Moderator:Forum Administrators
Vlürch wrote:If the concept of universal human rights is to exist and the equality of all people is the ultimate goal, then I believe all missionary work for any religion should be banned by international law, since it violates the already established human right of freedom of religion.
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 18
3. Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.
Religious texts should be freely available for anyone who wants them without fear of persecution
kevin wrote:Vlürch wrote:If the concept of universal human rights is to exist and the equality of all people is the ultimate goal, then I believe all missionary work for any religion should be banned by international law, since it violates the already established human right of freedom of religion.
Seriously? You think you're protecting the freedom of religion by forbidding people to talk about their religion?
Aurinĭa wrote:That presupposition that people who don't know about Christianity must necessarily be waiting to hear about Christianity... That seems very egocentric to me. We know better what these people want than they themselves do!
kevin wrote:Freedom of religion really means the opposite (and in conclusion protects missionary work rather than banning it).
kevin wrote:Religious texts should be freely available for anyone who wants them without fear of persecution
Why are you against translating them then?
http://globalrecordings.net/en/vision-mission-basis wrote:GRN is not just communicating an ordinary human message but rather the life giving word of God. Without that word, without the knowledge of Jesus Christ and the message of salvation, people are separated from God and eternally lost. GRN's greatest concern is for those who have not yet had a chance to hear that message. This includes people for whom there are no translated Scriptures and no viable local church. It may also include groups where a written Scripture or portion is available but where there are few if any who can read it or make sense of it. Yes, there is much work to be done in 'evangelised communities' but there are still those waiting for their first chance. Those small, often neglected minority language groups are GRN's highest priority.
Aurinĭa wrote:I also wonder what they mean with communicating the message in culturally appropriate ways. It's certainly not "not spreading the gospel at the funeral of a well-known adept of [local religion]", nor is it "not holding an evangelical meeting on the courtyard of a mosque".
dEhiN wrote:Based on Aurinia's logic, then if I find a really good schwarma restaurant, I should never talk about it to any of my friends unless they ask me directly "David, do you know of any good schwarma places". Because otherwise am I not being egocentric and assuming I know better what my friends want to eat than they do?
linguoboy wrote:Is the relationship between developed-world missionaries and less-integrated peoples in the developing world one of equals, like your friendships, or is there something of a power differential there?
dEhiN wrote:linguoboy wrote:Is the relationship between developed-world missionaries and less-integrated peoples in the developing world one of equals, like your friendships, or is there something of a power differential there?
What's the power differential?
dEhiN wrote:After my last reply, I revisited that page you quote, and I'm kind of surprised at you Aurinia. I thought of you as one who would read the full article and not pick out certain parts to fit your argument, or skew things. The article clearly talks about GRN being invited to speak, about how their arrival was apparently well-anticipated and even drew a crowd before they started, and about how GRN was concerned about meeting on the courtyard of a mosque, only to be told by the village chief that he owns the grounds and was approving the use by GRN.
dEhiN wrote:Also, I took a look at the quote Aurinia posted, and realized there's more than one way to skin a cat. Looking at her bolded statements from the point of view of someone with a religious worldview as I just explained:http://globalrecordings.net/en/vision-mission-basis wrote:GRN is not just communicating an ordinary human message but rather the life giving word of God. Without that word, without the knowledge of Jesus Christ and the message of salvation, people are separated from God and eternally lost. GRN's greatest concern is for those who have not yet had a chance to hear that message. This includes people for whom there are no translated Scriptures and no viable local church. It may also include groups where a written Scripture or portion is available but where there are few if any who can read it or make sense of it. Yes, there is much work to be done in 'evangelised communities' but there are still those waiting for their first chance. Those small, often neglected minority language groups are GRN's highest priority.
Her first bolded statement says to me that GRN is trying to share the Christian good news to those who have not yet heard the Christian good news. There is no implication in their statement that these people are waiting to hear the message, nor that GRN is being egocentric and assuming they know better what these people want.
Her second statement seems to imply about the egocentricism of GRN. But again, it can also be seen in a different light, which is how I see it. The quote above switches from the type of message GRN is sharing to talking about translated Scriptures and no viable church. What if the "those" referred to in Aurinia's bolded, italicized part is talking about existing Christians among these various communities who are waiting for their first chance to hear/read the book that is their foundation of faith?
Testimony: The story of a local person who has made the journey from death to life can have a profound effect.
linguoboy wrote:How often have you run into Kiwai and Toaripi missionaries on the street corners of Toronto who have journeyed here to tell you the good news about their creator god Sido?
Vlürch wrote:Talking about religion and forcing one's religion down other people's throats are two completely different things.
In what kind of a world do you live in, where missionaries respect people's right to freedom of religion?
Where I draw the line is forced conversion, which is what missionary work is all about; they may help people through education and bringing food and whatnot, but the catch is that they only help those who embrace the religion that's being promoted as part of the package with a zero tolerance for critical thinking or questioning the values that are suddenly taught as universal, even when pretty much all the people being targeted by the missionaries have themselves always had different values
You think Christian missionaries let the people they're converting to also read the Koran, the Bhagavad Gita or literally any other religious stuff than the Bible, and the same with other religions?
linguoboy wrote:Is the relationship between developed-world missionaries and less-integrated peoples in the developing world one of equals, like your friendships, or is there something of a power differential there?
Aurinĭa wrote:linguoboy wrote:How often have you run into Kiwai and Toaripi missionaries on the street corners of Toronto who have journeyed here to tell you the good news about their creator god Sido?
The only missionaries I've run into were advocating for various branches/sects of Christianity.
kevin wrote:linguoboy wrote:Is the relationship between developed-world missionaries and less-integrated peoples in the developing world one of equals, like your friendships, or is there something of a power differential there?
The missionary is a foreigner in the country and the society, so they are probably in the weaker position than the local people, I would say?
linguoboy wrote:dEhiN wrote:What's the power differential?
Is that a serious question?
dEhiN wrote:Yes, it's a serious question. Please explain what the power differential is you're referring to? Because if it's the fact that someone is going from what we call the developed world into what we call the developing world, then it seems like a power differential only because of our perspective.
dEhiN wrote:And while the West may not colonise anymore, the ideas of developed and developing seem to me to be of the same mentality.
linguoboy wrote:"Weaker" in what respect(s)?
kevin wrote:linguoboy wrote:"Weaker" in what respect(s)?
In many respects, I think. When they begin their work, they start from zero: A foreign country, new work and no social contacts yet.
kevin wrote:They often have to learn a new language before they can even think of approaching people, and even then it will be a foreign language, which leaves them in the weaker position.
kevin wrote:Then all the things that being a foreigner involves, for example being dependent on visa that the government may grant or not, each time that it needs to be renewed.
kevin wrote:Where do you see them in a stronger position than the locals? If the locals don't get along well with them, they will just walk away, so it's probably more in the missionary's interest to be friends with some locals than the other way round.
kevin wrote:the goal of missionary work as I know it is getting chances to talk about one's faith and not forcing one's religion down other people's throats.
you can't accept it as equally true without giving up your own conviction.
Missionary work is eventually about conversion, yes, but why do you think it has to be forced?
What does "zero tolerance" for critical thinking or questioning even mean?
Forced conversion doesn't even work, by the way. Making someone say they are a Christian doesn't make them a Christian.
Also, why do you think that they help only those who embrace the religion? From what I can say, the opposite is true.
Apart from just helping with their work, they try to reach new people with this work, so what would be the point in working only with those who already heard and accepted the message?
Christian missionaries won't hand out a Koran to people, but if they do read it, what could the missionary do?
dEhiN wrote:Please explain what the power differential is you're referring to?
md0 wrote:Why are we taking missionary work outside its historical context?
It's not a new thing. It was one of the main tools in the colonisers toolkit. And like linguo pointed out, colonisation efforts didn't stop in the 1950s.
dEhiN wrote:md0 wrote:Why are we taking missionary work outside its historical context?
It's not a new thing. It was one of the main tools in the colonisers toolkit. And like linguo pointed out, colonisation efforts didn't stop in the 1950s.
Which historical context? Because missionary work didn't start with colonisation, even if it was one of the main tools.
Return to “Politics and Religion”
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests