Random Religion Thread

This forum is the place to have more serious discussions about politics and religion, and your opinions thereof. Be courteous!

Moderator:Forum Administrators

Forum rules
When a registered user insults another person (user or not), nation, political group or religious group, s/he will be deprived of her/his permission to post in the forum. That user has the right to re-register one week after s/he has lost the permission. Further violations will result in longer prohibitions.

By default, you are automatically registered to post in this forum. However, users cannot post in the politics forum during the first week after registration. Users can also not make their very first post in the politics forum.

Religion?

Catholicism
26
11%
Protestantism
25
11%
Eastern Orthodox
12
5%
Judaism
6
3%
Sunni Islam
8
3%
Shiite Islam
2
1%
European Neo-Pagan
10
4%
Tribal Religion
2
1%
Hindu
2
1%
Buddhist
11
5%
Shinto
0
No votes
Atheism
77
33%
Agnostic
23
10%
Other (specify)
27
12%
Mormon
1
0%
Scientologist
0
No votes
 
Total votes: 232

księżycowy
Re: Random language thread 4

Postby księżycowy » 2017-01-25, 15:22

Huh, I could see that. But I don't recall ever hearing about it. Please do.

EDIT: A look at Wikipedia seems to suggest the opposite. That a lot of the pagan "literature" was committed to writing after the introduction of Christianity to Ireland. But, since the people who were writing these sagas, poems, etc down were monks, they inserted Christian elements into them. Which is about what I thought had taken place.

Of St Patrick's specific thoughts, however, I haven't a clue.

kevin
Language Forum Moderator
Posts:2134
Joined:2012-03-29, 11:07
Gender:male
Country:DEGermany (Deutschland)
Contact:

Re: Random language thread 4

Postby kevin » 2017-01-25, 17:14

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? Freedom of religion really means the opposite (and in conclusion protects missionary work rather than banning it).

Fortunately, international law seems to agree with interpreting freedom as... well, freedom:
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

Why are you against translating them then?

User avatar
Vlürch
Posts:943
Joined:2014-05-06, 8:42
Gender:male
Location:Roihuvuori, Helsinki
Country:FIFinland (Suomi)

Re: Random language thread 4

Postby Vlürch » 2017-01-25, 19:46

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?

Talking about religion and forcing one's religion down other people's throats are two completely different things. I even said fundamentalists should be allowed to talk about their beliefs with others in settings where all beliefs would be equal without the implication that certain ones are more true/false than others. 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. Like Aurinĭa said:
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).

In what kind of a world do you live in, where missionaries respect people's right to freedom of religion? :shock:

kevin wrote:
Religious texts should be freely available for anyone who wants them without fear of persecution

Why are you against translating them then?

How the fuck did you take that from what I said? I'm against forcing people to convert to other religions, period. 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? No offence, but I really hope you're trolling or devil's advocating or whatever, even though I somehow doubt that.

User avatar
dEhiN
Posts:6828
Joined:2013-08-18, 2:51
Real Name:David
Gender:male
Location:Toronto
Country:CACanada (Canada)
Contact:

Re: Random language thread 4

Postby dEhiN » 2017-01-25, 20:30

I think what you have here is a clashing of two different worldviews. For people who are religious and who also try to propogate their beliefs, be it passively by waiting for someone to ask them, or actively by sharing even if noone asked them to, their worldview is one of "I have something that will help all people and I want to share this, generally out of a love for others, because I believe it will better all who hear it". Technically, the definition of missionary states that it is "a person sent by a church into an area to carry on evangelism or other activities, as educational or hospital work." And the definition of evangelism states that evangelism is "the preaching or promulgation of the gospel; the work of an evangelist." While the definition of gospel states that gospel is the "glad tidings, especially concerning salvation and the kingdom of God as announced to the world by Christ." Gospel comes from the Greek euangélion meaning good news.

Of course I specifically took defintions tailored to Christianity, but my point is that Christians (and I'm pretty sure members of other religions) believe they are spreading good news. Yes, many missionaries in the past have done atrocious things. But missionary work by its very definition is not one of "let's go force people to convert to our religion, or only offer them physical/material help if they convert and deny all the rest". If you want examples of that, look up Christian-motivated charities like The Leprosy Mission Canada. My dad used to work for them, and as far I can recall, the fieldwork the global The Leprosy Mission organization does is solely health and social work.

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.

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?

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?

Of course it maybe not be that, and perhaps GRN is egocentric and assumes they know what those they are trying to evangelise to want. But as I said, there's more than one way to skin a cat. The message I heard from GRN's ED was full of stories of how they were providing recordings and such to existing Christians who didn't have many resources.
Native: (en-ca)
Active: (fr)(es)(pt-br)(ta-lk)(mi)(sq)(tl)
Inactive: (de)(ja)(yue)(oj)(id)(hu)(pl)(tr)(hi)(zh)(sv)(ko)(no)(it)(haw)(fy)(nl)(nah)(gl)(ro)(cy)(oc)(an)(sr)(en_old)(got)(sux)(grc)(la)(sgn-us)

User avatar
dEhiN
Posts:6828
Joined:2013-08-18, 2:51
Real Name:David
Gender:male
Location:Toronto
Country:CACanada (Canada)
Contact:

Re: Random language thread 4

Postby dEhiN » 2017-01-25, 20:52

Aurinĭa wrote:I also wonder what they mean with communicating the message in culturally appropriate ways. :hmm: 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".

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.

That certainly doesn't sound like Christian missionaries who are running roughshod over poor, innocent people groups who are small in number.
Native: (en-ca)
Active: (fr)(es)(pt-br)(ta-lk)(mi)(sq)(tl)
Inactive: (de)(ja)(yue)(oj)(id)(hu)(pl)(tr)(hi)(zh)(sv)(ko)(no)(it)(haw)(fy)(nl)(nah)(gl)(ro)(cy)(oc)(an)(sr)(en_old)(got)(sux)(grc)(la)(sgn-us)

User avatar
linguoboy
Posts:25540
Joined:2009-08-25, 15:11
Real Name:Da
Location:Chicago
Country:USUnited States (United States)

Re: Random language thread 4

Postby linguoboy » 2017-01-25, 21:19

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?

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?
"Richmond is a real scholar; Owen just learns languages because he can't bear not to know what other people are saying."--Margaret Lattimore on her two sons

User avatar
dEhiN
Posts:6828
Joined:2013-08-18, 2:51
Real Name:David
Gender:male
Location:Toronto
Country:CACanada (Canada)
Contact:

Re: Random language thread 4

Postby dEhiN » 2017-01-25, 21:35

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?
Native: (en-ca)
Active: (fr)(es)(pt-br)(ta-lk)(mi)(sq)(tl)
Inactive: (de)(ja)(yue)(oj)(id)(hu)(pl)(tr)(hi)(zh)(sv)(ko)(no)(it)(haw)(fy)(nl)(nah)(gl)(ro)(cy)(oc)(an)(sr)(en_old)(got)(sux)(grc)(la)(sgn-us)

User avatar
linguoboy
Posts:25540
Joined:2009-08-25, 15:11
Real Name:Da
Location:Chicago
Country:USUnited States (United States)

Re: Random language thread 4

Postby linguoboy » 2017-01-25, 21:47

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?

Is that a serious question?

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?
"Richmond is a real scholar; Owen just learns languages because he can't bear not to know what other people are saying."--Margaret Lattimore on her two sons

User avatar
Aurinĭa
Forum Administrator
Posts:3909
Joined:2008-05-14, 21:18
Country:BEBelgium (België / Belgique)

Re: Random language thread 4

Postby Aurinĭa » 2017-01-25, 22:14

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.

I did read the whole thing. I read a lot on that website. And yes, GRN was invited to speak at both times. But I still consider it disrespectful. If you, someone who openly and strongly believes in God, died, and I was invited by a family member of yours to give a speech about why I think there is no God, I'd decline, because it would be disrespectful towards you. If the mayor of your city invited a Muslim missionary to speak about why Islam is The Way in your church, that would be disrespectful towards the people who worship in that church. Now, if you had, before you died, invited me to speak about atheism, or if the worshippers at your church had invited the Muslim missionary, that'd be different. But in the two GRN cases, they weren't invited by the person who had died (prior to her death), nor were they invited by the Muslims worshipping at that Mosque.

Did the village chief actually own those grounds and rent/lend them to Muslims or did he mean it more as "I'm the village chief, what I decide happens"? What he said was "This place belongs to me, Muslims themselves are there temporarily. I wonder how someone could hurt you where they do not belong."

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.

"[W]aiting for their first chance [to hear the message]" is stated literally. It doesn't need to be implied.

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?

"Yes, there is much work to be done in 'evangelised communities' but there are still those waiting for their first chance."
It depends how they define 'evangelised communities', doesn't it? Do they define it as communities with an established church, a priest, and proper access to the bible, contrasting with communities with either few Christians, no priest, and no proper access to the bible no knowledge of Christianity, or with no Christians and no knowledge of Christianity?
Or do they define as 'evangelised communities' as communities with an established church, a priest, and proper access to the bible, as well as communities with maybe a few Christians, but no priest or proper access to the bible, contrasting with communities with no Christians and no knowledge of Christianity?

If you assume the former, your interpretation may be possible. Given the "still waiting for their first chance", however, I assumed the latter, in which case your interpretation isn't possible. Bear in mind that GNR often doesn't record the whole of the bible, but only selections, simplified stories ..., so the community likely still won't have full access to the bible.

I found another quote I don't like, about something else that might be included in the recordings.
Testimony: The story of a local person who has made the journey from death to life can have a profound effect.

I don't believe in God, so apparently I'm dead without knowing it?
I get that this imagery is not exclusive to GNR, but that doesn't mean I can't find it very distasteful.

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
Language Forum Moderator
Posts:2134
Joined:2012-03-29, 11:07
Gender:male
Country:DEGermany (Deutschland)
Contact:

Re: Random language thread 4

Postby kevin » 2017-01-25, 22:20

Vlürch wrote:Talking about religion and forcing one's religion down other people's throats are two completely different things.

Yes, and that's actually my whole point. dEhiN basically already said everything, but 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.

[quoe]I even said fundamentalists should be allowed to talk about their beliefs with others in settings where all beliefs would be equal without the implication that certain ones are more true/false than others.[/quote]
I'm afraid that this isn't going to work. If you have a belief and you are convinced of it, then you can't also accept the opposite of it as true. Both at the same time can't be true, that's just classical logic. So what you can, and should, do is accepting that someone else holds a different conviction, but you can't accept it as equally true without giving up your own conviction.

In what kind of a world do you live in, where missionaries respect people's right to freedom of religion? :shock:

In one where I know several missionaries, and a few more who went on a short-team mission, and where I have an idea of what kind of work they are or were doing.

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

I'm not sure where you got these ideas from. Missionary work is eventually about conversion, yes, but why do you think it has to be forced? (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?

What does "zero tolerance" for critical thinking or questioning even mean? Isn't about the worst thing a missionary could do to someone to stop talking with them when they bring up a critical question? And even that sounds rather counterproductive to me.

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?

Christian missionaries won't hand out a Koran to people, but if they do read it, what could the missionary do? Point a gun at them or something? (Assuming for a moment that you're right and they want them to stop reading it - which is not an assumption I'm sure I agree with.)

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?

User avatar
linguoboy
Posts:25540
Joined:2009-08-25, 15:11
Real Name:Da
Location:Chicago
Country:USUnited States (United States)

Re: Random language thread 4

Postby linguoboy » 2017-01-25, 22:21

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.

But they were all from developing countries, right?

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?

"Weaker" in what respect(s)?
"Richmond is a real scholar; Owen just learns languages because he can't bear not to know what other people are saying."--Margaret Lattimore on her two sons

User avatar
dEhiN
Posts:6828
Joined:2013-08-18, 2:51
Real Name:David
Gender:male
Location:Toronto
Country:CACanada (Canada)
Contact:

Re: Random language thread 4

Postby dEhiN » 2017-01-25, 22:27

linguoboy wrote:
dEhiN wrote:What's the power differential?

Is that a serious question?

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.

Which, by the way, seems quite egocentric at the most, or very eurocentric at the most. The idea that the West (Europe + North America) is developed while other parts of the world seems to still be hanging on despite a majority view that European colonisation did a lot of damage.

(The reference here being that the European colonisers had this view which some on here seem to be ascribing to missionaries: we know better than you and are coming to help you and show you the better way whether you like it or not. And while the West may not colonise anymore, the ideas of developed and developing seem to me to be of the same mentality.)

quote="linguoboy"]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?[/quote]
Never but there could be other reasons for that, including that their particular religion/belief system doesn't specifically tell them to go and spread their good news.
Native: (en-ca)
Active: (fr)(es)(pt-br)(ta-lk)(mi)(sq)(tl)
Inactive: (de)(ja)(yue)(oj)(id)(hu)(pl)(tr)(hi)(zh)(sv)(ko)(no)(it)(haw)(fy)(nl)(nah)(gl)(ro)(cy)(oc)(an)(sr)(en_old)(got)(sux)(grc)(la)(sgn-us)

User avatar
linguoboy
Posts:25540
Joined:2009-08-25, 15:11
Real Name:Da
Location:Chicago
Country:USUnited States (United States)

Re: Random language thread 4

Postby linguoboy » 2017-01-25, 22:37

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.

Let's start with the fact that people from the developed world can freely travel to the developing world for the purpose of doing missionary work. Let's say, for sake of argument, that worshippers of Sido did want to come to your country for the purpose of making converts. How easy would it be for them to do that?

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.

The West is absolutely still colonising the developing world. We just have different names for it now (e.g. "liberation", "regime change", "economic liberalisation").
"Richmond is a real scholar; Owen just learns languages because he can't bear not to know what other people are saying."--Margaret Lattimore on her two sons

kevin
Language Forum Moderator
Posts:2134
Joined:2012-03-29, 11:07
Gender:male
Country:DEGermany (Deutschland)
Contact:

Re: Random language thread 4

Postby kevin » 2017-01-25, 22:47

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. They are usually a member of a small minority, which can bring problems with it, especially in countries where freedom of religion doesn't really exist. 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. 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.

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.

User avatar
linguoboy
Posts:25540
Joined:2009-08-25, 15:11
Real Name:Da
Location:Chicago
Country:USUnited States (United States)

Re: Random language thread 4

Postby linguoboy » 2017-01-25, 23:16

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.

Missionaries usually go abroad completely on their own without the assistance of established missionary organisations with offices and networks of contacts in the destination countries?

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.

Given the multilingual nature of these countries, they will hardly be alone in that. Much of the time they will be speaking a lingua franca which their interlocutors had to learn as well.

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.

Being a foreigner also confers many advantages, particularly when dealing with the government. Persecution of its own citizens is an internal affair; persecution of citizens of powerful foreign countries, on the other hand, could spark an international incident and potentially lead to the loss of aid and even armed intervention. Developed countries maintain embassies abroad to secure the safety of their citizens residing or travelling there.

Being a foreigner means you're a guest in cultures where the responsibilities of being a host are often taken much more seriously than they are in developed countries. The act of hosting someone from abroad may confer prestige, moreso among those not frequently visited by outsiders. The more remote the area, the more the missionary will be seen as a curiosity, making interaction with them desirable. (In his account of doing fieldwork in rural Madagascar, E. L. Keenan talks about being paraded around from village to village by locals eager to enhance their prestige.)

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.

If the locals have any ambitions of studying or working abroad--or even in a more developed part of their own country--then it's much more to their advantage to befriend a foreign missionary than vice versa.

Missionaries will be materially better off than most of the people they live among. They might not be "rich" by home-country standards, but they can afford to travel to a remote location abroad. Very few of the people they meet will ever be privileged enough to take the same trip in reverse. (Even if they can somehow pull together the funds, they may be too bound by responsibilities to leave or too impeded by legal restrictions.)

Obviously there are a lot of variables here, but dEhiN was talking specifically about groups whose mission is contacting peoples whose languages have not been recorded or at least do not have scriptures available in them. These are not the elite of their societies; they will be disproportionately poor (i.e. subsistence level or thereabouts), rural, and remote while the missionaries sent to them will be none of those things.
"Richmond is a real scholar; Owen just learns languages because he can't bear not to know what other people are saying."--Margaret Lattimore on her two sons

vijayjohn
Language Forum Moderator
Posts:27056
Joined:2013-01-10, 8:49
Real Name:Vijay John
Gender:male
Location:Austin, Texas, USA
Country:USUnited States (United States)
Contact:

Re: Random language thread 4

Postby vijayjohn » 2017-01-26, 4:59

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.

As someone who has at least three cousins who are on various parts of the spectrum between wannabe and active missionaries, I can honestly tell you this is wrong.
you can't accept it as equally true without giving up your own conviction.

And you can't be (or continue being) a missionary if you choose to change your beliefs, right?
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?

Did you happen to read a couple of articles I linked to last night where people directly impacted by missionaries both argue that missionary work is terrorism?
Forced conversion doesn't even work, by the way. Making someone say they are a Christian doesn't make them a Christian.

Forced conversion has worked plenty of times. Just because someone isn't necessarily a Christian when they say they are doesn't mean they can't be one or end up being one in the long run. If this was not the case, then Christianity would not be the world's largest religion today. I mean, both of us even come from countries where Christianity spread through imperial conquest.
Also, why do you think that they help only those who embrace the religion? From what I can say, the opposite is true.

Sometimes they help no one.
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?

To not be killed?
Christian missionaries won't hand out a Koran to people, but if they do read it, what could the missionary do?

They can try to go in and save their souls and spread the good news. You know, like what they say they're all about. And then they can let in the military, as indeed they do at least sometimes (which in my view is already too often).
dEhiN wrote:Please explain what the power differential is you're referring to?

Who do you think is more powerful: someone who operates as part of a worldwide organization loaded with technology and supported by the American government or someone who has literally nothing to eat but sago palm?

User avatar
md0
Posts:8188
Joined:2010-08-08, 19:56
Country:DEGermany (Deutschland)
Contact:

Re: Random language thread 4

Postby md0 » 2017-01-26, 5:58

Why are we taking missionary work outside its historical context? :shock:
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.
"If you like your clause structure, you can keep your clause structure"
Stable: Cypriot Greek (el-cy)Standard Modern Greek (el)English (en) Current: Standard German (de)
Legacy: France French (fr)Japanese (ja)Standard Turkish (tr)Elementary Finnish (fi)Netherlands Dutch (nl)

User avatar
dEhiN
Posts:6828
Joined:2013-08-18, 2:51
Real Name:David
Gender:male
Location:Toronto
Country:CACanada (Canada)
Contact:

Re: Random language thread 4

Postby dEhiN » 2017-01-26, 6:02

md0 wrote:Why are we taking missionary work outside its historical context? :shock:
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.
Native: (en-ca)
Active: (fr)(es)(pt-br)(ta-lk)(mi)(sq)(tl)
Inactive: (de)(ja)(yue)(oj)(id)(hu)(pl)(tr)(hi)(zh)(sv)(ko)(no)(it)(haw)(fy)(nl)(nah)(gl)(ro)(cy)(oc)(an)(sr)(en_old)(got)(sux)(grc)(la)(sgn-us)

vijayjohn
Language Forum Moderator
Posts:27056
Joined:2013-01-10, 8:49
Real Name:Vijay John
Gender:male
Location:Austin, Texas, USA
Country:USUnited States (United States)
Contact:

Re: Random language thread 4

Postby vijayjohn » 2017-01-26, 6:09

dEhiN wrote:
md0 wrote:Why are we taking missionary work outside its historical context? :shock:
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.

Just because it didn't start with that doesn't mean we should ignore it.

User avatar
md0
Posts:8188
Joined:2010-08-08, 19:56
Country:DEGermany (Deutschland)
Contact:

Re: Random language thread 4

Postby md0 » 2017-01-26, 6:12

It was always about gaining a foothold into new territories by aligning local values with the senders values, before you show up with trade-deals, flags, and guns to back up said deals and flags.
That's been happening even before Christianity was around, with other cultural exports, I'm not focusing just on one religion.
"If you like your clause structure, you can keep your clause structure"
Stable: Cypriot Greek (el-cy)Standard Modern Greek (el)English (en) Current: Standard German (de)
Legacy: France French (fr)Japanese (ja)Standard Turkish (tr)Elementary Finnish (fi)Netherlands Dutch (nl)


Return to “Politics and Religion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests