Folks, I LOVE THE LORD!

[DaveC]

Ok, the way I look at it is he made us, the world... he made us free, free to feel, think, react. We may be influence by him, but not controlled like puppets by him. If he could controll us, why would he have people not believe in him? That is what I meant by he can not control us.

If this is the case, the God is not sovereign and therefore is effectively impotent.

Zing.

 

[Mrs. Edge]

Originally posted by annj
God didnt creat an imperfect world the world was perfect so were adam and eve until they disobeyed God it was this action that made them imperfect in that they fell from Gods righteous standards, and condemning us with them as their offspring

How does this make sense? "Adam and Eve were perfect UNTIL..." you are either perfect or you are not. This is exactly what I was getting at. He should have started with perfection and saved Jesus the trouble later on. Also, it all seems pretty vengeful and nasty that WE should have to suffer for what they did. (if they even existed, they sound pretty mythical to me.)

Originally posted by FizzingWhizzbees

Also...if God is supposed to be all powerful then how does the sentence "he cannot control us" make sense? I admit to knowing next to nothing about religion so please forgive me if that's a stupid question.

That's EXACTLY what I want to know.

What is the POINT of all this suffering? It doesn't change whether someone will believe or not, it's just NEEDLESS. Everyone should have the same quality of life, and that's the part that is unfair. If *I* were starving and dying of AIDS, I would certainly not be too inclined to believe that God cared about me.

 

[KhanadaRhodes]

Also how ARE you supposed to pray? Is there a specific list of prayers in some official religious language, or can you just talk to God in your head?

i usually just talk to him in my head. if i'm alone though, i'll say something out loud. i think he listens regardless.

as for iacrobat's question, i don't know really. i guess i look at it like this: there is pain and suffering in the world. jesus had to go die on the cross because we sinned in the first place, because of adam and eve. without that, we'd probably all be running around naked being totally nice to each other and everything.

so because of all this, there's sin in the world. there is enough money and food to go around, but all the people who control it are greedy. they're looking out for #1 (in this case, themselves) and if they can't make money from it (most companies only seemed to get involved in charity if they can promote it and bring in more business for them) then they won't do it. so i think it is a combination of satan and the greed he brings on people to not be more generous. i'll admit, i can be kinda greedy at times. if someone asks me for a dollar, i don't always give it to them. but yeah, that's my theory at least.

if you think you've got it all and you see pain and suffering in the world, then by all means do something. give money to local homeless shelters. if you don't have the money to donate but you've got the time, then volunteer! these places are always looking for someone to help out at soup kitchens or to even pick up trash on the streets. volunteering is one way to help do your part, and the reward lasts a lifetime. (that sounded like a commercial, i know.)

 

[agentmissa]

If this is the case, the God is not sovereign and therefore is effectively impotent.

Zing.

Thank you for putting that aspect on it. I have ideas, but usually can not even get close to the point I usually want to make. I'll just say I think he is "there" waiting for me when I am done on this playing field.

 

[agentmissa]

I'm trying to figure out the topic of this thead.

A) Do people want the readers to realize that religion is/isn't the way to help dieing/starving people.

B) To try to find someone to blame for every wronged person in the world.

C) Both A and B

 

[iacrobat]

You also miss the point that the missionary provides for BOTH physical and spiritual needs.

Even if you don't believe she needs salvation (the spiritual need), why criticize the work of the missionary? Its not like Africa is overrun with athiest organizations meeting physical needs.

No, I do understand this.

I guess I am not explaining myself. It bothers me that in order to receive physical relief, "spiritual relief" must also be accepted. In this sense the charity is conditional, it has strings.

There are "atheist" charities, Oxfam International for one, that work in Africa.

Sadly, the ultimate goal of missionary work is to save the soal, the motive is hardly pure.(to my eyes)

Though I do want to be clear. I do recognise that there are christian charities that do excellent work, and even some that don't try to convert. I don't want lump everything together.

Anitram

 

[iacrobat]

I'm trying to figure out the topic of this thead.

A) Do people want the readers to realize that religion is/isn't the way to help dieing/starving people.

B) To try to find someone to blame for every wronged person in the world.

C) Both A and B

Well, if you read from the beginning (if you haven't already) you can see how the thread has evolved.

I don't think it is either of those things, though both have come up.

I think the thread is about perspective.

Maybe that doesn't help.

 

[Saracene]

Ok, the way I look at it is he made us, the world... he made us free, free to feel, think, react. We may be influence by him, but not controlled like puppets by him. If he could controll us, why would he have people not believe in him? That is what I meant by he can not control us.

And to answer the question about the world being unjust. If he does not control us we can not blame God for the environment that we have allowed to develop.

Fair enough about humans being responsible about the environment they have developed. What about the environment God has developed though? When an earthquake buries thousands of people under the rubble, no one can possibly say it's something people have any sort of control over.

Also, this idea of free will is something that always confuses me about Christian beliefs. Because while there's a notion that we are free to act whatever way we please, there's also this idea that God has a "plan" for every one of us and everything happens according to his will and his plan. How is that not mutually exclusive?

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

It bothers me that in order to receive physical relief, "spiritual relief" must also be accepted.

I think you just summed up everything I've been trying to say in this thread in just the one sentence.

The fact remains that missionaries primary intention is to convert people to their religion, not to provide any kind of practical help to the people they're trying to convert.

I can't stand the idea, which has been articulated by some in this thread, that people living in, for example some African countries, must be "ignorant" because they don't share the same religious views as some people living in the West. I wonder how Americans would feel if people started flooding into their country, attempting to cure their "ignorance" by introducing them to a different religious belief.

 

[iacrobat]

I can't stand the idea, which has been articulated by some in this thread, that people living in, for example some African countries, must be "ignorant" because they don't share the same religious views as some people living in the West. I wonder how Americans would feel if people started flooding into their country, attempting to cure their "ignorance" by introducing them to a different religious belief.

 

[agentmissa]

Also, this idea of free will is something that always confuses me about Christian beliefs. Because while there's a notion that we are free to act whatever way we please, there's also this idea that God has a "plan" for every one of us and everything happens according to his will and his plan. How is that not mutually exclusive?

I am also confused about that myself. I don't fallow a lot of what they believe in. There are so many things like that which completely do not fit with each other. Of course maybe they use the word "plan" because it?s so vague that you could take it any way you want. It was a joke, no one hate me.

When an earthquake buries thousands of people under the rubble, no one can possibly say it's something people have any sort of control over.

I wish I knew. I'm assuming(which is bad) that the earth is free also.

I think the thread is about perspective.

Good way to sum it up... thanks.

 

[agentmissa]

I can't stand the idea, which has been articulated by some in this thread, that people living in, for example some African countries, must be "ignorant" because they don't share the same religious views as some people living in the West. I wonder how Americans would feel if people started flooding into their country, attempting to cure their "ignorance" by introducing them to a different religious belief.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

Fair enough about humans being responsible about the environment they have developed. What about the environment God has developed though? When an earthquake buries thousands of people under the rubble, no one can possibly say it's something people have any sort of control over.

Exactly.

Originally posted by Saracene
Also, this idea of free will is something that always confuses me about Christian beliefs. Because while there's a notion that we are free to act whatever way we please, there's also this idea that God has a "plan" for every one of us and everything happens according to his will and his plan. How is that not mutually exclusive?

.

That, and somebody made a point one time in a thread regarding homosexuality and free will, but it can apply to other things, too...okay, so Christians believe we all have free will, but yet some of them are willing to try and convert people who don't follow their religion, or try to turn them to heterosexuality instead of let them act on their love for somebody of the same sex, and so on and so on...would that not be them trying to take away somebody's free will?

to everything else others have been saying, too.

Angela

 

[nbcrusader]

I guess I am not explaining myself. It bothers me that in order to receive physical relief, "spiritual relief" must also be accepted. In this sense the charity is conditional, it has strings.

Missionaries do not make aid conditional or attach strings. I'm not sure why this notion keeps getting repeated. I can't imagine why someone would criticize a religious aid organization that provides unconditional physical aid. Does the message strike a nerve?

If I see someone who has an "illness" and you see no "illness" - what is wrong with me offering a cure to the "illness" I see? Does it hurt you?

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

Missionaries do not make aid conditional or attach strings. I'm not sure why this notion keeps getting repeated. I can't imagine why someone would criticize a religious aid organization that provides unconditional physical aid. Does the message strike a nerve?

They don't go there primarily to provide any kind of physical help to people. That's the point. They're not there to provide healthcare or housing or food. They're there to preach to people and convert them to their religion.

The difference between missionaries and aid agencies such as Oxfam or MSF is that missionaries are there to judge people, to say they are "ignorant" and try to convert them to a "true" religion. Aid agencies are non-judgemental, they don't go there to change people's beliefs or way of life, they have respect for people's beliefs and they go only to help people, not to attempt to convert them to a foreign religion.

If I see someone who has an "illness" and you see no "illness" - what is wrong with me offering a cure to the "illness" I see? Does it hurt you?

Your sentence just sums up this debate.

Who are you to judge that somebody is "ill" because they don't share your religion?

 

[iacrobat]

If I see someone who has an "illness" and you see no "illness" - what is wrong with me offering a cure to the "illness" I see? Does it hurt you?

This sentiment has a history of varying degrees of harm.

A current example might be trying to "straighten" homosexual members of church congregations.
I imagine it is psychologically harmful for them to be told they have an illness and need to be cured of something they innately feel.

 

[Angela Harlem]

In all fairness to crusader, I think he meant by illness not that something is wrong at all (as in sick) but a need he perceives in that person. Illness might be a bad analogy.
But I might be wrong.


Excuse the pun but that the hell happened to this thread??
I guess this is what happens when religion is moved into the friendly cafe atmosphere of FYM. Sarcasm thrown in for free.


But on with what this has evolved into, I ask this in all honesty. Why do missionaries even bother with religion in places like Africa? I know the short answer is to encourage these people on what the missionaries believe is the chosen path, but why the attempts at conversion? Do these people not seem happy enough with their admirable and contented spirituality? Can it not be respected, and these people left to continue in their own method of faith?

This bothers me. I really believe that the whole conversion thing starts off with good intentions. Naturally anyone who finds any kind of inner peace with their religion is going to want to share it with everyone, and even attempt to assist them in finding a mutual devotion of their own. But if someone has already found what works for them, why try and interfere? Why interrupt what works for them? The non religious, I can almost understand, but not people who are set and comfortable in their ways.

 

[AcrobatMan]

angela harlem,

i dont like these missionaries. they help and then they attempt to convert...sometimes they even use money, special treatment for those who convert ..false , incorrect stories.. this is one of the cheapest things that IS happening

if i could, i would ban any theocratic helping/charity and such things. these missionaries only target uneducated people who doesnot have enough food and then convert them into their religion.

if you have the guts , try converting an intellectual guy or a girl who has enough food and money into your religion or whatever.

secular help

no help - OK

help followed by religious conversion - CHEAP ..

acrobatman

 

[Ft. Worth Frog]

Pretty good discussion going on in here; it's nice seeing a discussion on religion without any personal attacks or anything of that sort. Anyways, on with the topic. I think that a lot of what is being said here leads to even bigger issues. For example, why are humans obligated to help others that are starving, sick, etc.? Seriously, if this life is all there is and beyond our lives there is an empty void, then we have no obligation to help others. We may say that helping others is the moral thing to do and that it s only fair that wealth be redistributed, but why? If we are nothing but animals who can talk and apparently reason, what is our yardstick for measuring these things? If we want to boil this down to a purely scientific level, we can say that humans are nothing more than a mass of carbon that moves and communicates. I think everyone in here will agree that such an assertion borders on cruelty. Therefore, there must be something more that drives us to want to help our fellow man. As Ivan Karamazov asserts in his debate with his brother Alyosha in The Brothers Karamazov without God anything is allowed (this is not a direct quote, but an underlying theme). This includes such things as leting people starve when things can be done, standing by and watching the cattle cars carry off your neighbors to Dachau, and rationalizing the use of gulags in communist countries around the world. Many people have said in here and other places (with good reason) that such and such should be done about his or that problem in the world. But why should they? If there is no objectivity in the world then they have no reason to follow what others believe.

About missionaries in Africa, I think that it is often out of simple ignorance about their work that assumptions are made about their work (I am not calling people ignorant, but saying that there is a lack of knowledge or information). I have met many missionaries and have found that they truly love the people they are among. They would rather live in simplicity in their village than live here in the United States because they love their work so much. They are not just walking the streets pounding their big black Bibles threatening hellfire and damnation. They do whatever they can to minister to the people whether it be in a physical or spiritual way. They do not sit and preach the wondrous ways of American life but adapt themselves to their mode of life. Also, it is now a wrong assumption that Africa is still mainly the home of native religions. The Africans themeselves are becoming missionaries to other parts of the continent because the continent is now statistically more Christian than Europe. There are many more Anglicans there than in England, and recent study has shown that the Western World will soon no longer be the traditional home of Christianity but Africa will be because of its rapid spead there (I think this is shown in the Christianity Today issue with Bono on the cover. Also check out a fairly recent Christian History issue with its focus on Christianity in Africa). Much of this is not due to Western "imperialists", but to the work of Africans. Much of the work Western missionaries do now is help African pastors gain administrative and organizational skills and open seminaries. Many African countries have a sizable Christian population such as Nigeria, Sudan, SOuth Africa, and Uganda. Their conversions do not come at the point of a gun and sometimes they convert even though they know that death or pain may result as often does in Sudan where the Muslim North is waging war against the Christian/animist South.

 

[iacrobat]

In all fairness to crusader, I think he meant by illness not that something is wrong at all (as in sick) but a need he perceives in that person. Illness might be a bad analogy.
But I might be wrong.

No maybe he didn't mean it in that sense, but I think my homosexual analogy stands. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

But that is what it boils down to in the end, NB thinks it's broke, but I don't. So thats the end of it really.

 

[AcrobatMan]

About missionaries in Africa, I think that it is often out of simple ignorance about their work that assumptions are made about their work (I am not calling people ignorant, but saying that there is a lack of knowledge or information). I have met many missionaries and have found that they truly love the people they are among. They would rather live in simplicity in their village than live here in the United States because they love their work so much.

first of all, i am not ignorant. i know a lot about these missionaries who primary aim is to convert people. Whether these guys live in simple house and big palaces is neither my problem nor my concern if they are there to convert people.

They are not just walking the streets pounding
their big black Bibles threatening hellfire and damnation.

If they can, they will do. But they are not stupid. They think they can convert more by helping and such step. This is the next step. These people are dreamer. They dream of a world where everybody is of their religion .They fantasize. . Their purpose of converting also deteriotes the harmony of the already existing society and religious equations. This is not a great thing. They use unfair, unethical, monetary means, false story to convert. Whats great about that ? Why the hell would people want to CONVERT..especially if they are poor and UNEDUCATED..just think about it..you will get the answer yourself

Their conversions do not come at the point of a gun

From the tone of this line, it looks like they do everything but using a gun.. Thats exactly I want to say..

because of its rapid spead

yeah true...looks like we are agreeing ..

Well I can write on and on but I think I'll avoid it

 

[iacrobat]

"Without God anything is possible," which implies we have moral contraints because God does exist , seems to be a relatively meaningless statement at this point for two reasons. (though I suppose it could be meant to make you stop and consider and reach the conclusion that God doesn't exist as well)

1.Well, if God exists, the statement is false because anything and everything does happen.

2.It is possible or likely that human morality is a product of evolution; as homo sapiens behaved in a certain ways flourished, and those who didn't were selected out. I am reading an eye opening book at the moment called "The Blank Slate" by Steven Pinker. I recommend it to everyone. It argues a strong case for human nature vs. the idea that we are products of our environment.

As for missionaries. I have no doubt that they love the people they minister to, and that they are wonderful people. I have no image of a fire and brimstone preacher threating eternal damnation. I do have some experience with these people. I was involved the Navigators and somewhat exposed to Campus Crusade for Christ in my university years. So I know the kind of people I am talking about.

I am just questioning the underlying motives and intentions of the mission.
I must also say that I am not sure that it would be better without Christian missionaries in Africa.

And I am not sure what saying Africans now converting other Africans means. It is only a testament that the underlying goals of Christian charity have been met.

 

[Angela Harlem]

I dont disagree with you as such iacrobat, I'm just trying to see it from his point of view.

Ft Worth Frog made a good point about ignorance or rather lack of understanding. All this might be moot if we really dont have a clear understanding of how missionaries work. Whether we're viewing it as good or bad, its very hard to know just how it really is. It would take a lot of experiencing how missionaries interact and in a very large area to be able to say with any certainty. If anyone has ever read A Man Cannot Cry, it seems this is how much of the work missionaries do is viewed. Whether it is accurate, who knows. They can't all be overbearing Quakers with nothing but educating these people on God on their agendas. That said, there is more to it than providing the basics all humans require like food and water. I agree with the sentiments in here that it is in a way out of place. I personally dont like anyone approaching me to convert me either by knocking on my door or starting up a preachy lecture on a bus. I find it so rude. To do this as a life's work kind of thing is even harder to accept. It seems so wrong.

 

[Ft. Worth Frog]

Iacrobat

I need to make a correction to my statement from Dostoyevski. I should have said "permissible" because that fits in to what he is saying a little better. Permissible conveys a much different meaning than possible.

 

[iacrobat]

Ft. Worth,

yup, that does change the meaning completely!

However, I am not sure that even that sentiment is true. If morality is evolutionary, then it would suggest it has taken shape naturally, in the context of natural selection. It is not based on revelations from heaven, but it is innate.



WHOOPS! Sorry this got posted twice, maybe a mod could delete this post!

 

[iacrobat]

Ft. Worth,

yup, that does change the meaning completely!

However, I am not sure that even that sentiment is true. If morality is evolutionary, then it would suggest it has taken shape naturally, in the context of natural selection. It is not based on revelations from heaven, but it is innate.

And AngelaHarlem, I do understand NB's perspective. I reached a point in my life where I wasn't too far away from doing missionary work myself. Of course one would have to know a lot of missionaries in a lot of contexts to get an accurate picture. Therefore, I have tried not make sweeping generalisiations about character or even say that ALL Christian charities behave in the same way.

However, I think it is not unreasonable to say that underlying motive of most Christian missionary/charity work in Africa is conversion.

 

[nbcrusader]

Your sentence just sums up this debate.

Who are you to judge that somebody is "ill" because they don't share your religion?

How can I be judging someone when "my religion" says everyone is "ill"? Isn't your statement judgmental in and of itself?

 

[Angela Harlem]

I have become awfully confused all of a sudden. I'm not sure if I was replying to you or AcrobatMan, iacrobat!...I think you were both saying things along a similar vein so...ah, I'm lost.


nbc, if your religion has passed judgement and you take the terms of the religion and follow it yourself, are you then accepting that judgement as well? I dont think that is judgemental on Fizz's behalf to then make that point. Do you agree with your religion's ascertation that these people are ill?

 

[iacrobat]

How can I be judging someone when "my religion" says everyone is "ill"? Isn't your statement judgmental in and of itself?

It is a judgement NB, you are judging everyone, but that is not necessarily a bad thing. People judge each other all the time based on different criteria.

Its just that we don't all agree on this particular judgement.

 

[nbcrusader]

It is a judgement NB, you are judging everyone, but that is not necessarily a bad thing. People judge each other all the time based on different criteria.

Is it really my judgment, or my understanding of God's judgment?

I realize we are looking at this matter from two entirely different perspectives.