4 ms·

we know that he refuses the help all the time and has for years and that they still keep asking him if he wants it. christian missionaries are completely well

by wdewind 17y ago

we know that he refuses the help all the time and has for years and that they still keep asking him if he wants it. christian missionaries are completely well intentioned, but its still proselytization as is this... would you like jesus in your life? no? what about now?

pbhjpbhj 17y ago
What's your jab at "christian missionaries" got to do with the article? The group Common Ground that is mentioned in the article have no religious affiliations mentioned on their website (after a quick scan). Vis-a-vis your OT remarks: Man A (to Suicidal man on a ledge): Would you like to come down now? Man B: No Man A: What about now? ...
- wdewind 17y ago
  no actually the conversation is going like this: A: Don't jump!! Come down! We want to help you! B: No thanks I actually live up here, and wasn't planning on jumping... A: ....Don't jump!! Come down! We want to help you! At one point does it become clear the guy isn't actually going to jump? 10 years? 15? 50? my jab at christian missionaries was a metaphor that i guess just makes sense to me, but basically was trying to illustrate that often those who look like they need help dont, and often to the response to "no thanks i dont need help" is (especially from missionaries) "oh, you just dont get what im offering, here let me explain."
  - pbhjpbhj 17y ago
    OK, so I didn't pick the perfect metaphor. For a Christian, unless you choose to have faith in Jesus and accept His sacrifice they you're going to hell. Unlike your account of someone who just likes acting suicidal on ledges hell is not to be mistaken, it is not bognor regis. Apologies for the off-topic.
jacobolus 17y ago
The Christian missionaries I know and the anthropologists and the Maxist labor organizers and the social workers have much more in common with each-other than any of them has in common with with the average middle class office worker, bishop, auto mechanic, startup founder hacker, etc. (That is, for the most part they devote their lives first to helping people, and then secondarily to broader goals.) Not only is the majority of missionary work well intentioned, but missionaries have a complex first-hand understanding of social problems small-scale and large-, and can do an incredible amount of good. (I say this as a steadfast athiest.) Christian missionary work has in the past, and sometimes continues to have, an ugly side. But unless you have some direct experience with what spending a lifetime trying to help people at an individual level is like, your blanket condemnation is neither useful nor appropriate.
- wdewind 17y ago
  Did you read the part where I literally said "christian missionaries are well intentioned"? I guess you just read the part I didn't actually write about missionaries being unable to do good work...ANYWAY: Anthropologists and the other two are very different...anthropologists mostly don't raise social movements. In fact even having their actual presence known in the field is mostly considered a downside as it affects the way people act (longer discussion not for here). Anthropologists are studiers, primarily interested with understanding and interpreting the world for others to act on. I don't think they belong in this discussion. Marxists and Christians absolutely have a TON in common. I will agree on that. I don't blanket condemn anyone who isn't pushing their views along side with the help they give. I do have very direct experience with a wide variety of Christians (from Catholics to Greek Orthodox to fundamentalist Presbyterians) and many of them did some sort of mission work. The vast majority of it had little to do with religion, but without fail they all prayed with the people they were helping and helped work towards some greater mainstay of Christian faith in the area (usually working on building some Church, repairing some Church). Unfortunately I think missionary work is inextricably about the broader goals, and it's not as clear cut as you make it out to say you are helping someone - this is a slippery slope to cultural imperialism. I obviously don't have any issue with feeding people, and helping them rebuild after disaster (widespread like war, or personal like homelessness), but take a nation like Korea. Before Americans came in it was almost entirely Buddhist. After the Korean War the Americans came in and said "hey we'll help rebuild your nation, just let us build this Church." In many cases the first generation (those who made these deals) paid little mind to the Churches, but the second generation was completely culturally slaughtered. South Korea now has a thriving economy and is between 35 and 40% fundamentalist Christian. It is now culturally necessary to be Christian in many cases to be in the upper class (the wealthy social networks are mostly Christian). So look what the trade off there was in terms of culture for stability. Is it not possible to understand that such a thing could happen on a personal scale as well? There is no moral ambiguity about feeding someone who is starving, there absolutely is when you package that food with your beliefs. You force them to compromise themselves, and I think that's neither useful nor appropriate.

by wdewind 17y ago

pbhjpbhj 17y ago

What's your jab at "christian missionaries" got to do with the article? The group Common Ground that is mentioned in the article have no religious affiliations mentioned on their website (after a quick scan). Vis-a-vis your OT remarks: Man A (to Suicidal man on a ledge): Would you like to come down now? Man B: No Man A: What about now? ...

wdewind 17y ago
no actually the conversation is going like this: A: Don't jump!! Come down! We want to help you! B: No thanks I actually live up here, and wasn't planning on jumping... A: ....Don't jump!! Come down! We want to help you! At one point does it become clear the guy isn't actually going to jump? 10 years? 15? 50? my jab at christian missionaries was a metaphor that i guess just makes sense to me, but basically was trying to illustrate that often those who look like they need help dont, and often to the response to "no thanks i dont need help" is (especially from missionaries) "oh, you just dont get what im offering, here let me explain."
- pbhjpbhj 17y ago
  OK, so I didn't pick the perfect metaphor. For a Christian, unless you choose to have faith in Jesus and accept His sacrifice they you're going to hell. Unlike your account of someone who just likes acting suicidal on ledges hell is not to be mistaken, it is not bognor regis. Apologies for the off-topic.

jacobolus 17y ago

The Christian missionaries I know and the anthropologists and the Maxist labor organizers and the social workers have much more in common with each-other than any of them has in common with with the average middle class office worker, bishop, auto mechanic, startup founder hacker, etc. (That is, for the most part they devote their lives first to helping people, and then secondarily to broader goals.) Not only is the majority of missionary work well intentioned, but missionaries have a complex first-hand understanding of social problems small-scale and large-, and can do an incredible amount of good. (I say this as a steadfast athiest.) Christian missionary work has in the past, and sometimes continues to have, an ugly side. But unless you have some direct experience with what spending a lifetime trying to help people at an individual level is like, your blanket condemnation is neither useful nor appropriate.

wdewind 17y ago
Did you read the part where I literally said "christian missionaries are well intentioned"? I guess you just read the part I didn't actually write about missionaries being unable to do good work...ANYWAY: Anthropologists and the other two are very different...anthropologists mostly don't raise social movements. In fact even having their actual presence known in the field is mostly considered a downside as it affects the way people act (longer discussion not for here). Anthropologists are studiers, primarily interested with understanding and interpreting the world for others to act on. I don't think they belong in this discussion. Marxists and Christians absolutely have a TON in common. I will agree on that. I don't blanket condemn anyone who isn't pushing their views along side with the help they give. I do have very direct experience with a wide variety of Christians (from Catholics to Greek Orthodox to fundamentalist Presbyterians) and many of them did some sort of mission work. The vast majority of it had little to do with religion, but without fail they all prayed with the people they were helping and helped work towards some greater mainstay of Christian faith in the area (usually working on building some Church, repairing some Church). Unfortunately I think missionary work is inextricably about the broader goals, and it's not as clear cut as you make it out to say you are helping someone - this is a slippery slope to cultural imperialism. I obviously don't have any issue with feeding people, and helping them rebuild after disaster (widespread like war, or personal like homelessness), but take a nation like Korea. Before Americans came in it was almost entirely Buddhist. After the Korean War the Americans came in and said "hey we'll help rebuild your nation, just let us build this Church." In many cases the first generation (those who made these deals) paid little mind to the Churches, but the second generation was completely culturally slaughtered. South Korea now has a thriving economy and is between 35 and 40% fundamentalist Christian. It is now culturally necessary to be Christian in many cases to be in the upper class (the wealthy social networks are mostly Christian). So look what the trade off there was in terms of culture for stability. Is it not possible to understand that such a thing could happen on a personal scale as well? There is no moral ambiguity about feeding someone who is starving, there absolutely is when you package that food with your beliefs. You force them to compromise themselves, and I think that's neither useful nor appropriate.