Villar perosa

I was hearing some s&@t on the news and I noticed there are things like christians childrens fucd and other hand-out organizations, but every time I hear about them they are always building churches in these small villages, and I mean always.

What I am saying is that are christians trying to use poor and desperate people to use churches on just to get more members in, because they cant get Americans to join so they look elseware?
Wether this is paranoisd or just me, use your own opinion.

Astrocloud

To my knowledge -all religions are trying to get more converts -ALWAYS.

If they don't -they end up like the Shakers -who didn't reproduce (they thought it was evil) and who pretty much kept to themselves.

Notice that there aren't many Shaker churches around anymore.

Willravel

Most selfish organizations and people try to use those who can't defend themselves.

Astrocloud

Define "Selfish"...

Most church Missions (including Muslim ones) provide food and medicine to those "backwoods" people. Are they entitled to set up shop?

If not, what exactly is their motivation for the help (the food and medications).

Bill O'Rights

I see what you're saying.

I mean...as an atheist, my motivation for helping those less fortunate than myself is purely altruistic. I mean, let's face it, one way or the other...there ain't no heaven in my future.

But a church mission...they require extra "motivation", beyond the teachings of Jesus Christ. Interesting concept.

There's a Catholic priest joke in there, somewhere. I just know there is.

__________________
"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony

"Hedonism with rules isn't hedonism at all, it's the Republican party." - JumpinJesus

It is indisputable that true beauty lies within...but a nice rack sure doesn't hurt.

Willravel

Most organizations are out there to get their piece of the pie, whether that pie be power, money, whatever... but some are willing to cross a serious line to get it, like using people who don't really want to be used, hurting people, and hurting society or the planet. Those organizations that put their own interest before the interests of other people, places, things to the point of harm are selfish.

Sure, the food and the medicine help, but red cross and other aid organizations don't force religion on people. I'll bet that most if not all these aboriginal people had their own religious beliefs, and when others show up with food and medicine, offering them with another religion....well you can see that's wrong.

The motivation is power. They convert people and they are better Christians, more powerful in the church, and the church itself grows.

Astrocloud

Or even more so, one church might even set up a mission so that they get there before another religion does. I was present when a minister mentioned that there was a muslim mission in the same part of West Africa that we were sending food. I suppose that this news was supposed to inspire parishoners to dig deep. Although I suspect that in any competition our church would win -Pork is all to popular in West Africa.

You never know -Mr O'Rights, heaven may be in your future. Just like "no afterlife" may be in mine. The reality of the situation is greater that what you and I choose to believe.


Okay, so lets say that the dominant religion in some part of West Africa is some form of ancestor worship with some voodoo thrown in for good measure. You as a somewhat civilized atheist would view this religion as laughable. What exactly is wrong with offering (idunno bribing?) an alternative religion? I mean in your belief system -it's all hooey anyways and besides christianity brings them closer to the ideas of John Locke for example.

Oh and as far as the red cross being non-religious -then what is the meaning of the red crescent and the Magen David Adom? It seems that by providing emergency assistance under (literally) a religous banner has more of an influence than one might suspect.

MuadDib

It's hardly paranoia. Evangelism has always been centered around bringing in new 'recruits' and more importantly showing the hope of salvation to the people who need that hope most, the down-trodden.

__________________
"The courts that first rode the warhorse of virtual representation into battle on the res judicata front invested their steed with near-magical properties." ~27 F.3d 751

Willravel

All religion is laughable, sure, but requiring that someone convert to get the food and medicine you're supplying is inexcusable. While I am not religious, I recognize that many people do need religion in their every day life and that forcing the to convert, whether to Christianity, Islam, or even atheism, is wrong.
Are they requiring that everyone takes a copy of the bible? No way, Jose.

MuadDib

I don't know will. Somewhat cold-hearted, sure, but inexcusable, not so much. Any institution (be it religious, governmental, ideological, or otherwise) has a right to it's own property and a right to distribute that property as it sees fit. Saying that it's inexcusable for an institution, like a religious group, to deny services, such as food, money, or other welfare, to non-converts is akin to saying that it is inexcusable for a government not to extend welfare to non-citizens or that it is inexcusable for an individual to donate to any welfare charity that asks. Of course all situations assume they can afford to give, but the point is that there is no obligation to charity so it is always excusable not to give; to some or all if one sees fit. Granted it might be somewhat slimey for a church to take advantage of someones destitution to convert them through offers of welfare, it is still charity that is pretty much freely given.

Also, from their subjective point of view I'm sure they are giving them a basic need (food/shelter) in exchange for conversion which fufills the base need of their G-d. So I would wager their argument would be that what they are doing is providing a dual charity stronger than merely giving people food. Instead they are giving people salvation in eternal life and helping them survive in this one. Now there is some humor in subjectively stepping into a highly objective world-view, but the point here is that charity is always somewhat subjective so at the point that they are aiding some and others are choosing their aid then who are we to fault them.

__________________
"The courts that first rode the warhorse of virtual representation into battle on the res judicata front invested their steed with near-magical properties." ~27 F.3d 751

Astrocloud

Who's forcing what? There is no quid pro quo. No "conversion for food". In most cases it's you can come if you want but know who's giving it to you. In other cases it's listen to a sermon and then we'll have dinner.

If you have proof of otherwise -I'd be interested in reading about it.

Willravel

That is quid pro quo. You can eat dinner, but listen to propaganda. These people, who are quite possibly unfamiliar with even the notion of propaganda, are fed. Putting food in their tummy and pouring honey in their ear is why the Christians are there. From the perspective of the missionaries, they are doing god's work, but in reality, they are working to indoctrinate innocent people.

Astrocloud

It's not always necessary that you listen when missionaries provide dinner. Sometimes it's just a mere suggestion. For example: the church that I used to go to in Waltham -would provide free dinner for homeless -sans prayer. This was a real issue to the congregation because there was a real cost in providing this mission. For example some security was needed when people were reported "shooting up" in a room aside the free dinnerplace.

The question to the congregation was should we keep providing this need or perhaps someone else is better left to do it. It's not like the church was overflowing on Sunday -just on Tuesdays which coincidently was when we had the free supper.


What you are leaving out is that people have a choice. You claim that when a church is going to a far off place that they are proselitizing "innocent people" but this really infantizes them. Again, it's the choice factor. There is no "mind control" and I'm sure that these "innocent people" are more aware of "the dangers" of religion than you give them credit for.

Willravel

People always have a choice. You can't force someone to believe in anything. I couldn't make you a Muslim if I had a knife and drugs. People can be influenced, though, and the church is damn sure experienced with that.

Ol' Man Mose

Lady Sage

To me it is a cult with more members who pay a membership fee going on a membership drive with some fringe benefits to pull in some poor unsuspecting person. Problem is, they forgot about the "special" kool-aid.

__________________
If only closed minds came with closed mouths.
Minds are like parachutes, they function best when open.
It`s Easier to Change a Condom Than a Diaper
Yes, the rumors are true... I actually AM a Witch.

bluedot

True Christians (a population that is decreasing of late) believe the Bible is their guide book. And their guide book says this:

"Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."
-Mathew 18:25

Hence a few people believe they should actually do what the Bible says and go tell everybody about Jesus. This includes the poor people. And since there is already a church on every corner for the rich people, some people are making them to help poor people.
Furthermore, they are also giving free stuff out to help those who weren't born in Hollywood. So why not start a church? Its a logical place to base an organization that mimics what Jesus did (help the poor).
Why are people so eager to bash that? Genuine kindness doesn't always mean a giant conspiracy.