Haiti Earthquake.

Remove all ads!

That is just seriously off and tainted by self righteousness and bigotry...

Persuade? Like in pamphlets, compulsory religious services and propaganda? Is putting crucifixes or bibles everywhere an option as well?

I dig that about overtly religious people: they all think they know the truth and that their way is the only way.

I have to state that all this is marked by a profound sense of self righteousness that I find utterly repulsive.

I understand that you consider that you're part of the elect or the chosen but you've got to take into account that according to other beliefs you're probably the one who is going to be "surprised" on J-Day.

Funny thing I thought you just did and that Catholics along with those who are "calling themselves Christians" will suffer eternal Damnation.

So helping them is just an excuse to preach then?

Sure that's compassion: pray my God and I'll give you food, renounce your faith and I'll tend your wounds.

That holier-than-thou attitude is exactly the type of mindset that fuelled religious wars, crusades and massacres throughout the ages and even today.

Do the righteous get 72 virgins as well?

 

I don't see any evidence in any news story of any missionaries from any denomination saying anything close to "we'll go over there and if they convert, we'll help them. Otherwise, we'll let the bastards starve." Talk about your straw man arguments.

Those who go over there and preach while also providing physical aid are not doing anything wrong or immoral -- they are simply providing what they perceive to be valuable aid.

Having been a missionary who wanted to share something very special to me with others, and one who never used the coercive and immoral tactics described here, I find these sorts or statements and accusations to be ill-informed at the least. They certainly do not describe all people of faith or all missionaries.

 

Being selfless you don't have an agenda, being selfless you don't expect anything in return for you help and you certainly don't expect people to convert to your creed because you've helped them.

That's just taking advantage of people who are vulnerable because they are suffering and miserable.

Of course you may see putting them on the one and only path to salvation as helping them but that is just a false sense of superiority and self righteousness that makes you so sure about being right and that you alone can save them from hellfire and damnation. What pretention and arrogance to assume to be all knowing and to dictate to others what they should believe.

Is there any other reason to be preaching if it's not to convert people to your creed?

If you don't see anything wrong or immoral with preaching as a necessary adjunct for providing help then I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that one.

EDIT: Let's take a hypothetical situation. Imagine you were in the situation that would require foreign missionaries to come and help you. Would you look kindly on these missionaries chanting foreign prayers to you while feeding you? Wouldn't you mind being treated by mullahs chanting Islamic prayers in Arabic and preaching about God and the Koran? Preaching about how it's the true and only way? I doubt that...

 

You're a doctor in a room with 50 men. Some of them have just been exposed to a lethal poison, while others haven't. You have plenty of antidote for this poison, one with no side-effects. Do you give all 50 the 'benefit of the doubt' and assume no individual was exposed, or do you give them all the antidote just in case? I don't think giving them all the antidote is 'judging', nor do I think recognizing that the substance you were told some were exposed to is a poison is 'judging'. Telling one man 'You're going to die' because he's sweating a little, which may be a sign he's been poisoned, or may just be because he's nervous, is judging.

There are seven official sacriments: baptism, confirmation, Eucharist (mass), penance/reconciliation (indulgences), extreme unction (last rights), marriage, and orders (ordination). Of these, the first 5 are considered to be necessary for salvation, as skipping them constitutes a mortal sin. The Catechism of the Catholic Church says, ""The whole liturgical life of the Church revolves around the Eucharistic sacrifice and the sacraments. There are seven sacraments in the Church: Baptism, Confirmation or Chrismation, Eucharist, Penance, Anointing of the Sick, Holy Orders, and Matrimony."

A lot of this stuff isn't taught in the ordinary Catholic education. Unless you are a priest, nun, or look for it, you may not be taught it.

Prayer is typically defined as talking to a deity or religious entity. As Mary and the Saints aren't living people (any more) I think it's safe to call any serious talking to them, especially in a religious sense, a prayer. To that end, the Rosary has 10 prayers to Mary (10 Hail Marys) to every decade.

Pope Pius XII officially designated Mary the "Queen of Heaven" and "Queen of the World." On top of that, I'd qualify any prayer to such an entity to be borderline worship. Not necessarily is, but can easily be.

Don't worry, I don't count such blends as Catholicism any more, no matter what their practicioners say.

I don't expect them to, and I think it rather worrysome (in terms of how they treat their faith) when they do, but many do.

What really worries me is the part where they say the official issuences from the Pope are equivalent in authority to the Bible, the Word of God. Doesn't that make the Pope equal in authority to God? Considering that they've contradicted each other, and even repudiated each other, I don't think you can say that they are automatically inspired by God.

This, unfortunately, happens.

I don't think there's any legitimacy to such fears. Without a massive, worldwide revival of the Catholic Church, especially among political figures, I don't think the Pope will ever see that kind of power again.

... Now you remind me this is supposed to be about Haiti? Maybe we should start our own topic.

Nothing compulsory, nor anything that violates the rights of others (such as a hotel owner's right to throw away anything you leave in the hotel room after you check out). I'm talking about talking to them, offering religious services, etc. I realize you think religion is from the Devil , but try to view this with an open mind.

I think you're entirely misunderstanding the situation. I believe the Bible is true. It describes a one and only, singular way to Salvation. Anyone who misses it, even if they agree with me on anything else, is not Saved by that definition. Anyone who meets those criteria, even if they disagree with me on everything else, is saved. I believe this is good for all mankind. That's no different than a politician believing his health plan is the only one that can really fix things, and campaigning for public support. If he holds people at gunpoint and tells them they have to say they agree, he should be put in jail (and it doesn't actually win him any support). If he's polite and honest and reasonable, no one should stop him.

Actually, that's the funny thing about Christianity. We aren't the chosen, just those who have accepted. The offer is to everyone equally. Beyond that, though, I do recognize that the Jews think we're screwed, the Muslims think we're going to hell, and the Hindus think we're going to be reincarnated as dung bettles. I just think they're wrong, like they think I'm wrong.

God judges, not me. I'm just saying it looks like a lot of people are missing the criteria.

No, it's just following two commands of Jesus at once.
1.) Spread the Gospel
2.) Love your neighbor

Bad assumption (and a highly biassed one). I never said help should be conditional on acceptance. I just said talking and helping can happen at the same time. In fact, that kind of implies that those your helping haven't accepted Christ yet.

Yes, yes it is, which is why I condemn it whenever I see it. I'd appreciate you not assuming it in me without cause, though. Not all theists are wackjobs or SOBs.

Nor do we, ever (except for the agenda). We expect people to convert because the Spirit has moved in them and they decided to answer. If they didn't decide, or the Spirit didn't move, then there's no expectation of anything. As for helping people and being selfless, everyone who does that has an agenda. In fact, doing it is an agenda itself!

No one's taking advantage. Get out of this mentality that religion is evil and we're forcing people to convert.

Again, no one's making it a necessary adjunct for anything! That's a bad assumption and you need to discard it.

Actually, no, I wouldn't. In fact, I'd be eager to share my faith with them and learn more about theirs. Speaking of being self-righteous and pretentious, how about looking in a mirror and re-reading your last few posts. So far you've assumed every religious person is out to force people to convert at gunpoint, insulted all of us for doing so, and implied that your moral compass is the absolute right while condemning us for believing ours is.

 

Which threat am I in? I swear I clicked on the earthquake one....

 

It went:
Haiti Earthquake
Haiti relief efforts
Religious relief efforts in Haiti
All religions are bad

The last two seem to have happened very quickly. Sorry about that.

 

I think it's more the voicing of concerns over religious paraphernalia being sent over when there is still a vast amount of essential basic supplies required, to save lives and stabilise the country. While comforting the mourning and spiritually lost is a noble enough and important goal - it is premature in such a situation.

 

No kidding.

Not that some of the religious stuff doesn't make for interesting reading, but it really ought to be split off into a separate thread by the mods, and leave this thread for discussion about the Earthquake.

 

@NOG: FYI I never said religion was evil, I said proselytism was bad. There is a HUGE difference. You're just trying to undermine my argument by accusing me of being anti religion -which I'm not.

 

Everyone has an agenda in life, or a goal. Doesn't make all goals or agendas somehow evil or arrogant.

In the two years I spent as a missionary, I never once took advantage of anyone. What you are talking here is utter rubbish. Again, it may describe some religious proselyters but not all of them, not by a long shot.

I see -- failing to agree with your world view makes me self-righteous, arrogant, and pretensious(sic)? My statement that I was merely seeking to share something that was special to me was, of course, a total lie because I'm a religous believer, and that by default makes me a liar. Seriously, do you even see the hypocisy of what you are saying? I never once told anyone that if they didn't believe as I did they were total fools. I shared what I believed and then they took it or left it.

To convert, yes. But you use that word in the sense of "bully, trick, force and belittle" -- that's not the way most believers (and even a lot of non-believers) see it. You are just lumping in a huge group of people with the small minority who act like jerks.

Not a necessary adjunct, but as a possible one that doens't inhibit the other.

Actually, I have an open mind and am interested in the views of others, so it wouldn't be a problem.

 

Then my experience of proselyters of any creed (and I stress any creed) is different from your own and in a sense that is a comforting thought. You may not believe me but I'd like to be proven wrong on that point. I guess whenever proselytism is concerned the more vocal groups are always the more fanatical.

Engaging in a freely accepted discussion about the meaning of life and the existence of a deity is another matter entirely. In my world view sharing is not preaching.

English is not my first language so my understanding of the word is taken from the French equivalent (prêcher from which the English word originates) and the definition from the dictionary:

Preaching in my understanding is linked to the idea of worship service. That is something that is done from the pulpit when a clergyman or a priest addresses the faithful. Outside of a congregation it seems to me to acquire different overtones.

Some religions (like Christianity) are by definition universal or oecumenical and aim at uniting all mankind under the same creed but there are just many ways to do that.

Helping others is indeed commendable. But seizing the opportunity to advertise one's view while helping others seems wrong to me. That's why I don't get the very idea of proselytism especially when it is linked to humanitarian actions.

Thus I don't see the point in sending solar-powered Bibles to Haiti. How is that going to help the people there when they're in need of basic supplies?

Not to mention the fact that Haiti is a Catholic country. Some may think of Catholics as being "godless" but that is wrong in so many ways... I'm not a Catholic myself but my family is and I was born and raised in a Catholic country. People here are not "godless" nor are they in need of preaching and I don't think that in times such as these the unfortunate people in Haiti are in need of preaching either.

 

Then I apologize. I typically associate proselytizing with religion and vice versa. Replace religion with proselytizing and my points stand.

Stick to this. I don't know what kind of nightmare proselytizers you've run into, but they are the vast minority. I wouldn't even say they're the more vocal, just that you've had some terrible experiences.

It's not so much world view as definition. In most settings, sharing is a perfectly acceptable form of preaching/proselytizing. It's far from the only form, but in a casual/non-religious setting (i.e. relief workers helping people in a disaster area) it's typical.

That's formal preaching, and still doesn't imply force in any way, but not likely to be what's happening in Haiti very much. Someone over there may set up a make-shift area to hold a sermon or prayer service in every evening (after the work is done), but that's it.

Ultimately, yes, that is the Christian mission. Well, not so much unite as share the Gospel (i.e. make sure they know and have made their own decision). Remember, though, that you can't actually force belief or faith. Only pretend-faith.

I think it's a perfect oportunity, especially when you're there because you're religion says you should be.

Here I agree with you. It was a stupid idea, and a bunch of idiots approved it.

There are so many ways to disagree with this.
1.) I guarantee you the Muslims think you're godless, and probably the Buddhists, too.
2.) Again, people may identify themselves as Catholic, but that doesn't mean they really are. This area of the world is rife with local religions that have taken on the guise of Catholicism to survive persecution.
3.) Even Christians need encouragement, especially in times of loss and trouble. Haiti is going through a lot of pain, both for individuals and as communities, and dealing with a lot of loss. Many people, especially those who are already religious, seek consolation through prayer services. On top of that, we've already heard of dozens of stories of such services (performed by local priests/pastors so far, not aid workers) bringing together shattered communities, helping people to connect, and helping to isolate who needs what where.

Speaking of which, since this is supposed to be about Haiti, I think times like this bring out both the best and worst in a community. I haven't heard of any of the worst, and we'll see if anything comes out at all, but we've seen plenty of the best.

 

Some people (not me) probably think that tending to the people's spiritual needs in a time of crisis IS a "basic" need.... though I've got to say that "solar powered Bibles" seems a little silly. Why not just send in a plane-load of volunteer priests who can do both "practical" labor and provide spiritual relief and guidance?

 

1) I'm probably godless but that's beside the point. Many persons will label entire religions as "godless" or infidels because they don't share their beliefs. IMO that's just the sign of bigotry. It's certainly not a very enlightened view nor a sign of tolerance. It is my understanding however that revealed religions or Abrahamic religions in theory revere the same God. So for a Muslim to label a Christian or a Jew as godless would be to deny the basic assumption that they do in fact share the same God, the God of Abraham. Buddhism is an entirely different path (the word path is very adequate) and the idea of the Godhead is quite different from a Judeo-Christian perspective.

2) Shouldn't they have a right to free religion? If they don't embrace the dogma or have a different take on rituals and liturgy does that make them less worthy of respect? Does it make them "godless"? Who are we to judge their religious practices? I don't know if you bear a particular grudge towards Catholicism but there are many examples of deviations from the dogma or common practices in other religions (and that includes many Christian Churches). Religious syncretism is at the core of most religions.

3) That's quite correct, religion can bring solace in times of need to those who have faith. But in my opinion there is a major difference when services are conducted by local priests who naturally attend to their flocks and not by foreign missionaries who don't share the same religion.

Actually that would be a much better idea indeed.

Still, there is a major difference between bringing comfort to Christians in Haiti and trying to sway them from the "evil" of Catholicism.

Interestingly enough the word 'religion' itself comes from the Latin religare meaning to tie, to bind. It should be meant to bring people together, something that could be of use in times of need such as these.


***


EDIT - It has come to my attention that some people think that I've displayed "pure, unadulterated hate"... so to the ones concerned I'll say this, I do hate fanatics:

"The monster , fanaticism, still exists, and whoever seeks after truth will run the risk of being persecuted." Voltaire.

 

Whosa whasa? What does this have to do with my comments about you judging people? I was referencing the part where you were supposing how God might mete out divine punishment on Judgement Day. That's judging people. I mean, really, unless your nickname is self-referential, who are you to suppose such?

 

There's nothing either tolerant or intolerant about it. Tolerance would be what you do with that belief. As for bigotry, again, you're making vast assumptions. For a Christian to believe that a Buddhist doesn't know the One True God is belief. To believe that they're callous, primitive, child-sacrificing hethens because of it is bigotry. Don't confuse the two.

There are differing opinions about that, depending on who you ask, but you're right that Islam probably wasn't the best example. Shinto would be better.

Again, who's talking about lack of respect or interfering with freedom of religion? I'm talking about going there and talking to anyone who's willing to listen, not pumping it into their bedrooms via a PA system.

The local ministers would be more effective, but they may not be in much of a condition to do much themselves, or in sufficient numbers. Even ministers need to be ministered to some times.

I think it's your tendency to assume fanaticism whenever you see religion/proselytizing that won you that remark.

Sorry, I think I misunderstood your misunderstanding.

I think we may be getting into a definition problem again, only this time it's one common to English. In English, judging* and judging** are the same word (not that that helps much). In Greek and Hebrew, there are two different words, one for meteing out punishment, and the other for determining guilt or innocence. The first is for God and God alone to do. The second, however, is often encouraged in both Jews and Christians. You're supposed to look at what's going on around you, look at the criteria God gives you, and figure out if the two match up. That's judging**, and it's what I'm doing, but it's not judging*. I don't know if that helped any. Anyway, I'm looking at the evidence I see, looking at the criteria I know, and pointing out when they don't look like they match up.

 

I think I would like your world NOG. It's a bit small, but I imagine it's quite cozy.

 

There is a difference between religion and proselytism but I understand that you don't discriminate.

I'll skip the bit in which you called Catholics "godless" since bashing Catholics is definitely not a sign of hatred (provided you don't forget to pick the right smiley).

On a more serious note, what about that post of yours on the first page:

It's been pointed out already that although you may claim you're not judging you are indeed just doing that and in your view only the persons who embrace the very same dogma you yourself embrace are worthy of Salvation.

Believing this may be part of your creed but you shouldn't be offended when people state that this is a rather extreme take on Christianity as most Christians probably don't deem the majority of other Christians to be unworthy of Salvation.

Then again you're probably going to point out that the majority of Christians are only "calling themselves Christians" and are not true believers.

Back on topic:

That's really bad.

 

This is the kind of thing that concerns me about this situation -- the children being kidnapped and trafficked is but one example of the kind of opportunistic crap that some dirtbag criminals will pull. And I'm not talking about Haitian victims who commit crimes in order to survice, I'm talking about outsiders who swoop in like vultures on a dead carcass, siphoning resources and vitality from people who are already on death's door. Such criminals push my blood pressure nearly over the boiling point.

Going back to the whole proselyting thing . . .

To be fair, there are some proselyters out there (some from my own faith, even!) who are first class, disrespectful douchebags. They totally match Caradhras' description. My contention is that not all -- not even a lot -- of the people who proselyte for their religion fall into that category. The Bible givers may make us shake our heads, and I think they have a slight problem in terms of priorities, but I am not willing to clump them in with the real bastards until they do something really ignorant, like kicking a non-believer out of a hospital or something. Until that sort of data reaches my desk, I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.

 

Well, my religion explicitly demands proselytism, so they're closely linked in my mind. I realize not all religions do, though.

Caradhas, the 'godless Catholics ' bit was a joke. I don't believe that Catholics are godless at all, just having the appearance of idolatry and overly obsessed with ceremony.

In simplist form, Christianity is the belief that we are "saved by grace, through faith (in Jesus Christ), and not of ourselves." I believe anyone who doesn't have final faith in Jesus will, quite sadly, go to Hell. I see a lot of Catholics who put their faith in ceremonies and acts of contrition (Hail Mary, full of grace and the like), rather than in Jesus. The official stance of the Catholic Church, while vocally condemning such faith, also actively encourages it. From this I deduce that a great many Catholics will, sadly, be surprised when they reach Judgement. I'm not about to say which Catholics, and that's what I said when I said I wouldn't judge who's who, but it looks to me like there will be more than a few. Furthermore, a lot of Protestant Christians in America today (don't know about elsewhere) are what I generally call 'Churchians'. They go to church because it's tradition and it's how they grew up, and maybe tithing or singing or sitting through a boring speech each week (or less often) will save them. Or, maybe they don't really believe any of it, and just go there to socialize. These people aren't saved. Again, I'm not about to come out and say, "Jack's going to hell", but I'm sure there are more than a few.

... Actually, most Christians who know much about the religion would say exactly that, about other religions, about other denominations, and about themselves. We're all unworthy, that's why it's called grace.

I never said the majority, I said 'most Protestant denominations have such members'. There are a few that I believe will entirely go to Hell, like LDS, sadly, and a few that I doubt have any that attend out of habit (radicals), but most have some members who just go to church and don't actually believe anything. This isn't me being sceptical about their teachings, just about the actual reason the average member is there. I include my own denomination in there.

I remember hearing about something similar happening in some African nation after one of their civil wars. It's terrible the way some people take advantage of such a crisis.

It's not exactly the same thing, but this reminds me of the scam artists who swarmed around New Orleans after Katrina. It really makes me sick.