Theological Quandaries 101

[Kayless]

Originally posted by Anatres:
<STRONG>@Kayless, yes it is good to see this discussion keep going without it deteriorating into a 'spam fest'. The Political-alignment thread has become quite good too even though it started out on the 'light' side (sort of ).

EDIT: Although EMINEM hasn't showed up yet either. I've read enough of him to know that he'd jump right into this with a
very strong dose of 'New Testament Fundamentalism' that would probably be the death of the thread, although he is entitled to his beliefs.
</STRONG>

The Political-alignment thread has impressed me immensely as well. It’s strange, I came here to spam and ended up earnestly debating cosmic issues. EMINEM, though he means well, often sabotages the very concepts he’s trying to uphold by being too rigid and narrow-minded. Such hidebound devotion to one’s causes is more of a hindrance then a help.

He is not alone in this, however since many conservative religious leaders have repelled potential converts by being too unwavering in their doctrine. I think it is the missionary’s job to approach others on their level, rather then expect everyone else to come to his. Attempting to relate to a person who’s views differ from your own helps you better understand their outlook and strengthen your devotion to your own principals. Excessive preaching can lead to disillusionment and even drive away your own allies and sympathizers, rather then rally them to your cause.

[ 05-15-2001: Message edited by: Kayless ]

[Weasel]

By Kayless:
Excessive preaching can lead to disillusionment and even drive away your own allies and sympathizers, rather then rally them to your cause.

This statement here is why I don't go to church anymore. The church I did go to preached..."Fire and Brimstone"

[Anatres]

(Not gone yet!)

I agree with your assessments. Of rigid thinkers. I have a problem with the concept of 'missionary-ism' though. It is my belief, brought on by reading and experience (I live in a very culturally diverse area of the country), that in a majority of cases missionaries have caused more harm than good. I also believe that the missionary ethos is too deeply rooted in pragmatism ('I have been ordaned by my God/religion to convert you'). It's a bit too self-centered for me. Every mythos has its place and it's not up to one to impose (sometimes by force of arms) one's beliefs on another culture. Whether one takes the time to 'understand' that culture or not.

[Kayless]

Alas, too many churches these days have a “with us or against us” view. I find it heartbreakingly tragic that many people who would possibly make good contributing members of a local ministry are being driven away by paranoia and overzealous posturing. Many preachers can be downright condescending to members of another faith or denomination. Belief in any form is precious and the moment anyone’s faith is trodden upon we’re all damaged.

[Rail]

@Weasel- I never understood how this could have become part of theology. Christ was not a fire-and-brimstone teacher. Shouldn't ministers try and strive to be like Him?

I've never believed God would "throw people to an eternity of firey torture" just because someone was born in a part of the world that never had "the truth". God is both merciful and just. Just. Doesn't it go to show we'll be judged according to the truth we've been given, not according to someone else's standard. A child growing up in a strictly Islamic part of the world, never hearing of christianity, shouldn't be judged off a Christian set of rules. Or vice-versa, if you're of Islamic belief. I believe at some point we'll all be given the truth. Let's say, hypothetically, at some point in this life or after, we'll all know for a fact that god exists. How will we handle that knowledge? That is what we'll be judged from. That, and how we act with the knowledge we do have.

[ 05-15-2001: Message edited by: Rail ]

[Anatres]

@Kayless; You're right. It's the intolerence of one religion for all others that really turned me off to 'organized religion'. That and the unshakable 'truth' that most Christian religions (that is my mythos) puts in the bible. And especially 'New Testament Fundamentalism'. Zoraster taught the same things that Jesus of Nazareth taught 600 years prior to his birth. Prophets are prophets I guess and 'truths' seem to hold throughout all their teachings.

[ 05-15-2001: Message edited by: Anatres ]

[Kayless]

Originally posted by Anatres:
<STRONG>I agree with your assessments. Of rigid thinkers. I have a problem with the concept of 'missionary-ism' though. It is my belief, brought on by reading and experience (I live in a very culturally diverse area of the country), that in a majority of cases missionaries have caused more harm than good. I also believe that the missionary ethos is too deeply rooted in pragmatism ('I have been ordaned by my God/religion to convert you'). It's a bit too self-centered for me. Every mythos has its place and it's not up to one to impose (sometimes by force of arms) one's beliefs on another culture. Whether one takes the time to 'understand' that culture or not.</STRONG>

I was using the term missionary rather loosely (perhaps crusader or advocate would have been a more apt term), but even so most missionaries I have met are honest well-meaning people who’s only desire is to help others (I have never encountered a proud missionary so perhaps I have been more fortunate then some). Converting others is an extremely difficult task and one that must be done with the utmost delicacy and respect.

[Rail]

Originally posted by Anatres:
<STRONG>I also believe that the missionary ethos is too deeply rooted in pragmatism ('I have been ordaned by my God/religion to convert you'). It's a bit too self-centered for me.</STRONG>

Totally agree. I do not, however, think that the idea of missionary work is bad. It depends on their motive and presentation. If they had found something they believe to be true, and it has given them great peace in their lives, then I applaud them for wanting to share that with others who are willing to listen to their beliefs and teachings. IMHO, this is how missionaries should be. They should not be out to force all others disagreeing with them into submission. They should be out looking for people who whould like to hear what they have to say. They should be ready to share, not force.

edit: or, just read Kayless' post above. I think we said about the same thing, and he was quicker.

[ 05-15-2001: Message edited by: Rail ]

[Anatres]

I just disagree with the whole concept of 'converting others'. It's not my place, in any way shape or form to, to undertake an endeavor with the sole purpose of swaying another to my belief system. That, of course, doesn't negate the free exchange of ideas. Hopefully we'll both come away with a better understanding of the other's position, culture or mythos. And if either of us chooses to incorporate some of those beliefs then so be it.

[Kayless]

Originally posted by Anatres:
<STRONG>I just disagree with the whole concept of 'converting others'. It's not my place, in any way shape or form to, to undertake an endeavor with the sole purpose of swaying another to my belief system. That, of course, doesn't negate the free exchange of ideas. Hopefully we'll both come away with a better understanding of the other's position, culture or mythos. And if either of us chooses to incorporate some of those beliefs then so be it.</STRONG>

The issue being raised is one of doctrine vs. faith. Many missionaries are there because they feel they can save the souls of others from eternal damnation, not beacuse they disapprove of other beliefs. It’s an admirable goal, regardless of whether or not you believe in what they’re preaching. I don’t approve of being contemptuous of other faiths, but I can understand why missionaries do their thing. I feel there’s an inherent nobility to their actions.

[Anatres]

@Kayless (stop already I'm trying to retire for the night! ).

But who is to say that those souls need saving? That's the presumtiousness that I disagree with.

[ 05-15-2001: Message edited by: Anatres ]

[Kayless]

I’m not saying one’s right or wrong, just that I commend missionaries for taking an active stance in their belief and trying to help others. They may very well be wrong, but they think they’re saving your immortal soul rather then sitting by and letting you slide off to hell. To me that’s the sign of someone who gives a damn about the well being of others.

P.S. Good night... again.

[ 05-15-2001: Message edited by: Kayless ]

[Rail]

I don't think it's pragmatic of them to think others' souls need saving. That is their belief! Let's speak metaphorically, for a moment. If there was a flood coming and I knew how to swim, but you didn't, I'd certainly try to teach you. The difference might be that you don't believe the flood is coming, so you think I'm just pushy. Or maybe you just don't believe my method of swimming will keep you afloat. Does that mean I really don't know how to swim? No. All it means is I tried to help you and you wouldn't accept that. Should I get offended because you don't accept what I have to teach? Absolutely not, but I would have great sorrow in your decision.

So is it with missionary work. I agree with Kayless, there's a certain nobility in the desire to better others.

That being said, however, many evil things have been done in the name of missionary work. I.E. conversion by the sword. That's why I contend that it depends on the missionary's motives and presentation.

[ 05-15-2001: Message edited by: Rail ]

[fable]

Anatres says:
But who is to say that those souls need saving?

In monotheistic religions, ever since Zorastrianism (by the way, Freddy Mercury of Queen was a Zorastrian--weird, huh? and by birth as well as choice, too), there has been the Good God, and the Evil Whatever. There has never been a monotheistic religion that hasn't granted at least a degree of power to the Evil Whatever, and felt that those souls who did not believe in the Good God were lost to the EW. Consequently, all the monotheistic faiths, to some extent, try to win back these lost souls.

Is it presumptuous? Absolutely. It shows a complete lack of respect for the beliefs of others, and a remarkable pride (in the sense of being convinced that one's own view of the universe is somehow better than the entire rest of the universe, and heir to a greater part of truth). At the same time, as has been said, it can be a noble, aspiring thing--or a vicious, brutal thing. When my wife and I were down in the Amazonas region of Venezuela about 8 years ago we were told with some bitterness by local peasants of the new Protestant missionaries who had arrived from the US. They had immediately made in-roads with the wealthier landowners, and were trying to use their influence to get local land disputes resolved in the landowners' favor. Some missionaries, eh?

Yet Mother Teresa was also a missionary, as is sometimes forgotten. She really wasn't a woman of much humanity at all, if you dispassionately view her actions, or read her words. She was doctrine Roman Catholic Church right down the hard line. But, she believed her God had taken care of the sick and the poor, and she was going to do the same, too. She was imitating him.

So are missionaries a bad thing, or a good thing, since you can't separate out the assistance from the conversions? My own inclination is to say, "a bad thing," but I'm curious how others feel.

[Kayless]

Missionary work, as with anything, can be for good or ill. Much depends on the individuals responsible for the conversion. When the afore mentioned religious intolerance or arrogant presumptions slip into missionary work then little good is apt to come from it. But many missionaries are a godsend (pardon the pun) to their particular area of the world. Settlements have been both ruined and saved by missionaries, and is little truly black or white with them (as with all things human).

[dragon wench]

I think that what bothers me about missionary work is the cultural intolerance that often accompanies it. I'm also deeply disturbed by the erosive affect that Christian missionaries have had on Indigenous peoples. Many Native groups in both Canada and the U.S (as well as elsewhere) were told by missionaries that their beliefs were both evil and false.
Even if missionary work starts out well-intentioned, it can easily lead to zealousness and intolerance. I'm not saying that all missionaries are "bad", and I know that many are genuinely appalled by the social conditions in which their potential converts exist, but I'm very cautious of any organisation that seeks to proselytise itself as the mainstay of its existence. This sort of dogmatism has spawned some of the worst atrocities in our collective history, hence my hesitant reaction towards missionary work.

[Rail]

@fable- I always thought it strange about Freddy Mercury as well. It really surprised me.

Originally posted by fable:
<STRONG>Is it presumptuous? Absolutely. It shows a complete lack of respect for the beliefs of others, and a remarkable pride (in the sense of being convinced that one's own view of the universe is somehow better than the entire rest of the universe, and heir to a greater part of truth).</STRONG>

I guess it depends upon how one acutally learns truth. It sounds like you're assuming that they are in the wrong in their beliefs. That sounds as presumptuous as them. Let's go back to my swimming analogy. Just because I really do know how to swim and you don't believe me and won't accept my teaching, doesn't mean I'm presumptuous for trying to help you. You just don't think you need it. It doesn't change the fact that I really can swim. I know this isn't a perfect analogy, but I hope you see what I mean. I think it's great that they want to share something they have found that has helped them. If you suddenly knew the "truth" of man's existence, I'd hope you'd want to share it with all of us. I'm sure you'd meet the same resistances they are meeting in disbelief, unwillingness to accept, and general apathy. Maybe one of them (churches) out there is right.

[jennabard]

when we think about missionaries, we tend to think of only christian missionarries. i don't think we can view christian missionaries with an objective eye cause we still feel it's reprecussions of european expansion all across the world. we are very bitter (or ashamed) by the heavy hands of greedy imperalism.
missionaries do serve a purpose, which is to spread an idea to as many people as possible. but of course, it's the extremists that ruin the relationship between cultures by forcing the idea on the people. but we forget that without missionaries, buddhism would not have entered china and mingled with taoism and vise versa (i've read somewhere that taoism may have influenced indian thought during the same period, maybe outcast would clarify this theory), and zen would never had exisited in japan.

i would like some opinions about a society which tried to omit religion in favor of basically worshipping the 'state,' like what russia attempted to do with communism. how it affect the people as a whole, spiritually. is the failure of communism not only a testament of a type of governments' flaws in leadership but also in the lack of freedom to worship god? are we, as the human race able to function as a whole without the concept of ritual and faith?

[Rail]

Arrgh! Double post! How does this fit into the spiritual scheme of things?

[ 05-16-2001: Message edited by: Rail ]

[Rail]

@jennabard- I think you are right. Regarding missionaries, the actions of a few have discolered the actions of the many.