus on the core - attempting to convert others to a particular doctrine.


There's one huge difference. If you want to do charity, you can do it without being a missionary. When you do are a missionary, you're very occupation makes you a viable threat to any culture and people you go to.

There's one huge difference. If you want to do charity, you can do it without being a missionary. When you do are a missionary, you're very occupation makes you a viable threat to any culture and people you go to.

I agree with you on the first part, and I clearly stated so. Charity is charity and irrelevant to being a missionary; that's the point of my argument. On the other side, I must ask--what makes a person a threat simply by attempting to convert a foreign culture from one way to another? As I stated, there are threatening ways (such as cruel acts and forcing doctrines onto people), and then there are less intrusive ways.

I'll give an example. Now, this isn't at the same magnitude as a missionary moving to a foreign land and spreading his or her doctrine; however, it's similar. When I was in high school, a member of a Christian club approached me and asked if I was a follower of his doctrine. Instead of blatantly ignoring him, I took that opportunity to learn more about his doctrines from his point of view, and we discussed the content. After a good week of these conversations, we decided that there was no more to discuss, and upon my final rejection of his conversion attempt, he acknowledged my will to learn and left.

I would not consider that a threat to my way of mind. He wasn't forceful, and he left as soon as I made it clear that I wasn't interested. My point of bringing up this story is to provide an example of how missionary work could very well be helpful rather than harmful. The spread of information and knowledge from anyone's point of view is, in my opinion, progressive. The only time it gets counter-progressive, and thus becomes a threat, is when establishments try to take others down rather than promote their cause. This is the kind of missionary I'm assuming you're imagining - one who wills nothing more than to destroy the other culture and put his or her own in place.

If we were to live in a world without the spread of any belief from any point of view, then may I ask where we would be? In fact, most religions are based on older ones or are results of religious combination. The fact of the matter is we'd definitely have much more cultural variation, but at the cost of progress. Because we are individuals, our points of view differ. If we choose to follow a specific doctrine, then it is by our very communicative nature to teach others. This is in the core of even the scientific community; spreading beliefs (called theorems in science) to others in the community and to other communities.

My point is--being a missionary and spreading a doctrine in themselves are not evil. Evil acts can be done by missionaries, but so can they be done by anyone else. Their job is to simply spread a doctrine to other cultures. How they do it is beyond the scope of the job.

I don't give to any religious charities any more as a principle.

When I went to Kenya to work on an orphanage for a short time, we got to go around some of the slums in the country (including Kibera, population ~1 million people). And one thing that stayed with me is that in the middle of these houses made out of everything from cardboard to coke bottle tops were these perfectly constructed fairly large churches and mosques made out of expertly made (from the looks of them) stone bricks/slabs.

The people were often fervently religious and treasured the buildings, but I couldn't help feeling the money would have been better spent rebuilding peoples homes or cleaning the disease causing shit out of the river. I'm sure there are religious charities and missionaries who share those priorities, but I don't see the point in risking it when there are secular charities around.

This may be off-topic or whatever but it's close enough.

I agree with you on the first part, and I clearly stated so. Charity is charity and irrelevant to being a missionary; that's the point of my argument. On the other side, I must ask--what makes a person a threat simply by attempting to convert a foreign culture from one way to another? As I stated, there are threatening ways (such as cruel acts and forcing doctrines onto people), and then there are less intrusive ways.

I'll give an example. Now, this isn't at the same magnitude as a missionary moving to a foreign land and spreading his or her doctrine; however, it's similar. When I was in high school, a member of a Christian club approached me and asked if I was a follower of his doctrine. Instead of blatantly ignoring him, I took that opportunity to learn more about his doctrines from his point of view, and we discussed the content. After a good week of these conversations, we decided that there was no more to discuss, and upon my final rejection of his conversion attempt, he acknowledged my will to learn and left.

I would not consider that a threat to my way of mind. He wasn't forceful, and he left as soon as I made it clear that I wasn't interested. My point of bringing up this story is to provide an example of how missionary work could very well be helpful rather than harmful. The spread of information and knowledge from anyone's point of view is, in my opinion, progressive. The only time it gets counter-progressive, and thus becomes a threat, is when establishments try to take others down rather than promote their cause. This is the kind of missionary I'm assuming you're imagining - one who wills nothing more than to destroy the other culture and put his or her own in place.

If we were to live in a world without the spread of any belief from any point of view, then may I ask where we would be? In fact, most religions are based on older ones or are results of religious combination. The fact of the matter is we'd definitely have much more cultural variation, but at the cost of progress. Because we are individuals, our points of view differ. If we choose to follow a specific doctrine, then it is by our very communicative nature to teach others. This is in the core of even the scientific community; spreading beliefs (called theorems in science) to others in the community and to other communities.

My point is--being a missionary and spreading a doctrine in themselves are not evil. Evil acts can be done by missionaries, but so can they be done by anyone else. Their job is to simply spread a doctrine to other cultures. How they do it is beyond the scope of the job.

I'm not saying that there are at the non-slime types of missionaries. My point is that the ones who are human slime do damage that far outstrips whatever benefits the good ones can bring, which isn't much beyond anything a comprehensive pamphlet could provide.

Missionaries often prey on the vulnerable, weak and ignorant, and they go on to spread their brand of ignorance in the name of "saving" them. This isn't rhetoric, this is fact. The kind of ignorance missionary groups spread in Africa is lethally stupid (cure AIDS by not having sex?) to anyone who listens.

So you've got decent missionaries. Fine. You've got downright murderous idiots as missionaries too. Keeping the whole lot of them out is a safer bet than letting them in and trying to pick up the pieces after the idiots have had their way.

You might try to argue that any number of people are also capable of committing evil. But the one thing you're forgetting is that unlike your run of the mill serial killers and other human scum, they don't directly kill their victims. Missionaries sow the seeds of that kind of thinking in the populace, making rooting it out a lot costlier in terms of populace, and sometimes downright impossible because they've infected the people in power.

I'm not saying that there are at the non-slime types of missionaries. My point is that the ones who are human slime do damage that far outstrips whatever benefits the good ones can bring, which isn't much beyond anything a comprehensive pamphlet could provide.

Missionaries often prey on the vulnerable, weak and ignorant, and they go on to spread their brand of ignorance in the name of "saving" them. This isn't rhetoric, this is fact. The kind of ignorance missionary groups spread in Africa is lethally stupid (cure AIDS by not having sex?) to anyone who listens.

So you've got decent missionaries. Fine. You've got downright murderous idiots as missionaries too. Keeping the whole lot of them out is a safer bet than letting them in and trying to pick up the pieces after the idiots have had their way.

You might try to argue that any number of people are also capable of committing evil. But the one thing you're forgetting is that unlike your run of the mill serial killers and other human scum, they don't directly kill their victims. Missionaries sow the seeds of that kind of thinking in the populace, making rooting it out a lot costlier in terms of populace, and sometimes downright impossible because they've infected the people in power.

So because it 'can' be abused, we should ban it entirely? That is the problem with a great deal of social intolerance and tension between people. What you're proposing is practically tossing out the freedom of speech. Considering that beyond the label "missionary," the missionary is simply a person attempting to convert others to a doctrine, the only way to abolish all missionary acts is to simply revoke any freedom to speak one's mind. Normally, I would say that as an exaggeration to describe the future the other party would be proposing, but in this case I'm merely stating the direct result of your call.

So we abolish the missionary. How do we determine whether or not a person is a missionary? Think practically here. Well, I suppose going into the job description, if one transfers the words of a doctrine to another with the goal of directly altering the mind of the other in favour of the doctrine, then one can be officially considered a missionary. While that certainly outlaws religious indoctrination, that also effectively outlaws public education system (or hell, any education system for that matter, for an education system at its core is to spread doctrines to students). So we make an exception for public education. That basically means whoever is in charge of the public education system now effectively controls the masses via determining what the public is taught. Kind of like the Catholic Church was doing for thousands of years, am I right?

So unless you can propose a practical means of eliminating missionaries without destroying progressive systems, I have to disagree with your argument that it would be easier to just ban the whole lot than to grant them freedom to pass and to "pick up the pieces." In fact, the mere concept of banning the spread of doctrines is in itself effectively an attempt to restrict the public to one single view, giving total power to those who teach it.

Now, if you'd like to outlaw the evil 'methods' used by some missionaries, then you'll be happy to know that it's already internationally outlawed to deny any person basic human needs (such as food and water), and anything beyond that is too grey-area to try to regulate (for example, the injection of a belief into a system with the result of its spread). That would require someone with the power to tell us what is and is not worth spreading, which is kind of the core mechanic of society--having a regulated body with a set of doctrines (norms as they're called), and alienating those who do not comply. Oh, and about these international laws, you can argue that they're not properly enforced, but then my question is--how would that be any different with any other laws in effect?

If your beef is not with the missionary or the method, but rather the doctrine itself, then work to abolish whatever organised religions you deep unfit, but remember that while doing so you're also pushing to force your views onto others when they have chosen theirs, and thus you're performing your own mission by the very method you deem evil.

EDIT: I just want to make it clear that I am not supporting or opposing any religious system or the public education system. While I absolutely support formal education, I also support a great deal of values that many religions teach (such as love, peace and tolerance). Doctrines themselves are merely systems built off the core religious values, and I have my personal opinions about them, but I am not implying one way or the other in this thread since the topic is not about my views of religion, but rather the concept of converting others to a doctrine.

Good missionaries would not force preaching on someone as a condition for obtaining the care they need. That's crazy. If some are indeed doing that, they need to take a good hard look at what they are doing. That is not the way good Christian missionaries operate.

"No true Scotsman", eh?

So because it 'can' be abused, we should ban it entirely?


It's not a question of can be abused. It is being abused. Today. Right now. Internationally.


What you're proposing is practically tossing out the freedom of speech.


If speaking was the only thing missionaries did, I wouldn't give the a whit of care about them. They don't. They actively interfere with local cultures, actively attempt to pass on their doctrines through despicable means and pseudo power grabs.

You know what this would be called normally? Incitement to treason. But missionaries get a free pass because they don't tell you to betray your nation and culture to some other nation, just betray it to an invisible man in the sky.


So we abolish the missionary. How do we determine whether or not a person is a missionary?

Missionaries are visible. It's an occupational requirement. They can't be a missionary and stay in hiding, they need to be out and about in order to do their work.

Stopping them before they do anything is near impossible, I will admit. And that would be thought crime anyway. But catching them in the act, and catching them early, both are possible. So is sending them packing.


Now, if you'd like to outlaw the evil 'methods' used by some missionaries, then you'll be happy to know that it's already internationally outlawed to deny any person basic human needs (such as food and water), and anything beyond that is too grey-area to try to regulate (for example, the injection of a belief into a system with the result of its spread). That would require someone with the power to tell us what is and is not worth spreading, which is kind of the core mechanic of society--having a regulated body with a set of doctrines (norms as they're called), and alienating those who do not comply. Oh, and about these international laws, you can argue that they're not properly enforced, but then my question is--how would that be any different with any other laws in effect?


You're right that the laws are not effectively enforced, but neither are the laws sufficiently empowering enough to ensure punishments that would serve to instill lessons, or fear I care not which, to the perpetrator. There is no law that would punish anyone for withholding food and water of their own from those in need, and there is definitely no law that prevents them from distributing it to those who convert to whatever brand of faith they preach.

There is also no law that prevents them from corrupting local officials with addictive substances (except drugs) or "gifts" in order to gain access to state tools in order to gain the upper hand. And if they get caught? Slap on the wrist most times. Anything worse and the faiths they represent will get into a big hue and cry about the "Evil religion suppressing regime" and lobby for the more powerful nations to "do something about it".

It's not a question of can be abused. It is being abused. Today. Right now. Internationally.

Yes, you missed what I meant by 'can'. I meant that it is not impossible, and so it 'can' happen. I know it happens, but so do many terrible things.

If speaking was the only thing missionaries did, I wouldn't give the a whit of care about them. They don't. They actively interfere with local cultures, actively attempt to pass on their doctrines through despicable means and pseudo power grabs.

You know what this would be called normally? Incitement to treason. But missionaries get a free pass because they don't tell you to betray your nation and culture to some other nation, just betray it to an invisible man in the sky.

So you propose that anyone speaking against a doctrine established in a society should be punished? Well, there goes activism. Unless, of course, you're restricting it to simply Theistic doctrines (referring to your "invisible man in the sky"). In that case, you wouldn't be against missionaries, but rather Theism as a whole.

Missionaries are visible. It's an occupational requirement. They can't be a missionary and stay in hiding, they need to be out and about in order to do their work.

Stopping them before they do anything is near impossible, I will admit. And that would be thought crime anyway. But catching them in the act, and catching them early, both are possible. So is sending them packing.

As I said, beyond the label "missionary" (label being job title), they are merely people spreading the influence of a doctrine. You're right--they need to be out and about in order to do their work. But can you effectively tell the difference between a protester and a missionary without that job title? Again, the only way is to limit the attack to those who spread Theistic beliefs.

You're right that the laws are not effectively enforced, but neither are the laws sufficiently empowering enough to ensure punishments that would serve to instill lessons, or fear I care not which, to the perpetrator. There is no law that would punish anyone for withholding food and water of their own from those in need, and there is definitely no law that prevents them from distributing it to those who convert to whatever brand of faith they preach.

Oh! I get it, so you want to use terror to scare the population into keeping their tongues in their mouths if their words defy the Truth that of course only the guy in power truly knows. And that's totally different from the concept of a missionary using terror to scare the population into following them. (sarcasm)

There is also no law that prevents them from corrupting local officials with addictive substances (except drugs) or "gifts" in order to gain access to state tools in order to gain the upper hand. And if they get caught? Slap on the wrist most times. Anything worse and the faiths they represent will get into a big hue and cry about the "Evil religion suppressing regime" and lobby for the more powerful nations to "do something about it".

So again you're not aiming your gun at the right target. You may think that proper aim isn't important if you have a weapon of mass destruction, but it in fact is the root of all the intolerance you're saying that many of them express.

When you aim your social gun at a target, all things depending on it fall as well. This is the same as saying that blowing out the foundation of a cannon tower will effectively get rid of the cannon. This is true, and if all you care about is getting rid of the cannon, then blowing the tower is nothing to you.

What I'm trying to say is--aim at the true evil - that very corruption you're talking about - rather than a group of people part of which cause it. Aim at the corruption node and every node depending on it (any individual who would corrupt and any consequence of corruption) is also targeted. Target the missionary node, and everyone depending on that node (all the missionaries regardless of their methods or doctrine) is also targeted.

I would say if they both believe in the Doctrine of Hell, and believe that God is just or even do not believe that He is evil, then yes, it is immoral. They think that people suffering infinitely horrible torture for an eternity just for being mistaken about something is a good and just thing. I mean, coming to an incorrect conclusion is not inherently punishment-worthy; everybody is wrong sometimes.
I'm not so sure that argument works. You make it sound like believing in what missionaries preach is a purely intellectual decision. Suppose I have the belief that it is good to murder people. On one hand, yes, I am simply mistaken. But isn't it also likely that this "incorrect conclusion" will lead me to incorrect actions? Any non-repentant criminal is apparently mistaken about something, but that's not why we lock them up.
But even if it was, Hell goes completely against any principle of proportionality. Infinite punishment for a finite crime can never be just. Even, to use the stereotypical example of evil, Hitler would not deserve Hell-- as horrible as he was, his actions only caused a finite amount of suffering, and thus a just punishment for him, would be finite as well, though it would be a pretty harsh one.
People have been talking about Hell as a punishment. That makes perfect sense as that's how nearly all Christians and other folks think of it, but at it's most basic, it is just an afterlife without God. If I were to decide to live without God, would it be wrong then to consider it just for God to allow me to do that?

I want to explain something in case people might have misunderstood what I said. Missionaries--Christian missionaries--do not force their faith on anyone.

Do they hold a gun to your head and say "Believe in Jesus or I pull the trigger,"? Probably not. They do however withold aid and care to those who dont convert. They do give more help to those who are converting.

As a matter of fact, it is common for missionaries to not share about their faith a lot.

Thats just false. The goal of a missionary is to spread their faith. Charity is a means to an end for them.

People in underdeveloped countries are more greatful for hope and the Gospel as some in the Western world who have heard it all their lives and now dispise it for some reason.

Saying people who arent Christian or dont like Christianiy are against "hope" is like saying that the US's enemies "hate freedom".


That's not to say that anyone dispises Christianity here, I am not implying that at all. But things are different in other countries.

Its absurd that you think other cultures want to hear about Christianity.

Thats just false. The goal of a missionary is to spread their faith. Charity is a means to an end for them.

AW, like Smunkey, may just be confusing a missionary (who by definition is trying to spread the gospel while doing charity work) with someone doing charity work who also happens to be Christian.

An example for those who are confused: I am an Omnitheistic neo-pagan with strong Discordian leanings, however if I do charity work even if I think that's what Eris or other deities want me to do that doesn't make me a missionary unless I'm also trying to convert people to my beliefs.

AW, like Smunkey, may just be confusing a missionary (who by definition is trying to spread the gospel while doing charity work) with someone doing charity work who also happens to be Christian.

I'm not sure charity is even a necessary component. Wikipedia has a pretty good definition, "A missionary is a member of a religion who works to convert those who do not share the missionary's faith; someone who proselytizes." This fits with what I think of as a historical missionary.
Now, most of the people I know who have gone on what they call mission trips have done only charitable work, so it's clearly a word that gets used for many different things.

Its absurd that you think other cultures want to hear about Christianity.

Or indeed, that they haven't heard about it already and said to themselves, "You know, we already have a god/multiple gods/no desire for a god and we're not in the market for anymore."

I'm not sure charity is even a necessary component. Wikipedia has a pretty good definition, "A missionary is a member of a religion who works to convert those who do not share the missionary's faith; someone who proselytizes." This fits with what I think of as a historical missionary.
Now, most of the people I know who have gone on what they call mission trips have done only charitable work, so it's clearly a word that gets used for many different things.

In the case of those people you know it's a word that's being used incorrectly. It's as if I were to call a bagel an English muffin. Yes, they're both bread products, but that doesn't make the terms interchangeable.

In the case of those people you know it's a word that's being used incorrectly. It's as if I were to call a bagel an English muffin. Yes, they're both bread products, but that doesn't make the terms interchangeable.

But words can also change, and this may be one. As you said earlier, most cultures probably have heard of Christianity, and that could lead to missions focusing less of spreading the Word (which is presumably at least known in passing) and more on doing charitable works.
I agree, though, that has it stands now, a missionary is a proselytizing person.