Okay, before I get into it I want to say a few things. First, I know some of you have relatives who are missionaries, so please please please don't take this personally. I'm sure they are all very well-intentioned and good people. God rewards the pure of heart. Secondly, my opinions are apt to change, and if anyone has read a very long debate I've started, I do tend to modify my belief system ever so slightly. Even St. Paul admitted to being a slight bigot, so do understand that with me. Even I, in my best intentions, am not infallible. So, if you cannot accept these terms, if you cannot accept criticism of a bane of Christian (and, consequently, world) history, then don't read further.
--------------------
I seem to be a pariah amongst Christians here. I've gotten criticism for my pro-homosexual posts, first off. Yes, I often think that they are my earliest legacy in this forum, and, honestly, if it weren't for my half-assed reading of Zoomerang96's (that's deathbear to you newbies) original homosexuality vs. Christianity post, I would never have even registered likely.
Secondly, I've been attacked for my generally scathing criticism of fundamentalism, but that's inherent to my own Roman Catholic background. In fact, the Church made their own scathing attack on fundamentalism in 1987, which turned out to be far more attacking than anything I've stated. I do believe I've since moderated, as fundamentalists now have a virtual face, instead of being a nameless class of people I've never met (I also never met a fundamentalist until I was in college, but they only perpetuated my stereotypes). Of course, as conservatism is apt to say, 'Love the sinner and hate the sin.' I do reserve this adage now in my judgment of them.
Yet, even in my own religion, I've been a pariah of a different sorts. Of course, it seems to be a long-running joke that most people who grow up in Catholic schools generally becomes some far-left, agnostic radical lush; and with me going to 13 years worth of them, I can say that that is true in many instances. I can't even count on my hand--or even 10 friends' hands--the number of people I know who have fallen out of the Church for various reasons, whether it be a conflict over transubstantiation, birth control, pre-marital sex, or--my biggest contention--the ridiculousness of much of the Catholic tradition. However, it was the inevitability of living in an overwhelmingly Protestant nation: one was bound to be confused by the conflicting messages, and, almost as if it were a programming default, they shut off.
I, of all people, probably have as much of a reason, if not more of a reason, to shut off as well. Honestly, it's hard being intellectually-inclined, while still being religious. One cannot be blind to the obvious conflictions between the Bible and science, but, interestingly enough, I reconciled the two from the beginning, as the Catholic Church has, more so than many other Christian sects, made it very easy to believe in both--i.e., that you can believe in evolution if you believe that God was the one who created the evolutionary process. Of course, where I get mad is when I run into more fundamentalist Christians who try and tell me I have to choose between the two. I, of course, just shove them aside, politely, yet forcefully; but one cannot ignore the fact that not everyone is brought up like how I was, and even I have to remind myself of that in my times of misanthropism. So, what does one do when they are told explicitly that they have to choose between a restrictive creationist model and a well-held, well-respected (but not perfect) evolutionary model? Of course, they then mention that anyone who chooses evolution is "weak in faith" and will rot in hell; and, henceforth, they begin to spout some rhetoric in a lunatic tone, with a few disparate, out-of-context Biblical passages. Unfortunately, this is the reality of Christianity to those who have little background in it, and I cringe when I see yet another one of my fellow man forever turned off to, essentially, a very beautiful and deeply philosophical religion, if you actually take the time to research it.
Yet, here I am, some gay leftist political radical intellectual, and I'm probably more religious than ever. I wish I could say I was always comfortable being religious, but, often, I'm not. It's too easy to be discouraged. One moment, you find yourself reconciled, and two seconds later, the Pope calls you 'an intrinsic disorder,' Cardinal Ratzinger--that's the successor to the Inquisition to you--thinks you're to blame for the AIDS pandemic, Justice Scalia rejects anti-discrimination laws because gays are a 'disproportionately wealthy and powerful minority,' Dr. James Dobson--that's Mr. Focus on the Family to you--openly calls you 'anti-family' and 'unfit to be parents' while engaging in long discredited pseudoscience to 'change' people, and how can we forget the likes of Fred Phelps, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, (fake) Dr. Laura, Jesse Helms, Anita Bryant, George Bush, Jr., and 2/3 of the State Legislatures?
So, to answer foray's statement, "I don't understand why you oppose evangelism when you're a Christian," that is why. So why do I oppose missionaries generally? Anyone can become a 'Christian missionary'--in fact, so could I. I find myself agreeing with Pope John Paul II, who called the non-Eastern Orthodox missionaries in Russia 'vultures.' Anyway, I once ran into a Baptist minister's son, and I asked him how he could support the death penalty. He responded that it was simple: the Old Testament does say "an eye for an eye." I could only laugh to myself, as Jesus directly rebuked that statement in the New Testament. However, just imagine how "wonderful" it would be if a minister's son went abroad to spread "the Word"? Oh it looks so good on paper, but the kid doesn't even know the Bible himself! Then, he goes and he spreads this lie to a bunch of susceptible villagers, and they perpetuate the lie further. That's why I hate it. In 90% of the instances, I directly disagree with much of the missionaries' own theology, due to sloppy scholarship.
Plus, need I mention, missionaries have, either intentionally or unintentionally, caused the ruin of the people around them. The execution of the 16 Afghans is one thing, as I'm sure they've been remedially taught the value of martyrdom, but the destruction of whole cultures and civilizations is another.
In the case of the Yanomano tribe of Brazil, they are a very remote tribe in the Amazon, known for their constant state of warfare. Missionaries did not get a real good hold on these people until the last thirty years, as the Yanomano killed their first missionaries on arrival in the 1950s. However, they did eventually make good inroads. The consequences? The missionaries made them wear Western clothes, as loincloths, apparently, make God angry. Then, the missionaries also made many of them reliant on Western food, hence they don't want to hunt or gather anymore, and now they had to travel north to the government-run "food place." Now the Brazilian government wants to go in, displace them, and probably log their forest. So, we go from a "godless" self-sufficient tribe to a "Christian" government-dependent, future displaced tribe. Whether you like it or not, missionary work is often synonymous with Westernization and ethnocide (the elimination of cultures).
In short, missionaries aren't screened enough. An African Catholic Archbishop was a very bright and shining missionary, until he also embraced Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church and got married in a mass wedding. In fact, he just left his wife due to a threat of excommunication, but the people he preached to--whether through words or example--thinks that what he did was okay. Missionaries also don't visualize the consequences of their actions, which, in too many cases, leads to dependence and displacement. In more romantic visions, missionary work is just about spreading the Word of God to the "godless," and if it were just that, I'd have no problem with it. The reality is that there are too many instances of lack of Biblical understanding (the minister's son), personal crusades (the African Archbishop), and ethnocide (the Yanomano).
So now you know where I come from. You can't accuse me of not trying, at least.
Melon
------------------
?Confused by thoughts, we experience duality in life. Unencumbered by ideas, the enlightened see the one reality.? - Hui-neng (638-713)
[This message has been edited by melon (edited 08-31-2001).]
--------------------
I seem to be a pariah amongst Christians here. I've gotten criticism for my pro-homosexual posts, first off. Yes, I often think that they are my earliest legacy in this forum, and, honestly, if it weren't for my half-assed reading of Zoomerang96's (that's deathbear to you newbies) original homosexuality vs. Christianity post, I would never have even registered likely.
Secondly, I've been attacked for my generally scathing criticism of fundamentalism, but that's inherent to my own Roman Catholic background. In fact, the Church made their own scathing attack on fundamentalism in 1987, which turned out to be far more attacking than anything I've stated. I do believe I've since moderated, as fundamentalists now have a virtual face, instead of being a nameless class of people I've never met (I also never met a fundamentalist until I was in college, but they only perpetuated my stereotypes). Of course, as conservatism is apt to say, 'Love the sinner and hate the sin.' I do reserve this adage now in my judgment of them.
Yet, even in my own religion, I've been a pariah of a different sorts. Of course, it seems to be a long-running joke that most people who grow up in Catholic schools generally becomes some far-left, agnostic radical lush; and with me going to 13 years worth of them, I can say that that is true in many instances. I can't even count on my hand--or even 10 friends' hands--the number of people I know who have fallen out of the Church for various reasons, whether it be a conflict over transubstantiation, birth control, pre-marital sex, or--my biggest contention--the ridiculousness of much of the Catholic tradition. However, it was the inevitability of living in an overwhelmingly Protestant nation: one was bound to be confused by the conflicting messages, and, almost as if it were a programming default, they shut off.
I, of all people, probably have as much of a reason, if not more of a reason, to shut off as well. Honestly, it's hard being intellectually-inclined, while still being religious. One cannot be blind to the obvious conflictions between the Bible and science, but, interestingly enough, I reconciled the two from the beginning, as the Catholic Church has, more so than many other Christian sects, made it very easy to believe in both--i.e., that you can believe in evolution if you believe that God was the one who created the evolutionary process. Of course, where I get mad is when I run into more fundamentalist Christians who try and tell me I have to choose between the two. I, of course, just shove them aside, politely, yet forcefully; but one cannot ignore the fact that not everyone is brought up like how I was, and even I have to remind myself of that in my times of misanthropism. So, what does one do when they are told explicitly that they have to choose between a restrictive creationist model and a well-held, well-respected (but not perfect) evolutionary model? Of course, they then mention that anyone who chooses evolution is "weak in faith" and will rot in hell; and, henceforth, they begin to spout some rhetoric in a lunatic tone, with a few disparate, out-of-context Biblical passages. Unfortunately, this is the reality of Christianity to those who have little background in it, and I cringe when I see yet another one of my fellow man forever turned off to, essentially, a very beautiful and deeply philosophical religion, if you actually take the time to research it.
Yet, here I am, some gay leftist political radical intellectual, and I'm probably more religious than ever. I wish I could say I was always comfortable being religious, but, often, I'm not. It's too easy to be discouraged. One moment, you find yourself reconciled, and two seconds later, the Pope calls you 'an intrinsic disorder,' Cardinal Ratzinger--that's the successor to the Inquisition to you--thinks you're to blame for the AIDS pandemic, Justice Scalia rejects anti-discrimination laws because gays are a 'disproportionately wealthy and powerful minority,' Dr. James Dobson--that's Mr. Focus on the Family to you--openly calls you 'anti-family' and 'unfit to be parents' while engaging in long discredited pseudoscience to 'change' people, and how can we forget the likes of Fred Phelps, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, (fake) Dr. Laura, Jesse Helms, Anita Bryant, George Bush, Jr., and 2/3 of the State Legislatures?
So, to answer foray's statement, "I don't understand why you oppose evangelism when you're a Christian," that is why. So why do I oppose missionaries generally? Anyone can become a 'Christian missionary'--in fact, so could I. I find myself agreeing with Pope John Paul II, who called the non-Eastern Orthodox missionaries in Russia 'vultures.' Anyway, I once ran into a Baptist minister's son, and I asked him how he could support the death penalty. He responded that it was simple: the Old Testament does say "an eye for an eye." I could only laugh to myself, as Jesus directly rebuked that statement in the New Testament. However, just imagine how "wonderful" it would be if a minister's son went abroad to spread "the Word"? Oh it looks so good on paper, but the kid doesn't even know the Bible himself! Then, he goes and he spreads this lie to a bunch of susceptible villagers, and they perpetuate the lie further. That's why I hate it. In 90% of the instances, I directly disagree with much of the missionaries' own theology, due to sloppy scholarship.
Plus, need I mention, missionaries have, either intentionally or unintentionally, caused the ruin of the people around them. The execution of the 16 Afghans is one thing, as I'm sure they've been remedially taught the value of martyrdom, but the destruction of whole cultures and civilizations is another.
In the case of the Yanomano tribe of Brazil, they are a very remote tribe in the Amazon, known for their constant state of warfare. Missionaries did not get a real good hold on these people until the last thirty years, as the Yanomano killed their first missionaries on arrival in the 1950s. However, they did eventually make good inroads. The consequences? The missionaries made them wear Western clothes, as loincloths, apparently, make God angry. Then, the missionaries also made many of them reliant on Western food, hence they don't want to hunt or gather anymore, and now they had to travel north to the government-run "food place." Now the Brazilian government wants to go in, displace them, and probably log their forest. So, we go from a "godless" self-sufficient tribe to a "Christian" government-dependent, future displaced tribe. Whether you like it or not, missionary work is often synonymous with Westernization and ethnocide (the elimination of cultures).
In short, missionaries aren't screened enough. An African Catholic Archbishop was a very bright and shining missionary, until he also embraced Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church and got married in a mass wedding. In fact, he just left his wife due to a threat of excommunication, but the people he preached to--whether through words or example--thinks that what he did was okay. Missionaries also don't visualize the consequences of their actions, which, in too many cases, leads to dependence and displacement. In more romantic visions, missionary work is just about spreading the Word of God to the "godless," and if it were just that, I'd have no problem with it. The reality is that there are too many instances of lack of Biblical understanding (the minister's son), personal crusades (the African Archbishop), and ethnocide (the Yanomano).
So now you know where I come from. You can't accuse me of not trying, at least.
Melon
------------------
?Confused by thoughts, we experience duality in life. Unencumbered by ideas, the enlightened see the one reality.? - Hui-neng (638-713)
[This message has been edited by melon (edited 08-31-2001).]
