I ♠ missionaries

Oh those delightful cultural rapists are at it again, are they?

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.

PZ: Is the second "word" in your title a typo, or deliberate? I can think of readings for which it works.

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,

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.

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.

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.

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.)

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.

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.

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.

"Spade"?

I'd have thought "Club".

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.

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.

I've always maintained that the missionary spirit had nothing to do with compassion or concern with life, but instead with Christian life.

Jerks.

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?

At it's heart, Christianity is the worship of death.

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.

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

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.

Has it occurred to you that not every Christian is a Calvinist?

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?

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.

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.

Heddle: "Their duty is lies"

Now there you are 100% percent correct.

Brando,

Oops. Bummer.

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.

Sir Richard Burton once remarked, ' The fact that 'missionary' is not synonomous with 'martyr' speaks volumes for the tolerance of primitive peoples.'

"Last night a lot of people died and entered an eternity of suffering ... 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."

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).

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.

"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?

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?

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.

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."

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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.

Crap, "our" society.

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.

No, Dave Heddle may be wrong, but he's not a troll.

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.

"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.

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.

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.

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.

First "disaster capitalism", now "disaster theology".

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.

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?

Tacticus

Read that name again.

Their duty is lies

Thanks heddle, I always wanted to quotemine someone.

"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.

No, Dave[,] Heddle may be wrong, but he's not a troll.

What Dave? I didn't say he was a troll (Jason Failes just above your comment did). He clearly isn't.

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 -

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.)

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.

Sounds logical.

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.

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.

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.

Stop making sense (H/T Talking Heads):

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.

You know reason has no place in religion! It just ruins the whole thing. Now go pray the rosary or something.

I see. Heddle plays the "no true Bible" card ...

Randi,

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.

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.

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.

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?

"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.

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.

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.

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?

You consider predatory opportunism a normal state of affairs for Christians?

At least you're honest.

How do you pronounce the symbol in the heading? "I spade missionaries"?

"I spayed missionaries"?

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...

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.

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.

<culture shock>

We really know nothing of them other than that they are there serving and that they pray for the people.

We don't even know what they mean by "serving", do we?

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.

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.

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.

Doesn't work. Doesn't remove the contradictions.

How do you pronounce the symbol in the heading?

Maybe don't. Maybe interpreted as a heart that is turned upside-down (and maybe impaled).

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.

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...

Thank you, Prof. Myers. Thank you very much, for saying what needs to be said, and said clearly.

It's heddle. Don't bother with logic.

Only mock ths silliness.

Heddle loves themselves theology.

I hate to say it, but...

Godwin's law?

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"

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.

And you wonder why atheists think religion is not only false, but monsterous...

I don't wonder about that at all, it's rather obvious.

David Marjanović, OM

(What is OM?)

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

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.

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?

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.

Again, it doesn't really make sense.

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.

American Baptists are responsible for a insurrection in India's northeast.

If there is a Hell, I consign them all to it.

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.

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.

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.

I call missionaries cultural rapists for the simple reason that they are in a foreign non-Christian country to convert the populace. They are responsible for ripping apart the fabric of society and tearing families apart, thus injecting a truly destructive and intensely silly reason for people to hate each other. They are no better than criminals.

alison wrote:

I call missionaries cultural rapists for the simple reason that they are in a foreign non-Christian country to convert the populace.

And the same criticism of cultural imperialism is often directed towards scientists, doctors, human rights activists, and educators who try to "convert" people in foreign countries to give up their superstitions, dogmas, ignorance, bigotry and pseudosciences for something which works better.

Persuasion is not, in and of itself, a form of force. A person's "culture" should not define them, box them in, and trump their individual ability to choose something else. After all, you could say that Dawkins' book has "torn families apart" by convincing some people to give up their religious views. That harms our American culture, where the majority believe in God!

Pick a horse and ride it. Atheists can't criticize missionaries simply for trying to change people's religious views and then get huffy when they're criticized for the same thing. If a person's religion is a sacred, special part of their identity which needs to be left alone as it is, then atheists should sit down and shut up when it comes to discussing God. I don't think so -- and I'm not going to change and go all mimsy if I find out we're talking about people of other races or countries. That wouldn't be being "sensitive" -- it's being condescending.

Now, the product the missionaries is selling, and the tactics they use to push it -- that's fair game.

And the same criticism of cultural imperialism is often directed towards scientists, doctors, human rights activists, and educators who try to "convert" people in foreign countries to give up their superstitions, dogmas, ignorance, bigotry and pseudosciences for something which works better.

And sometimes the charges are true. Sometimes those groups of people are guilty of cultural imperialism, but they generally are guilty when they go there on false pretenses, like helping the poor, when they have other true motives.

Persuasion is not, in and of itself, a form of force.

These people don't use persuasion, they use the fact that the international economic system benefits the United States and thus allows them to push their beliefs on people who reside in countries which are harmed by global economic institutions. These groups pray on the threat of death under which poor peoples live in the modern world. They use that threat to force people to listen to their nonsense, like homeless folks who have to sit through a sermon to get free food.

A person's "culture" should not define them, box them in, and trump their individual ability to choose something else. After all, you could say that Dawkins' book has "torn families apart" by convincing some people to give up their religious views. That harms our American culture, where the majority believe in God!

A culture does in fact play a huge role in defining who we are as people, despite the odd insistence from a lot of Americans that it doesn't, something I chalk up to our "individualist" culture. But thats not the point, the point is that saying missionaries are cultural imperialism is not to say that people shouldn't be able to choose something else, it is to say that people shouldn't use international inequities to spread their beliefs. This puts Dawkins squarely outside such a critique as he certainly does not use inequities as a means of spreading his belief, he simply argues forcefully for what he thinks.

Now, the product the missionaries is selling, and the tactics they use to push it -- that's fair game.

Exactly, and missionary work is a tactic. The problem is not that they are trying to change people's minds it is how they are trying to change peoples minds. I as an atheist can try all I want to convince people I'm right, but when I start using coercion to do so I become the bad guy.

These groups pray on the threat of death under which poor peoples live in the modern world.

Err. And of course I meant prey. Though I suppose "pray for" would work as well.

Heddle: "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."

But how do you know whether that was an independent phrase glued onto the parable, or was the original point of the parable around which other interpretations were wrapped, or is wholly an invention of third century priests, or the whole thing is a skeleton for an esoteric formula, or it's an encoded message for which we've lost the encoding, or even a joke which we can no longer understand?

See, here's why it's pointless to even argue "citations" with the religionists: we have no damn clue about the original source for any of the scriptural texts. We don't know whether they were primarily written in 60AD or 300AD. We don't know how many times they were rewritten and recombined. We don't know the original ideology of the primitive Christian, or even who they were. The development of Christianity until the fifth century is a huge blur of propaganda and preconceptions. Maybe Jesus was a militant anti-Herodian revolutionary, or a gnostic anti-Zadokian revolutionary, or a radical pacifist, or a wandering philosopher, or a fallen Baptist follower, or a megalomaniac with delusions of being a Jewish Alexander, or an Essene military leader, or an Essene prophet. Or a combination of many of those; or a combination of distinct characters from multiple sources; or a magical spirit being who inhabited the body of one or more mere mortals. Maybe he didn't exist; or maybe he was radically different from what modern Christianity believes in; or maybe he was exactly what some sect, from the Calvinists to the Mormons think he was.

There is no reason to strongly prefer any of these "hypotheses", since we lack the archeological record or the historical record to be able to distinguish them from outside the scriptures themselves.

But we do know for a fact that major early streams of Christianity accused each others of "editing" them to their own liking. We do know that scriptures with completely different accounts existed. We do know that completely different theologies where derived in early Christianity from whatever their current evidence was, ranging from non-Christological Christianities to gnostic Christianities to anti-Jewish Christianities to Jewish Christianites to beliefs that are closer to our mainstreams today - but that orthodoxy wasn't the dominant thread until the fourth century! Even today some orthodoxies descended from the fourth century exist where Jesus wasn't really an incarnate being, but spirit dust that inhabited the "Jesus Body".

So why waste time using scripture? It's just a random number generator for the criminally brain-damaged. They'll make it mean whatever they want it to mean - it's like arguing contradictions in astrology. You can never win when your opponent's assumptions are so fatally flawed as to be literally insane.

coathangrrr, to add to your argument:

An additional element against missionary work is the sincerity of the communication. When a scientist tries to convince someone of the value of his work, in general the goal is not to get people to believe it simply to join his superior club. In general, it's not to dominate people, but simply an argument so that both arguers can come to some rational consensus about our shared reality. A non-asshole scientist does not assume that she is correct, but rather the argument is a means to actually ascertain the truth of the matter.

The approach of a missionary (and most Christians) is completely insincere (whether or not they sincerely believe their own BS). Their goal when they do "missionary work" is not a sincere exchange of ideas to help both missionaries and missionees to ascertain the nature of reality, but a by-any-means-necessary no-hold-barred evangelism.

A biologist arguing for evolution or against spontaneous generation, is at least theoretically open to evidence by his opponent that he is wrong. That is a symmetrical relationship, and therefore not "Cultural Imperialism," but a missionary is simply converting his opponent: by definition, he is not open to counter-conversion.

Eskimo: "If I did not know about God and sin, would I go to hell?"
Priest: "No, not if you did not know."
Eskimo: "Then why did you tell me?"
- Annie Dillard

Oh, poor people dying without being witnessed to... most people think they go straight to Heaven. Whereas if they had been witnessed to they could go to Hell. They missed their chance at damnation! WOE TO THEM!

The Nazis are evil sinister vile little devils! They burned Anne Frank because she was Jewish. God is all good loving and peaceful! He burns Anne Frank forever because she was Jewish.

The Nazis are evil because they tortured good people for an insufficient period of time.

Sastra: "Pick a horse and ride it. Atheists can't criticize missionaries simply for trying to change people's religious views and then get huffy when they're criticized for the same thing."

But I don't "attempt to change people's religious views" in some imperialistic sense; I don't "evangelize" in a missionary sense. Most atheists don't - we don't have an organized missionary movement. We try to convince others of our point of view, while they try to convince us of theirs - I don't know any dogmatic atheists, where atheism is an article of faith (does that even make sense?).

What missionaries do is convert others, with a dogmatic belief in their own rightness. They don't go among a tribe with an open-mind, to exchange ideas, but with the stated goal to convert them. Their rightness isn't a philosophical understanding, but an article of faith - there is no counter-argument. The faith is first. Even the strongest atheist lacks that. Does Dawkins say that he couldn't possibly be wrong, or convinced otherwise? That he has faith in his atheism? He simply says that his arguments are stronger than his opponents.

So missionaries: in general, cultural imperialists. Atheists - no cultural imperialists that I know, even though there's an exception to everything. It's perfectly fair to criticize missionaries for attempting to positively destroy other cultures as a principle of their religion.

My Cambodian teacher used to call the missionaries who flocked to the refugee camps "vultures". I can't improve any on his assessment, although I will apologize in advance to Accipitridae and Cathartidae for the invidious comparison.

I second PZ's views. So-called Christian missionaries are nothing but opportunists of the worst sort. Calling them culture vultures gives vultures a bad name.

When I was growing up, my family belonged to a fundamentalist Protestant church that placed great importance on missionary work because they believed it was their God-given duty to "spread the word to every people and nation" so Jesus could return. They'd pass the offering plate for the "mission work". When I got older, I asked what they did with the money. Did it go to feed starving children? Vaccinate them against disease? Build schools? Nope! Every dime went to build churches. Oh, they'd feed the skinny kids - if the kids agreed to get baptized. They might even teach the kids to read - the Bible.

That's when my eyes were opened.

Christianity - the world's greatest scam.

I found out my new neighbors are missionaries so they're gone a lot. I haven't met them yet and I'm not sure I want to either. The problem with living where I am is that there's a few religious kooks so I don't bring up religion. Unfortunately that's good advice anywhere.

coathangrrr wrote:

The problem is not that they are trying to change people's minds it is how they are trying to change peoples minds.

I agree. Forcing the poor to listen to sermons in order to get food is exactly the sort of tactic which needs to be criticized. Ditto on hoping a disaster will make people more desperate and "receptive" to heavy-handed proselytizing.

frog wrote:

The approach of a missionary (and most Christians) is completely insincere (whether or not they sincerely believe their own BS). Their goal when they do "missionary work" is not a sincere exchange of ideas to help both missionaries and missionees to ascertain the nature of reality, but a by-any-means-necessary no-hold-barred evangelism.

And this is where I would criticize missionary work for tactic and the product it's selling -- dogma. As you point out, there's no search for consensus here or attempt to find objective truths. They're indoctrinating.

But I still hesitate to call missionary work "cultural imperialism" because of how it "rips apart the fabric of society," as alison put it. I think there's sometimes a tendency to confuse a basic respect for differences in other cultures with a desire to keep these cultural differences rigid and fixed -- and keep the individuals in them pure and 'uncontaminated' by outside influences. People do that with religion -- combine "respecting religion" with "respecting culture," and I worry about endorsing a mindset which sees people as fulfilling roles -- and religion as one of those roles. Trying to change the minds of people in foreign countries is then offensive in itself, regardless of whether it's through rational argument (as in science or atheism) or dogmatic propaganda, threats, and bribes.

"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."

Like hell they died ignorant! Like you and I, the dead there were constantly bombarded by religions, philosophies and world views throughout their lives, and they chose to ignore all of them but the one or the several that suited them. They, like every other person, has heard the message of salvation through the blood. And lots of us choose to ignore it.

To fairly judge the dead, based upon a balanced view of their state of mind at the moment of death, one would be well armed with a knowledge of what the deceased had ceased to hold on to in that penultimate moment.

I have no trouble accommodating what another knows. Ways exist to determine the facts. Problems arise when attempting to accommodate what another believes. Surely I am not the only one to state the problem thus.

Sastra: But I still hesitate to call missionary work "cultural imperialism" because of how it "rips apart the fabric of society," as alison put it.

The difference is that missionary work intends to destroy all differences. That's not an unfortunate side-effect of the work, but it's intended consequence - to convert people to the one, universal view, and eliminate all other view points. Arguing quantum physics may undermine Islamic belief in the absolute knowledge of god, but the point in advancing modern physics is not to destroy Islam and replace it with "Modern Physicism". Physics isn't anti-religion, it's simply religion failing in the argument.

So it's not that trying to change peoples' mind is offensive, whether they're foreign or not. That's not what makes it cultural imperialism, in a rational way. It depends on the arguers. If the approach is one of equality, then it's just an argument between individuals and communities. But if it's specifically designed to absorb your opponents, if it's an extension of aggression rather than a sincere dialectic, I think that's what people mean by cultural imperialism.

We shouldn't be afraid to identify by name these kinds of aggressive, destructive, amoral behaviors. That's the weakness of naive tolerance - a tolerance for the intolerant. The kinds of insincere dialectics that I constantly see from Christian and other kind of missionaries and trolls should be called out. You can't win against them, so what's the point in being polite with them?

I think Sastra point is not that missionary work is not bad, but that the reason that it is bad is not because it "rips apart the fabric of society."

I think there's sometimes a tendency to confuse a basic respect for differences in other cultures with a desire to keep these cultural differences rigid and fixed -- and keep the individuals in them pure and 'uncontaminated' by outside influences.

I totally agree. And I think that the idea that cultures, or any culture that didn't come from Europe, is somehow static is definitely an aspect of traditional colonialism. Also the idea that each culture is somehow monolithic. Like all of India is Hindu and that all Hindus worship the same god(s).

And my point is that missionary work is bad because it intends to rip societies apart. I think Sastra doesn't take it far enough, from a timidity to look at the underlying intentions and morals. Sastra is correct enough to look at tactics, but is overly "fair" to missionaries. Even if they used completely "fair" tactics, their goals obviate any "fairness", because the whole thing is a ruse.

So, we agree it's not that it's bad because it "rips apart the fabric of society", but I disagree with the statement "missionaries [are] simply for trying to change people's religious views". Missionaries are trying to destroy those societies and replace them with new ones, not cooperatively create a new society. This is a flaw of in liberalness - the tendency to withhold judgment on underlying goals and instead focus on process. Fair rules are insufficient if one side considers the rules simple as an expedient.

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.

Then I guess those missionaries are simply not reading the same book huh? Or maybe your not a real Christian and are a pretender?

so you don't believe in bible inerrancy after all? You pick and choose the parts that support your agenda.

of course he does or creates elaborate arguments to hide the fact that he does exactly the above.

If a verse is not found in earlier manuscripts, it's a pretty good sign that a misguided scribe added it.

So then the bible simply cannot be innerant. Why would God let a lowly misguided scribe do this to his word? You are admitting it has errors. Do you believe a person lived to 900 years of age?

In light of that, the issue of "how can you be sure" is beyond the scope of this blog.

Oh but there is someplace elsewhere a book can be 'proven' to be supernatural in origin?

Mass murderers, it should not require pointing out, are not exhibiting the fruit of salvation, regardless of what they profess with their tongues

By this logic given the general self dishonesty inherent in your many postings and immoral acceptance of genocide far worse than Hitlers and idolatry I would have to judge you non Christian as well. Your not exactly Christ-like in your thoughts or actions.

I do not doubt Hitler was a Christian, he just wasn't a very good one. But his sins would be no worse than yours or mine. Likewise whatever he did to the jews is small time compared to what you believe is happening to them now heddle. So don't stomp on Hitler and then accept the fact the the second these non Christians died at Hitlers hand they entered into and are at this moment suffering. If you can accept and swallow that as just or remotely moral you are to far gone to even have a sane discussion of good/evil with.

I think Sastra doesn't take it far enough, from a timidity to look at the underlying intentions and morals. Sastra is correct enough to look at tactics, but is overly "fair" to missionaries.

I think you are mistaking a critique of the reasons that the missionaries are condemned with a critique of them being condemned. Without trying to put words into Sastra mouth I'd say that the point was not to be fair to missionaries but to point out that not all people who do things that "rip societies apart" are cultural imperialists. That said, I am certainly not defending missionaries, I think that missionary work is and has been historically a horrible thing. I think you are mistaking a critique of the reasons that the missionaries are condemned with a critique of them being condemned.

'"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."'

If they have never heard the truth, then they deserve to go to Hell. That's the way God works.

HEDDLE
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.

CARR
Indeed it is.

Jesus is speaking about himself in that parable.

Jesus is just about to go to Jerusalem to be crucified and resurrected, when he is asked about the kingdom of God and when it will happen.

In reply, Jesus tells a parable about somebody who is not yet a king, but is going far away, and will return as a king, with power over people.

Even the dumbest reader of the Bible can realise that the parable is about Jesus. He was the person who was going away, and was going to return.

Right. #54 got me thinking. Basically, if I catch heddle right, he's saying that ultimatly, it's up to God who gets saved and who doesn't. It doesn't matter if they're Christians, it doesn't matter if they read the scripture, it doesn't matter what they did or did not do - God decides on whatever whim if you're going to get saved or not.

So, my question is, why bother with reading the Bible and going to Church? Why bother with missionary work? If that doesn't really do anything much (since, ultimately, God decides on a whim), it's just a big old waste of time and energy.

Just doesn't make sense to me. Except, of course, if you see the whole reading the Bible, praying, evangelizing etc. as something Christians do because they think it's a nice, fun way to spend a Sunday morning. Sort of like going to the pub. Or a soccer match.
My conclusion: Christianity is just a glorified hobby horse.

Well, apparently Calvinists believe that the God of the Bible ordains not only the end (salvation) but also the means to the end (the proclamation of the gospel). So, in theory, if God ordains a person to be saved by you going out there are preaching to them, then I assume that is what you are supposed to do.

Of course, if you don't do your duty and proclaim the Gospel, does that mean the elect you neglected to evangelize are no longer elect? I would guess not, since once you're elected, I'm guessing you can be unelected. But then God would have known that you were going to refuse, so then the elect you neglected would not have been elect in the first place... erm...

So, yeah, it still makes evangelism pointless.

Now, of course, David Heddle will be back in the morning to tell us well haven't the first clue about Calvinism and to blind us with some sort of mind-twisting logic to justify the value of evangelism.

(What is OM?)

OB is the Order of the Benedictines. OM is the Order of the Molly.

coathangrrr: "I think you are mistaking a critique of the reasons that the missionaries are condemned with a critique of them being condemned. Without trying to put words into Sastra mouth I'd say that the point was not to be fair to missionaries but to point out that not all people who do things that "rip societies apart" are cultural imperialists."

I think you're interpretation of Sastra is correct (until Sastra corrects us), but you're interpretation of my critique is wrong. I'm not implying that Sastra doesn't condemn missionaries - Sastra was quite clear on that. What I do think is that Sastra's critique end at means and doesn't include ends. The end goals of missionaries demands a criticism of them that extends to their means; means that would be justifiable with different ends are not justifiable with the obvious goals of missionaries. To repeat, you may not be a cultural imperialist if the end of result of your actions is to destroy a society; but if you goal is to destroy a society, your means can be critiqued as cultural imperialism.

In serious matters, the ends are essential to judging the means. Recall the incident at Coventry in WWII, where the British allowed civilians to be bombed by the Germans in order to hide their ability to decrypt German messages. If that had been done as part of a war that the British had initiated to conquer the Germans, it would have been a monstrosity; but as a defensive tactic, it was unfortunate and sad, but necessary and therefore justifiable.

There is no universal system of laws that can judge actions free from the goals of the actors. If I'm friends with a Niugini native, and in our personal discussions about science I undermine his faith in his culture, or he undermines mine, that is not imperialism. We are equals and neither one set out with the stated goal of destroying the other's culture. But the same incident, in the context of my being a missionary who is being funded by an international organization to specifically destroy other cultures, is completely different; the goal is wrong, and the means used to reach that goal are wrong (having personal discussions regarding reality) because of that goal.

Sastra's point appears to be that one should be careful about condemning means that you yourself use, for different ends; my point is that you shouldn't be too careful, when the context of those goals completely alter the relationship of the participants. Power matters.

David Marjanović, OM

OB is the Order of the Benedictines. OM is the Order of the Molly.

Ah, I see. Thanks.

What? 103 comments and no one has quoted Pratchett yet?

Interestingly enough, the gods of the Disc have never bothered much about judging the souls of the dead, and so people only go to hell if that's where they think they deserve to go. Which they won't do if they don't know about it. This explains why it is important to shoot missionaries on sight.

Faust Eric

Well, my Missouri Synod Lutheran pastor once told me that the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were a blessing because "thousands converted to Christianity after the bombs were dropped." I never knew whether this was even true, but I was horrified to the point of muteness. I didn't even know what to say (I think I was 18 or 19 at the time). The experience certainly helped me to embrace disbelief in religion. Any god that felt that such horrors were a blessing, or any follower of such a god who felt that way, wasn't anybody I was going to have any faith in. To this day I am gobsmacked by the pastor's glibness and arrogance.

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.

Has it occurred to you that not every Christian is a Calvinist?

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?

Tacticus

Read that name again.

No, Dave[,] Heddle may be wrong, but he's not a troll.

What Dave? I didn't say he was a troll (Jason Failes just above your comment did). He clearly isn't.

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 -

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.)

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.

Sounds logical.

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.

<culture shock>

We really know nothing of them other than that they are there serving and that they pray for the people.

We don't even know what they mean by "serving", do we?

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.

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.

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.

Doesn't work. Doesn't remove the contradictions.

How do you pronounce the symbol in the heading?

Maybe don't. Maybe interpreted as a heart that is turned upside-down (and maybe impaled).

(What is OM?)

OB is the Order of the Benedictines. OM is the Order of the Molly.