Is it moral to use somebody else's crisis to prosletyze?

[Dookus]

Two instances make me ask this. First, and largest, is the stories about Christian missionaries using the tsunami as an opportunity to gain converts. Second, is elsewhere on DU, where somebody urged another poster undergoing an acute crisis to "consider getting right with God".

Personally, I find both instances incredibly offensive. Firstly, it presumes the "missionary" actually knows how to get right with God, and also knows that the subject somehow does not meet the criteria. I find it haughty, condescending and arrogant.

Is there ANY crisis where simple human decency and comfort are adequate, or must all crises be seen as an opportunity to gain souls for one's personal lord?

[Fridays Child]

1. I gotta tell you, Dookus...

I'm with you on this. If you're not specifically asked for information about your religious beliefs, it is the height of pseudo-moral arrogance to do any more than allow your good works to demonstrate those beliefs.

[MemphisTiger]

15. If the person is of an evangelical denomination

it is his/her duty to spread the word. Works based denominations, like Catholics and Episcopals, aren't as big on evangelizing. He/she is doing what they think is right. (refering to the original poster )By the way, who do you think you are by questioning their relationship with God? You haven't met them but because they don't think like you their faith is subject?

[Fridays Child]

20. You are out of line, MemphisTiger.

Who do you think you are, accusing me of questioning a stranger's "relationship with God" because because his faith differs from mine? Read my post. I said nothing of the sort.

[MemphisTiger]

27. I wasn't referring to you, I was referring to the original post that

said

Firstly, it presumes the "missionary" actually knows how to get right with God

If someone is of good faith, they know how to get right with God. You need to read the post carefully before you call me out of line.

[Fridays Child]

32. Afraid not. You responded to MY post. You need to confine your...

...responses to the comments made by the person whose post you're responding directly to. If you wish to respond to something someone else said, post directly to that person. Try applying a little common sense, if not manners.

[MemphisTiger]

34. Are you a moderator or something...

You could have said that in your previous post instead of getting defensive. The point is that I didn't attack YOU.

[Fridays Child]

39. You're pretty clueless, huh? That's okay...

You're going on ignore, now. Buh-bye.

[miss_kitty]

2. If you're there to help people who are staving, then you better only

be serving up food. I think the Lord would want it that way. I heard of some nuns who brought aid to a remote area and would not give them food or water until they'd heard the word (sorry, no link). These people were parched and starving. They got upset were near rioting and the nuns left and took their gear.

How embarassing for Jesus.

BTW Dookus, fuck you! :P Just kidding!

[Dookus]

4. lol...

I agree. Even from a perspective of trying to get results, wouldn't quiet service convince more people than preaching?

[miss_kitty]

7. I think to tie proselytising to life or death aid is wrong

if what I said actually happened, then those nuns were not doing 'the Lord's work.' And forcing someone to listen to the stories of a radically different religion while the aided are eating and drinking, merely to sustain life is beyond wrong. jmho.

[Dookus]

8. That is one of my problems with

the Salvation Army. They don't give aid freely - you have to be preached to before you get your meal.

[MemphisTiger]

16. There is no such thing as a free lunch.

Would it kill you to pray and ask God to bless the food? I think not.

[Dookus]

18. Would it kill you to fellate me?

I think not. On your knees...

See how specious that reasoning is?

[supernova]

21. lol!

Touche Dookus. :D

[MemphisTiger]

23. You said "touche" to a 3rd grade response?

[Dookus]

26. Don't be silly

a third grader would've said "blow me". "fellate me" is at least high-school level.

[MemphisTiger]

28. touche

[MemphisTiger]

22. Childish response

If you don't want to pray, don't eat. It's that simple.

[Dookus]

24. No, it's not that simple

but I hope some day you'll be forced to pray to Allah in order to receive life-sustaining food. Maybe then you'll understand.

And thank you for confirming my beliefs about evangelicals.

[MemphisTiger]

30. Okay, I'll bite (no reference to the previous post)

What is your idea about Evangelicals?

[Dookus]

31. that they will

exploit tragedy for their own self-aggrandizement.

[MemphisTiger]

33. Some will

but, I think they believe that they are using an opportunity to expose people to Jesus. Others I know wouldn't do it.

[Dookus]

35. expose them to Jesus?

you advocate forcing them to pray in order to receive sustenance. That's not exposure, it's coercion.

[MemphisTiger]

36. I guess the real question is, are they being forced to pray

or are they being asked to pray? If they are being forced, that is bad. If they are being asked, I don't see anything wrong with that.

[Dookus]

37. I know you see nothing wrong with it...

and I find your position abhorrent. You seem to believe withholding food from victims of a tragedy if they fail to pray to your god is acceptable. I find it not only unchristian, but inhuman.

In fact, I find it evil.

[MemphisTiger]

40. What I meant to include in my post is...

if they ask the victims to pray and they choose not to, they still get food. As I said before, if they are being force to pray, that is not Christian. I think I didn't express myself well in the previous post. I hope you don't find my clarified position EVIL.

[Dookus]

42. You said

"If you don't want to pray, don't eat."

You haven't clarified, you reversed your position. I'm glad for that. Your stand now is not evil, just horribly obnoxious.

[MemphisTiger]

44. Look at the previous posts above that quote

that was referring to the Salvation Army, not the victims of the tsunami. As far as the homeless, I do say no pray no eat, but they can get other meals, at least in my city they can, from other non-religious sources.

[supernova]

38. If you are desparate for food and clean water

then yes, it's bad to tell you to pray before or while you recieve aid.

You'd better thank God that you have never been that desperate. A lot of people on this planet are. If a "missionary" goes to a disaster zone and makes their priority praying before aiding or praying as the price of aiding, then they aren't helping the people or God for that matter. Proseltyzing at the expense of aid belies a meagerness of spirit that is antithetical to the teachings of Jesus.

edit: And who is to say that the people there don't *already* have a relationship with God that is important to them within the context of their culture? They are our spiritual brothers and sisters. We xtians should treat them as such.

[MemphisTiger]

41. I don't think anyone is saying they aren't already having

a relationship with God. However, these Christians are still there offering aid who didn't have to go. I know people from another church in the area that went for a week to help who paid for the trip out of their own pocket. I don't know what they did while they were there, but the stories of what they saw were horrible.

[MemphisTiger]

43. self delete

[supernova]

45. You're still looking at it from an ego base

of "well, we offered to go...."

I can imagine what they saw was horrible. Making a big deal of the sacrifice to get there isn't comperable to the the opportunity to serve a fellow human being in need. That's really all that's required. And while you're there, you can learn something too. That's a general "you", not a personal "you."

The emphasis should be on the people a person serves, not about the trials and traumas to get there.

edit: I think what prompted this thread was a story over the weekend about a couple of aid workers who when they got to their destination, were told they couldn't preach. They packed up and left. Supplies and all. This is just appalling. Sorry I don't have the link handy. And if I'm not mistaken this was the same denom that got blasted for preaching in Afghanistan too. Idiots.

[MemphisTiger]

46. I understand your point, but I think that the people I know who

went should be commended. they could have easily, said "here's your check" like many other people, but they went to try to make a difference in the small village they were helped.

[supernova]

47. Well, I'm glad they went

and did something inspiring. If they left people to their own devices philosphically, more power to them.

But see my note above. How would you respond to something like that?

[MemphisTiger]

48. If it were a prey or receive no food situation, I would be mad

but I would not prey. That's just me. I would go someplace else for food. If it were strongly suggested that I pray, but still receive food, I would still not pray and humbly accept the food.

[supernova]

49. Why force traumatized people to accept that

deal in the first place though? I don't understand this. To me, it is a great perversion of Paul's Great Commission. :shrug: As much as I loathe that term, anyway.

edit: Aid is a tricky business. You might have one aid station for every x miles, maybe, maybe not walking distance. And I understand a lot of place are still not accessible. So "going somwhere else" might not be an option. You are assuming way too much.

edit 2: In an area of scarcity, a person who has food, fresh water and medical supplies holds power. That person can either use that power generously and wisely helping all with no strings attached, or foolishly and cruely, doling it out in exchange for favors, both large and small. We have to make certain we choose wisely.

[MemphisTiger]

50. Like I said if it is a quid-pro-quo

That is bad. I still don't think asking someone nicely is out of line.

[supernova]

51. You still don't get it

see my edit about "power" above.

[MemphisTiger]

53. I "get" it

Maybe I just don't agree with you. Imagine that.

[supernova]

29. Well, you've labelled your response appropriately.

Trading food for prayers is a dirty business and not at all WWJD.

[Rabrrrrrr]

55. How assinine a response is that?

Have you read your Bible?

Did Jesus say "Go,and feed the hungry - but, make sure to preach to them first and make their reception of food contingent on whether they agree with you theologically, because if they don't, they're just being rude fuckwipes who don't deserve food."

Fuck that.

Either you go and help people and shut the fuck up about it, or you stay home.

Taking advantage of people in crisis is bullshit. And that's what this tsunami proselytizing is - taking advantage of people.

Also, any "conversion" made under duress is a bullshit conversion anyway. Did all the Jews who converted on the rack, or in the iron maiden, or over the flames, really have a conversion? I fuckin' doubt it.

A real Christian, when they see someone hungry, in pain, thirsty, suffering, etc. goes and helps, silently and quietly, and without the need for ego-gratification and such bullshit feelings as "If you don't want to pray, don't eat."

Fuckin' bullshit.

And it's assinine bullshit like that that makes Christians look like hateful, stupid ninnies.

[Zebulon]

56. Re: And that's what this tsunami proselytizing is - taking advantage of pe

Agreed. It's the spiritual equivalent of price gouging.

[miss_kitty]

19. If you don't believe, and you need the food that is being offered

as aid to sustain your life, why should you have to pray to someone else's Deity? Would you eschew your Deity for that of another to get food and water?
I'm not talking about food and water as a choice, I am speaking of food and water as a matter of life and death-eat and drink or die. So you have to prostitute yourself, your beliefs to get that food? Which is supposedly given freely?

I don't know the guy, but like I said in my earlier post, Jesus would be embarrassed by people claiming to give in His name, but requiring some sort of payment for it. From what I understand of Jesus, this was not His way. Reminds me of the Samaritan story, but I don't know if it's Old or New Testament. You know the one-he comes across some guy who is not a buddy of his-maybe a member of a tribe who is a sworn enemy of Samaritans, who has been beaten and left to die, passed up by others on the road, I think even his own kind, and the Samaritan helps him, without expectation of repayment...

[beam me up scottie]

3. Dookus, you showed incredible

restraint tonight. I had the same reaction as you, but you did the right thing saving it for another thread.
We could all learn from you.
To answer your question, IMHAO ALL proselytizing is wrong. What someone is saying is your belief is inferior.
It's arrogant, insensitive and ethically wrong. Again, IMHAO.
:thumbsup:

[notadmblnd]

5. I find it offensive too.

seems kinda uppity for one to assume another is not right with god.
I'm glad you refrained in that other thread.

[gumby]

6. Sounds like exploitation to me.

How does exploitation that satisfies the needs of the exploiter at the expense of the exploited serve as an example of "higher" enlightenment?

[saltpoint]

9. Evangelical Christians generally use Jesus' crisis to --

-- proselytize on a daily basis.

The Romans nailed the guy to a board and for over 2 thousand years the crusading impulse has exploited his pain to shove Paulist dogma down people's throats.

The last paragraph in your post is a treasure. Very nicely stated.

[Selwynn]

11. Obviously that is not the only approach to chrisitan faith.

..though I'll condede it all too frequently is.

[saltpoint]

14. Hi, Selwynn. Agreed. We could use a few more --

-- Francises and a few fewer Bishop Irenaeuses.

[Selwynn]

17. Amen. Or I should say "hear hear!" :)

Through in an Epicurus or two for good measure.

[saltpoint]

25. Yes. : )

[Selwynn]

10. Do you love me? Feed my sheep.

The short answer, in my opinion, is no. First of all - I'm not a big fan of evangelical prosletyzing at all. For one thing I feel there has to be interest and desire to even hear my perspective before any fruitful discussion can even take place.

For another thing, I'm not much of an absolutist - my faith works for me. It may, perhaps work for others. Perhaps it would work for everyone if they were willing to embrace it, but see I don't believe for a moment that I can clearly judge that. The further I stay from my own personal experience the less qualified I am to open my mouth and say anything authoritative.

If someone was searching, and seeking to talk to me, then I would share my perspective in an open an participatory way, but ultimately each individual must come to determine for himself or herslef the best and most proper course for life.

Returning to the point, I believe comfort and compassionate action always, always, always comes first. If you haven't done your best to meet those real human needs right in front of you, you have no business talking about the "love of God"

Sel

[arwalden]

12. It's Absolutely Wrong. -- It's VILE and PREDATORY!!

No Jesus, No Food.
Know Jesus, Know Food.

Those that try to "comfort" or "help" by preaching that someone must "get right with God" or that the help and food and medicine is contingent on accepting the Baby Jesus as a personal-lord-and-savior... are... in a word... DESPICABLE!!

These folks aren't trying to help, they are flattering their own egos and enjoying a fucking power trip at the expense of those in crisis.

[supernova]

13. Hell no! It's a dispicable practice

to take advantage of someone's weakest moments. I don't care what your motivations are.

Not only that, there's the idea of giving with strings attached which just really creeps me out.

[Nikia]

52. I think that some missionaries are well intentioned

And not being immoral when they prosletyze. If someone is with a Christian group distributing aid, I don't believe that there is anything wrong with stating what the organization is and what their inspiration is. I don't even think that a member of such an organization sharing their personal faith in a positive way ( such as not mentioning that other religonists are inferior, going to hell, ect.) is immoral either. They might not exactly do it with bad intentions. Some people feel that talking about their faith is an extentsion of talking about themselves and what is important to them.
It is immoral to force anyone to pray or do anything else before receiving aid.
I have never been offended by anyone preaching their religion at me in a positive way and was taught to be respective of all people's religious beliefs or lack there of.

[Rabrrrrrr]

54. No, it isn't moral

It might seem moral to them in their own worldview or sitz im Leben, but I think, and I have the audacity and ego to claim this as objective, that a time of crisis is not the time to be prosletyzing.

Crisis is the time to help, to heal, to feed, and to relieve suffering - physical, emotional, AND spiritual.

But it ain't at all the time to try to convert.

I think Jesus is sickened by people who use it as a time for conversion.

he didn't say "For when you gave a drink of water to the least of these, and made that drink conditional on whether they listened and accepted me as their savior, you did it to me."