…and this is a 
I ♠ missionaries
Category: Religion
Posted on: November 20, 2007 1:01 PM, by PZ Myers
If there actually were a god, Cyclone Sidr would have spun through Bangladesh, selectively eliminating all the two-faced scumbag missionaries who exploit the poor in the name of their deity. Chris Mooney cites an example from the Baptist Press:
In the hours before Cyclone Sidr reached the coastal areas of Bangladesh, Southern Baptists and other Christians began praying -- aware that the Category 4 storm potentially could usher hundreds of thousands into an eternity without Jesus.
…
"Last night a lot of people died and entered an eternity of suffering," Neely said. "Almost none of them has heard a Christian testimony or biblical explanation of who Christ really is. They have never heard the truth about who God really is, who they are in His sight or what God's plan is to save us from our sin through Christ."
The title of the source article is also offensive: "Their prayer: that faith in Christ follows cyclone ". That's looking on the bright side, I guess — all the destruction, the desperation, and the displacement represent marvelous opportunities for the scoundrels and scalawags of religion to move in and harvest souls for Jesus.
I sometimes hear people claim that religion provides consolation to the bereaved. This is a perfect example of the opposite: a manipulative religion used to incite anguish and fear and misery in the minds of survivors.
Comments
Oh those delightful cultural rapists are at it again, are they?
Posted by: Alison | November 20, 2007 1:11 PM
This kind of story doesn't surprise me at all, the faithful always think it's their damn job to secure salvation for everyone, even those that want nothing to do with what they're offering. For example, look at the Mormons. They believe they can pray for a deceased loved one and get their salvation and a backdoor pass to the mormon heaven if they died before being "saved". What a load of BS.
Posted by: zer0 | November 20, 2007 1:12 PM
PZ: Is the second "word" in your title a typo, or deliberate? I can think of readings for which it works.
Posted by: Eamon Knight | November 20, 2007 1:23 PM
The title is offensive? Man, we sho' do live in an age of hypersensitivity. The underlying theology of the article is very bad, but the title is hardly offensive. It should be expected that Christians always pray that one result of a natural disaster or personal tragedy is that people turn to Christ. Geez--is this a slow news day or something?
Zero,
You could not be more wrong. We don't believe it is our job to secure salvation for anyone, and especially, if that's possible, those who want nothing to do with what "we" are offering. That's two strikes in one sentence.
Posted by: heddle | November 20, 2007 1:25 PM
What arrogant nonsense! My first major doubts came up when I was 11 and a priest told my class that only Catholics go to heaven. This was before Vatican II and the ecumenical movement. I raised my hand and asked about little children who lived in deepest, darkest Africa and never knew about being Catholic. Nope, sorry.
I shut up of course but thought to myself "That's not fair. God made that child, stuck him in deepest, darkest Africa, let him die from some terrible disease and then won't let him go to heaven. That can't be right."
Children have an innate sense of justice. The good thing is that started me on the path to enlightenment.
Posted by: Lana | November 20, 2007 1:31 PM
I never quite understood this about religion, at least Christianity: If the soul is immortal and, presumably, its character in death is not much different from its character in life--dying is supposed to change the soul's circumstances, not its nature, right?--then why is death the deadline for when you can learn to follow the "right" path or face eternal torment? Can't people learn faith or accept Jesus after they die? If not, why not? I mean, saying "Jesus is lord" with your last breath after a lifetime of kicking kittens gets you into heaven but an eternity of repentence in the afterlife doesn't? Strange.
I usually think that missionaries can do some level of good in that they frequently at least pretend to be interested in helping people--founding schools or hospitals or helping after disasters. It's not often that you get missionaries so blatant that they simply pray and refuse to do any practical good.
I'm not a believer of any sort, but here's what I kind of hope happens after death: All Christian missionaries, after their death, find themselves facing Odin, Quetzelcoatl, Horus, or some other of the ancient gods and have to try to talk their way around their "false" beliefs in order to get into one of the better pagan afterlifes. (This being my fantasy, Jaweh, Jesus, and Allah are in the background somewhere, possibly giggling at the silly person who believed he had it all figured out in just one lifetime--or maybe sadly shaking their heads at the foolishness of their followers. The point being that the missionaries aren't really going to get thrown into eternal torment--no one is--but they're going to have a few very uncomfortable minutes while they try to explain themselves...and a long period of (literally) soul-searching to come to terms with their prior beliefs being false. The gods I don't believe in are good, but they aren't always nice.)
Posted by: Dianne | November 20, 2007 1:34 PM
heddle:"You could not be more wrong. We don't believe it is our job to secure salvation for anyone"
Maybe you don't, but a lot of them do. The Mormons are a perfect example, as are JWs. When I was still going to LDS services it was frequently said that your neighbors soul was your responsibility.
Posted by: jba | November 20, 2007 1:36 PM
At it's heart, Christianity is the worship of death. It required the death of some poor schmo 2000 years ago to "atone" for what other people had done. It requires death to collect rewards and punishment. It requires death for someone to be declared a saint. Death, death, death everywhere, to the extent that this life, no matter how full of wonder and beauty it might be, is at worst just a dress rehearsal and at best a test to determine one's ultimate disposition in the scheme of things.
Such morbid nonsense.
Posted by: Mike O'Risal | November 20, 2007 1:39 PM
Heddle,
To quote from your own blog:
"I both accept and defend both biblical infallibility and inerrancy."
So maybe you should have a nice big cup of poison (Mark 16:15-19) and live, to prove you are really a True Christian and not an apostate, or, if you're not willing to do that, maybe you would like a big cup of shut the hell up instead?
"Christians always pray that one result of a natural disaster or personal tragedy is that people turn to Christ"
VS
"We don't believe it is our job to secure salvation for anyone"
WTF? So there aren't Christians at my door every weekend? Christians aren't in the letters to the editor, on school boards, on message boards, running for office, and going to places like Bangladesh to make converts? Are you saying that they just...pray, and don't trouble anyone else with their bronze-age myths?
Where in the world are you living? If I could find a place with Christians like that, I would move there and not have any problem with their private (if absurd) beliefs at all.
Posted by: Jason Failes | November 20, 2007 1:41 PM
"Spade"?
I'd have thought "Club".
Posted by: Anon | November 20, 2007 1:45 PM
The father of an old acquaintance of mine truly lived in the surreal universe of the missionary. He once told me that communism's official atheistic stance was a great thing for China because it eliminated the bad, old false religions and evened the playing field for the spread of Christianity. What a lovely mentality.
Posted by: Diego | November 20, 2007 1:51 PM
I agree there isn't and never was a greater plague visited upon endogenous cultures anywhere than christian missionaries. The pox on them all. Or a cyclone.
Posted by: Umilik | November 20, 2007 1:51 PM
I've always maintained that the missionary spirit had nothing to do with compassion or concern with life, but instead with Christian life.
Jerks.
Posted by: Ryan F Stello | November 20, 2007 1:52 PM
Heddle wrote; "You could not be more wrong. We don't believe it is our job to secure salvation for anyone, and especially, if that's possible, those who want nothing to do with what "we" are offering. That's two strikes in one sentence."
I'm not sure what you're getting at, Heddle. Can you expand? What is evangelism then?
Posted by: shiftlessbum | November 20, 2007 1:53 PM
The ultimate Death Cultists are the fundies. They hope that armageddon, the apocalypse, rapture, whatever you call it comes soon. They occasionally predict the day but always get it wrong.
This is the day when god murders 6.7 billion people and saves a few. These people have such meaningless, miserable lives that all they can hope for is that a supernatural entity kills everyone and destroys the earth.
Something to look forward to, I guess. FWIW, this isn't very well supported by the bible and most Xians either ignore it or don't buy it in the first place. It is a cult thing.
Posted by: raven | November 20, 2007 1:53 PM
I think Heddle's from that sub-group of Christians who believe in predestination. I'm not sure about the numbers, but I think they might be a minority. So you can interpret "you could not be more wrong" as "you're mostly right."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predestination
Posted by: pough | November 20, 2007 2:06 PM
Has it occurred to you that not every Christian is a Calvinist?
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | November 20, 2007 2:07 PM
You could not be more wrong. We don't believe it is our job to secure salvation for anyone, and especially, if that's possible, those who want nothing to do with what "we" are offering. That's two strikes in one sentence.
heddle, speaking for himself, as usual, projects his entire belief structure onto the bulk of xianity at large.
...also as usual.
you're a freak, Heddle, not that that is necessarily a bad thing, but you speaking for xianity as a whole is rather humorous, to say the least.
FFS, man, what the hell do you think the word "evangelical" as used with "evangelical Christianity" means?
You seem to forget there are millions of xians who DO in fact think it their duty to secure salvation for everyone, in fact, many think they will go to hell if they do NOT expend effort in such a direction.
I suppose you never heard of Jehova's Witnesses either?
Posted by: Ichthyic | November 20, 2007 2:07 PM
Jason,
Mark 16:9-20 is almost certainly, as many scholars contend, a redaction. That passage does not appear in early manuscripts and is not, in a straightforward reading, consistent with the rest of scripture. If it is legitimate scripture, which I doubt, then I have no clue what it means. However, believing in both scriptural infallibility and inerrancy (of the original manuscripts) does not mean you claim to understand it all. For the most part, I have no clue what the Book of Revelation is talking about, other than I am fairly certain it is discussing AD 70, not the end of the world.
Jason (cc: shiftlessbum)
I don't actually believe that there are Christians at your door "every weekend," but even if there are, they do not have the job of securing your salvation. They have the job of presenting the gospel. Their duty is lies in presenting the message, not in eliciting your response.
If you are annoyed by proselytizing, tough. That's the price for living in a free society. I have to put up with a lot of things that annoy me. I also have to deal with the JW and LDS evangelizers, as well as PETA, The Sierra Club, the NRA, The Fraternal Order of Police, The Republicans, the Democrats, Carnegie Mellon fund raising, and a slew of others who, uninvited, ask for some of my time. Deal with it.
Posted by: heddle | November 20, 2007 2:08 PM
The purpose of religion is to trick gullible people into support of the powerful be they church leaders or rulers in general. The joke is that the "payback" is only available after death when it is too late to ask for your life back or start a revolution. That such an obvious fraud works is very amazing.
This is like the old joke about how to tell if a spark plug is good or bad. Throw it in the lake and if it floats, it was bad. The plug always gets replaced. You spend your life in servitude to the corrupt and you end up dead. Heaven? Not so much.
Posted by: afterthought | November 20, 2007 2:14 PM
Heddle: "Their duty is lies"
Now there you are 100% percent correct.
Posted by: Brando | November 20, 2007 2:16 PM
Brando,
Oops. Bummer.
Posted by: heddle | November 20, 2007 2:22 PM
Heddle, #19 - so you don't believe in bible inerrancy after all? You pick and choose the parts that support your agenda. Well, of course - that's what all xians do, even if they're not consciously aware of it. After all, the holey buybull is such a festering mass of inconsistencies, contradictions and absurdities, it's not possible to swallow it whole, even on its own primitive terms.
Posted by: No More Mr. Nice Guy! | November 20, 2007 2:29 PM
Sir Richard Burton once remarked, ' The fact that 'missionary' is not synonomous with 'martyr' speaks volumes for the tolerance of primitive peoples.'
Posted by: Don | November 20, 2007 2:35 PM
I wasn't raised in any religion, and so the generic, spiritual variation of the God concept I picked up on was one which hadn't been limited to any particular cultural tradition. Looked at from an open and unbiased perspective, then, I figured that if God existed -- and I assumed it did -- then it would be equally available to everyone, in all situations, at all times. Moreover, something so vital and significant to the meaning and structure of everything would of course have to be equally appreciated by absolutely everyone.
"God," therefore, must really be an indisputable Force, an inescapable Power. Maybe it was something like the feeling of love, or our emotions towards beauty, or life itself -- or something else much too important to be missed, ignored, or overlooked. You wouldn't need to learn about it.
Since I started out with such a huge conception of God, the view that God had "revealed" "special" "stories" which you HAD to hear about or you'd miss the entire purpose of existence just seemed really, really small. It made no sense, unless you tried to bring your ideas back down to the way a primitive tribe having rivalries with other tribes might think. I couldn't think of any reason to do that.
I no longer believe there's a God, but that was only a matter of analyzing my assumptions carefully and working through. Although I once accepted a veneer of what could be called 'cultural Christianity,' I don't think Christianity itself has ever been a "live option" for me. Or ever will be. I wasn't raised with it, and that probably makes a big difference.
This entire mindset where God's "plan" has to be discovered through a book or through special and very selective revelations is just implausible. The idea that a ubiquitous Fundamental-Force needs to use missionaries or everyone else will miss its "message" is bizarre. For me, God started out too big for that sort of incompetent dicking around, and ended up turning into the natural universe (which, please note, is equally available and appreciated by everyone).
Posted by: Sastra | November 20, 2007 2:38 PM
How creepy. After the 2004 tsunami, I did a comic that expressed this mentality. But it was a PARODY.
http://www.udargo.com/burton/Tsunami/
Scroll down to where George W appears to see what I'm talking about.
Posted by: Max Udargo | November 20, 2007 2:39 PM
"Almost" certainly? "Many scholars believe"? WTF? Your reply raises more questions than it answers. Like, why isn't there a consensus on which parts are authentic and which aren't? I mean, it's the infallible, inerrant Word of God, right? How can you not be sure? And if you're not sure... why do you think it's the Word of God?
Posted by: SBA | November 20, 2007 2:39 PM
From Matthew 28 (KJV):
"19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you ..."
If you believe in biblical inerrancy, then surely you do believe it is your duty to convert everyone to your belief. Or is that another part of the bible that we have to interpret rather than read literally?
Posted by: Mark P | November 20, 2007 2:55 PM
No More Mister Nice Guy!, SBA:
What part of "redaction" don't you get? There is a tiny percentage of verses in some bible translations for which there is substantive scholarly evidence of a later redaction. These are not: we don't like that, we're tossing it. (Proof: Another example is the KJV of 1 John 5-7, which is too bad, it'd be a great verse if it were legit, but it almost certainly is not.) No, this stems from what verses are found in the earliest manuscripts--a research question that non-believing scholars can also participate in and evaluate. If a verse is not found in earlier manuscripts, it's a pretty good sign that a misguided scribe added it.
Obviously such editorializing does not fall under the purview of biblical inerrancy. Is "you have accept all, even if it was added in the fifth century, otherwise you're a hypocrite" the best you can come up with?
As to how you can be sure, it is even more complex than you present, at least for Protestants. Catholics can use their sacred tradition to justify that they got the canon right. Protestants, if they are honest, have to either invoke something like sacred tradition, which we are loath to do, to "prove" that the canon is correct or, if they are honest, must admit that the canon might be wrong. Maybe a book made it in that shouldn't have; maybe one that should have, didn't. That's irrelevant when it comes to the issue of inerrancy, which states that scripture is inerrant, even as the human identification of what is or is not scripture is not.
In light of that, the issue of "how can you be sure" is beyond the scope of this blog.
Posted by: heddle | November 20, 2007 2:58 PM
And yet Christians declare that it is entirely their own fault that those 10,000+ souls, completely ignorant of who Jesus was, are now spending an eternity of torment and anguish in Hell. Of course, they have to say that or otherwise evangelism is worse than useless, and thus makes a lie of the Bible.
The whole doctrine of salvation is utterly ridiculous. Christians will tell you that the only way to be saved is through Jesus Christ. And yet when you ask them what happens to those who never get to hear about Jesus before they die they will tell you that they still (somehow) knew in their heart of hearts that there is a God. Er, right, and we should just forget about that whole Jesus thing?
The two statements are irreconcilable. If you must achieve salvation through Jesus then it is beyond grossly unfair to condemn those who never had the chance to hear of the existence of such a person.
Sure, there's all that weaseling about "being without excuse" and "original sin", but that doesn't make it more acceptable to a rational, thinking human being. No jury would convict a person for breaking a law that they have zero percent chance of finding out about, and yet the supposedly just God would seem to do so every second of ever day.
If the doctrine of salvation is true, then for every Hitler and Stalin that is suffering in Hell, there are millions of innocent pre-teen and teenage kids who lived and died without hearing about Jesus there in Hell keeping them company.
And let's not forget about the idiocy of the "age of accountability" get-out clause for younger kids. If *that* is also true, then by far the safest way to ensure that your kids get to heaven is to abort them before they're born or kill then before they come close to being accountable. After all, what's a few decades of a life on Earth full of uncertainty, sadness, and pain when compared to a guaranteed eternity of bliss and happiness? Christians should not be condemning abortionists, they should be praising them for saving over 42 million American souls, the majority of whom would be probably otherwise be in Hell when they died.
It doesn't matter if your Catholic, Calvinist, Baptist, Methodist, or Episcopalian, the doctrine of salvation is so riddled with inconsistencies that it makes no sense at all.
Whenever I debate this with a true believer they always end up saying one of two things:
1) "Since we're not God, we cannot say what makes sense in his eyes."
2) "All this arguing is simply to avoid worrying about your own salvation."
Ugh!
Posted by: tacitus | November 20, 2007 2:59 PM
That response by Heddle is pure awesome in its insano "logic."
"The bible is the true and inerrant word of god, except the parts that aren't. Also, just because I believe something is perfect and true doesn't mean that I understand it."
Wow. Just freakin' wow.
Posted by: H. Humbert | November 20, 2007 3:01 PM
Mark P,
No by all means all nations should be evangelized. However, and once again, it is not our job to secure the salvation of anyone--something which we in fact cannot do even for ourselves, let alone for others. If I could secure your salvation, I would, even if you didn't want me to, but I can't. I can only tell you about it.
Posted by: heddle | November 20, 2007 3:03 PM
This confirms my feeling that, of all the xian dumbasses, know-nothings and general scumbags I've encountered, Southern Baptists are the worst of the lot. Admittedly, I haven't encountered that many Mormons.
Posted by: Tom | November 20, 2007 3:09 PM
So since we don't know the etymological history of any of the books of the Bible for sure, inerrancy is a somewhat futile concept. After all, who can tell how many revisions and changes books like Genesis or Judges underwent before the earliest manuscripts that have been unearthed were written? it is likely that the earliest stories in the Old Testament were originally passed down as oral tradition for generations before being written down. There are probably hundreds of now undetectable edit and changes made by scribes and copyists on a whim or for a personal agenda in the Bible. We simply have no way of knowing.
Posted by: tacitus | November 20, 2007 3:11 PM
"Last night a lot of people died and entered an eternity of suffering," Neely said. "Almost none of them has heard a Christian testimony or biblical explanation of who Christ really is. They have never heard the truth about who God really is, who they are in His sight or what God's plan is to save us from our sin through Christ."
Every once in a while, something a Christian fundamentalist says will just smack me across the face and make me realize how ridiculous the whole thing is all over again.
And these guys are by no means unique; this kind of thinking permeates are society.
I've said it before, I'll say it again--it's like we're in a big damn insane asylum.
Posted by: RamblinDude | November 20, 2007 3:13 PM
Crap, "our" society.
Posted by: RamblinDude | November 20, 2007 3:14 PM
So Heddle won't drink the poison,
and won't stop posting.
Can't we just ban this troll?
PS There is no such thing as "legitimate scripture". Tacticus starts it out well, and to it I add that all scripture is revisionist, mish-mashed from older stories, made-up whole cloth, mistranslated (with "prophecies based on the mistranslations!), generally mangled, with whatever original sources there may have been nowhere in sight.
Posted by: Jason Failes | November 20, 2007 3:22 PM
No, Dave Heddle may be wrong, but he's not a troll.
Posted by: tacitus | November 20, 2007 3:28 PM
So Heddle believes the bible is inerrant. In other words Heddle, you believe pi is exactly equal to 3, the sun revolves around the earth, there's a firmament that holds up the sky, stars are little things that can fall to earth and be held in your hand, rabbits chew their cud, unicorns and giants existed, people lived to be hundreds of years old, and which creation myth in genisis is the "inerrant" one again?
And heddle, its pretty hypocritical of you to talk about parts of the bible being redacted when I've heard you on other threads reference the story of the woman caught in adultery when that story was never part of the earliest manuscripts either. It was added in the 14th century and biblical scholars agree it does not belong there.
Once again we see your hypocrisy, the bible is inerrant except where you think its in error and that which isn't in the earliest manuscripts doesn't belong unless you think it does.
Posted by: Randi Schimnosky | November 20, 2007 3:29 PM
"two-faced scumbag missionaries "
That is a double redundancy. Has anyone ever met a missionary who was not a two-faced scumbag"?
I remember years ago I was kicked off an education site because I criticized some clown who wanted to "teach English" in South America as a missionary.
Posted by: bernarda | November 20, 2007 3:30 PM
Heddle's trick is one that Christians and other believers often resort to: Claim belief in a principle while at the same time eviscerating that "principle" of all actual meaning. In this case, Heddle claims the mantle of belief in scriptural inerrancy and infallibility -- but cautions that there is no inerrant and/or infallible way to determine which parts of the Bible and/or other texts -- indeed, if any -- are actually "scripture." In other words, despite its rather bold-sounding pronouncement of belief, Heddle's "belief" is not actually in anything.
I find that this is often what a professed belief in "God" gets reduced to. That is, the "believer" will strip God of any actual characteristics or properties -- it is ineffable, supernatural, etc. -- so that it cannot be said that the person believes in anything.
Posted by: Glenn | November 20, 2007 3:31 PM
Tacitus, according to Christian theology Hitler isn't in hell, he was a christian and accepted Jesus as his savior so he's in heaven - only those innocent children that never heard of Jesus are worthy of being tortured for an eternity.
And Tacitus, Heddle is as deserving of the troll title as anyone. His twisted kookiness is too bizare for anyone to actually believe, including himself.
Posted by: Randi Schimnosky | November 20, 2007 3:33 PM
The Bangladeshis are almost all Moslems. Going to be a cold day in hell before the Xian missionaries convert them.
On the bright side, since they are all Moslems, there will be plenty more disasters for them so they can whine about the infidels all dying sans salvation. In fact, 2/3 of the world is nonXian.
I don't know about this one but some Moslem countries make it illegal for Xians to evangelize Moslems. Saudi Arabia is one such.
Posted by: raven | November 20, 2007 3:34 PM
First "disaster capitalism", now "disaster theology".
Posted by: Greco | November 20, 2007 3:45 PM
You would think if the bible was the inerrant word of god he would have thought far enough ahead to make mistakes or misinterpretation impossible.
Posted by: giscindy | November 20, 2007 3:47 PM
How about the creation accounts in Genesis (1:1 to 2:3 and 2:4 to... where does it end... let's say 5:32)? Which one is the later addition?
Read that name again.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | November 20, 2007 3:50 PM
Thanks heddle, I always wanted to quotemine someone.
Posted by: zer0 | November 20, 2007 4:01 PM
"In other words, despite its rather bold-sounding pronouncement of belief, Heddle's "belief" is not actually in anything."
Oh, yes it is! I'll bet he believes very much in the warm, fuzzy feelings he gets when he and his fellow believers get together and concentrate on all sorts of emotions as they praise Jesus together. Praise you! Praise you Oh Lord! Thank you, thank you Jesus! (Insert hymn, testify, speak in tongues, weep, etc.)
This is the glue that holds the church together. It causes brain malfunctions when sniffed.
Posted by: RamblinDude | November 20, 2007 4:02 PM
What Dave? I didn't say he was a troll (Jason Failes just above your comment did). He clearly isn't.
That depends on which Christian theology you mean! You are referring to the Lutheran concept of salvation by faith alone. Catholicism picks another bible quote which states that salvation comes by faith and good works. In the complete absence of good works or repentance... fill in the rest. (...And then throw it away again because you don't know what acts of mercy God may have performed.)
Sounds logical.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | November 20, 2007 4:03 PM
Well, I think you will find most Christians (and many non-Christians) would disagree with you, though he was certainly a big fan of the teachings of Martin Luther, one of the all-time heroes of Protestant history, when it came to his pronouncements about the Jews.
Either way, it doesn't make much difference. I used Hitler because he is probably the one most cited by Christians as an example of how terrible it would be if there wasn't a Hell where punishment was meted out for despicable people. Stalin, Mao, or Pol Pot would have done just as well. Of course, they probably would not be so keen on the concept once they realize how many others get caught up in the same dragnet.
I can certainly see the attraction of a doctrine that ensures that evil people don't escape their much deserved punishment, but wishful thinking isn't much to base a major tenet of a religion on.
Posted by: tacitus | November 20, 2007 4:06 PM
Putting all theology aside. At least the two missionaries from the article are willing to live and serve among Bangladesh's people. The article changed their names "for security reasons" probably because the country is 86% Muslim. Who among the commenters that think the missionaries are "scumbags" or "exploiting the poor" or "a plague" or "cultural rapists" is willing to step into their shoes and do what they do? If you are not willing to give up your comfort and go live with and serve among some of the poorest people on earth then at least withhold your criticism of them. We really know nothing of them other than that they are there serving and that they pray for the people.
Posted by: Louise Van Court | November 20, 2007 4:06 PM
Stop making sense (H/T Talking Heads):
You know reason has no place in religion! It just ruins the whole thing. Now go pray the rosary or something.
Posted by: afterthought | November 20, 2007 4:08 PM
I see. Heddle plays the "no true Bible" card ...
Posted by: Brachychiton | November 20, 2007 4:09 PM
Randi,
Can you pack any more mischaracterizations of Christian theology into one sentence? Hitler saying he accepted Christ does not make him a Christian. Hitler even sincerely believing what he said, if he did, does not make him a Christian. There is no such thing in Christian theology as salvation by sincerity. The best we can say is that Hitler making a profession and then exhibiting fruit, as discussed in Matt 7, esp, v. 20, (which indisputably he did not) would cause us to treat him as if he were a Christian, while a profound lack of exhibiting fruit would cause us to judge him, as it were, as if he were a dog or swine, as, once again, Matt. 7 instructs. In any case we don't know, we only know how we are to judge--and based on how we are instructed to judge, Hitler was not a Christian. Mass murderers, it should not require pointing out, are not exhibiting the fruit of salvation, regardless of what they profess with their tongues. As for innocent children, leaving aside what is meant by innocent, I would fully expect that (some, many, all?) are saved, because of what really is the primary message of Christianity--that God will have mercy upon whom he will have mercy, and that the only way to heaven is through Christ. That does not mean to profess Jesus, although that is the normative process, it means that by grace you are presented and justified forensically before God with an alien righteousness--that of Jesus. God, being god, can decide who receives this gift, upon whom he will have mercy, and it might very well be that many who never hear the gospel at all receive it--including some of those who perished in the cyclone.
You are correct about one criticism--I have used the "woman caught in adultery" story in arguing about Mosaic law. I love the story so much, I tend to conveniently forget that it is almost certainly non-canonical. Guilty as charged.
Posted by: heddle | November 20, 2007 4:13 PM
for the genesis creation stories the fundy street preacher i was discussing with on saturday claimed the second one was an indepth version of day 6 of the first.
that and his claim about the alternate jesus bloodlines being one for mary and one for joseph were the highlights. especially when his response to the virgin birth was that joseph was a stepdad but that still counted.
Posted by: kevinj | November 20, 2007 4:14 PM
Heddle,
More and more confusion. You're saying humans can't tell what's scripture and what isn't? By that logic, what makes you think any of it is? It could ALL be forgeries.
You seem to be arguing that you need a team of scholars, experts in ancient texts, to find out what's real and what isn't. Makes sense if we're talking about the Odyssey or something, but this is supposed to be the Word of God. Why isn't it obvious?
Posted by: SBA | November 20, 2007 4:18 PM
"Who among the commenters that think the missionaries are "scumbags" or "exploiting the poor" or "a plague" or "cultural rapists" is willing to step into their shoes and do what they do?"
None of us; we're not insane.
The quotes in the post are not from "Good Samaritans", they are from missionaries, there's a difference.
Posted by: RamblinDude | November 20, 2007 4:20 PM
That's fair enough, Louise, but there was nothing in the article that mentioned them giving any material aid to the locals -- it's all prayer and religious doctrine, which is worthless to them.
Maybe they are working hard to help locals build a better life for themselves, and insofar as it is given without strings attached (i.e. without having to listen to them proselytize) then I would certainly laud their efforts.
In the meantime, here is a more practical way for people to give help today:
https://donate.oxfamamerica.org/02/bangladesh_cyclone
Oxfam is an excellent secular relief agency well worth supporting.
Posted by: tacitus | November 20, 2007 4:21 PM
Louise Van Court #50
You make some good points. The only counter I'll make is that although those two unnamed missionaries are to be commended for their efforts, they are not the only people with that odious theology; as PZ and Chris Mooney pointed out, this is coming from a group of xtians very few of whom will do as these two did.
The other counter is rather more personal. It's all well and good that one goes to "live with and serve among some of the poorest people on earth" and that should not be lightly dismissed. Still, it is their actions while there that are important. I lived for a time in North Africa and some of the Christian missionaries there, while living among the poor, acted in odious ways; among other things forcing locals to sit through "witnessing" in order to get their charity (often times shoes or other clothing). Their dire poverty led many to sit through the sessions anyway just to get some shoes. They gained very few (if any) converts but they sure got a heaping handful of disdain and disgust from all. But they were doing "the Lord's work (tm)" so they thought.
Posted by: shiftlessbum | November 20, 2007 4:21 PM
You consider predatory opportunism a normal state of affairs for Christians?
At least you're honest.
Posted by: Azkyroth | November 20, 2007 4:22 PM
How do you pronounce the symbol in the heading? "I spade missionaries"?
"I spayed missionaries"?
Posted by: Curt Cameron | November 20, 2007 4:37 PM
Heddle:
"Hitler was not a Christian. Mass murderers, it should not require pointing out, are not exhibiting the fruit of salvation, regardless of what they profess with their tongues"
vs
Jesus (Luke 19:27):
"But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me."
Not only is Hitler a "True Christian", if the cosmos really worked the way Jesus said, he probably got some extra award in Heaven for his "fruits".
And you wonder why atheists think religion is not only false, but monsterous...
Posted by: Jason Failes | November 20, 2007 4:40 PM
Who among the commenters that think the missionaries are "scumbags" or "exploiting the poor" or "a plague" or "cultural rapists" is willing to step into their shoes and do what they do? If you are not willing to give up your comfort and go live with and serve among some of the poorest people on earth then at least withhold your criticism of them.
Nonsense. The role of missionaries in exploiting the poor and downtrodden of the world and reinforcing the current power structure is vile. And no I wouldn't go, there are people far more qualified than me to go. You know, people who speak the language and know the region. In fact, one could spend the money for the plane ticket instead on relief supplies. To claim that the Bangladeshi people need me to come and help them physically is absurd. I can do far more good here in the U.S. arguing against farm subsidies that cause economic problems the world over. Or against the stupid family planning requirements that the administration enforces on foreign aid.
The point is that these people waste resources by using them to try to impose a religion on people who likely already have too much religion.
On biblical inerrancy: I assume that heddle can read the original languages in which the biblical texts was written. Otherwise something is always going to be mistranslated. And even if they were written in English originally, language is inexact, language itself is errant, therefore anything written in language must also be errant.
Posted by: coathangrrr | November 20, 2007 4:45 PM
<culture shock>
We don't even know what they mean by "serving", do we?
Depends on the denomination. Again.
If you want to say that only Calvinists are Christians, why don't you simply do that? It would save us all a lot of confusion.
Doesn't work. Doesn't remove the contradictions.
Maybe don't. Maybe interpreted as a heart that is turned upside-down (and maybe impaled).
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | November 20, 2007 4:55 PM
If I were in Bangladesh, I'd tell a missionary to fuck off and give me the goddamn bottle of Evian. Jesus can get off his own lazy ass and help these folks. Anyone can die on a cross. Big fucking deal.
Posted by: danley | November 20, 2007 4:59 PM
Doh! Whether or not Hitler was "saved" is entirely ancillary to the main point of the discussion. I should have known better than to have even brought his name into the debate.
Bad tacitus! Bad boy...
Posted by: tacitus | November 20, 2007 4:59 PM
Thank you, Prof. Myers. Thank you very much, for saying what needs to be said, and said clearly.
Posted by: Mooser | November 20, 2007 5:02 PM
It's heddle. Don't bother with logic.
Only mock ths silliness.
Heddle loves themselves theology.
Posted by: Stevie_C | November 20, 2007 5:03 PM
I hate to say it, but...
Godwin's law?
Posted by: Anon Ymous | November 20, 2007 5:05 PM
Sorry for the lack of accurate iconography, but I'm too lazy to look up the code for the heart and spade symbol.
Anyway, one of my favorite-ever bumper stickers, which I saw during the height of the "I (heart) New York" stickers-and-t-shirt craze, was
"I (spade) my dog"
Posted by: folderol | November 20, 2007 5:06 PM
Jason,
Re: Luke 19:27: Yes, taking a verse from the end of a parable and using it as if Jesus were speaking about himself, literally, is top-notch scholarly work. Well played! After all, it is consistent with all those times when Jesus, not speaking in parables, instructed the disciples to kill infidels.
I wonder about the inanity of writing "Hitler is a TRUE Christian." From any perspective, it's dumb. Not only is it, to the extent that such a thing is possible, demonstrably false, it makes atheists look stupid. It's like arguing that the Finish school shooter was a "TRUE evolutionist." Dumb, dumb, dumb.
I don't wonder about that at all, it's rather obvious.
David Marjanović, OM
(What is OM?)
Because it would be a mischaracterization of Calvinism which teaches that God will have mercy upon whom he have mercy, Calvinist or not. I would say that Calvinism represents accurate Christian theology--but no surprise there, everyone thinks they are right. I don't know of anyone who holds opinions they think are incorrect.Posted by: heddle | November 20, 2007 5:07 PM
Heddle: can we take it that, for example, Joshua, a scripturally-attested mass murderer and genocidaire, was appropriately condemned for his actions? How about Samson?- I would say that killing three hundred people with a bone club would count as mass murder, no?
Posted by: Stephen Wells | November 20, 2007 5:56 PM
We're not necessarily criticizing the missionaries themselves, as people, but the role and the concept. Even within the structure of religion, there are some problems.
Here are two propositions:
1.) Sometimes, salvation is a matter of luck.
2.) No missionary ever 'saves' or converts anyone who wouldn't have been saved/converted anyway, without them.
Seems to me it's one or the other. The first one runs into the problem of God being unfair, arbitrary, and far from omnibenevolent. It also makes God's presumed goal of saving as many people as possible dependent on the whims and failures of human beings -- which then gets into conflicts with omnipotence. Bad planning.
But if it's the second one, then exactly what are the missionaries doing? Performing some sort of pointless dance routine just so they can demonstrate to God and themselves how willingly they go through motions He demanded for no reason?
Again, it doesn't really make sense.
Posted by: Sastra, OM | November 20, 2007 5:56 PM
Particularly given that a few years existence on this planet is nothing compare to the supposed eternity of an afterlife. Makes life seem even more pointless and arbitrary.
Posted by: tacitus | November 20, 2007 6:08 PM
American Baptists are responsible for a insurrection in India's northeast.
If there is a Hell, I consign them all to it.
Posted by: Arun | November 20, 2007 6:16 PM
We're not necessarily criticizing the missionaries themselves, as people, but the role and the concept.
I am criticizing the missionaries themselves as well as the role and the concept. They are wasting resources that could save people by trying to convert them. I hold political views but I wouldn't go on disaster relief work and try to use it to espouse the greatness of say a certain candidate for election, wasting money that could have otherwise been spent saving lives. It becomes a moral issue when people die because you want them to believe what you believe.
Posted by: coathangrrr | November 20, 2007 6:19 PM
Being able to maintain a sense of humor when you're being piled on is a good sign that you're not a troll. Nice work.