Food In One Hand... Bible In The Other - An abuse of trust

Remove all ads!

This is not anti-Christian, as I consider myself one, but I cannot help but be angry at how these so-called 'Christians' are exploiting others in the name of religion.

I thought Christian charity was about helping the less fortunate? Its now a case of "you lost your family, and we want you to lose your religion."

Jesus is always shown as a white man with an American accent these days...

Why can't these people respect others religions? Each one of us has their own path in life.

 

What does trust have to do with that?

What's the problem with losing religion? When you try to convert someone, you don't do it to rob him of his religion but to give him yours.

What I don't like, however, is sword point conversions, bribing people into converting and all such. Intimidation tactics, including those that abuse primitive fears of peasants in uncivilised regions, are also quite dubious. It's one thing to speak in terms they understand, another to use their taboos and primitive thought patterns to one's advantage in furthering a religion.

 

This is even worse than conversion by threat or bribe. They're preying on people at their weakest, when their faith is shaken and what they really need is some reassurance from their own religious leaders. We're supposed to be there to help them, not badger them about changing religions. As if they didn't have more than enough change in their lives already.

I despise the hypocrisy of 'religious' people who say that when bad things happen to them it's because "God has a plan", but when bad things happen to others it's because they are "unrighteous". Fortunately such people are few and far between (and thankfully none of them frequent this site), but clearly there are still some out there.

 

Of course, we are supposed to help them rather than push them to change their religion but we aren't there to help their religion and reinforce their religious beliefs, either.

That's perfectly valid for someone for whom all religions are equally good or bad. But it doesn't work for anyone who has a religion of his own other than perhaps a religion that isn't open to outsiders (non-universal regional religions etc).

That's indeed hypocrisy but remember what Jesus said about a man who couldn't walk from birth? Neither the sins of his own nor of his parents made it. Doing wrong things typically hits back but to claim that natural disasters happen as punishment for being unrighteous is not exactly in line with Christianity. There is such a possibility, of course, but who's the judge of that? One or another preachy guy who thinks he's oh so righteous?

Seen worse. Some of those guys can get even me jaw-dropped and I would think I had seen all kinds of absurd... You would be surprised with what adult, educated and somewhat sensible people can come up with.

 

I agree with Chevalier. Christianity, and indeed most modern religions, teach that they are the truth and only way. What's the point in listening to them if they admit to lying. Trying to change someone's religion because you believe they are wrong and will be damned for it is just fine. I certainly hope anyone who believed this about me would try. It wouldn't work, but still try. I do have a problem with people trying to bribe/force religion on people, but if they have just been failed by a false religion, why not show them the truth?

 

This is actually wherein the biggest hypocrisy lies, if you ask me. When people becomes so narrow-minded that they aren't open to see nothing but that whatever someone else believe in is different from what you believe. Saying that Hindus are bound by satans power is outright idiocy! And this Mr. Graham so clearly fails to see the many similarities in Islamic and Christian religion. Both are in the end based upon many of the same values, but have just developed in two different directions.

I actually in many ways tend to think about most religions as being hypocrisy and an affront to nature; though it does not mean that I condemn people who practice religion!

Easy to say, yet hard in practice! Imagine someone who so deeply believe that his religion is the only right one, and that his path is the one leading to true salvation. How would you explain this man that he can't go palm his believes off upon somebody? He truly believes that his path leades to true divinity and want people to be safed as he has been! Of course there's rotten apples amongst religious people, but aren't there everywhere?

One of my good friends is a polish exchange student, who's very religious. In a way that I'll never understand fully. He is by no means either narrow-minded or condemning toward what other people believe in, but yet not able to openly discuss religion if my viewpoints differs from his. I remember one time when the new pope had just appointed. I asked him how he felt about the new pope, and he was eager to explain his feelings. However as soon as I said that I would like to see a pope who was a bit less conservative, and not as affraid of discussing some of the bigger taboos, he shut down. I fully understand what triggered this, and you have to look upon peoples religious values kind of the same as if you got an idea about something, and you're so sure that you're absolutely right that you're willingly to sacrifice everything in fulfilling this idea. Most religious people really believe that their religion and none other is the right one therefore they would like the whole world to know about it, and tends to be subjective in the matter. You're on the other hand capable of being objective because you do not have any strong emotions regarding this subject. At least not in the same way as they do.

 

These people are repulsive. In the Parable of the Good Samaritan, relations between the Samaritans and the Jews were rather unfavourable. But the Robbers didn't care who the Jew was, they only cared about his money. They beat him and robbed him. Many walked by and did nothing, these were of all walks of life. But one Samaritan was different. To him, this was a person that needed assistance, and thus it was given. It mattered not that he was a Jew, only that he needed help. Is that not how these things ought to be--especially if done in the Name of Jesus Christ!

 

The trust Chev is to do with Westerners 'helping', but it would appear that certain people don't want to help, just spread their religion that is probably largely unwanted.

Maybe if they did care, and made no conditions, they would be more successful in converting people.

 

A person who makes help in hunger conditional on converting to Christianity needs to convert himself first of all.

But unwanted religion... Who cares? Unwanted by whom? If by the convertee, well, then of course. What point formally converting if there's no substance? If by his family, neighbours or rulers, then they have to put up with it. It's his choice to make and not theirs.

 

Oh, and to Cuchulain's second point about Jesus always being shown white, sorry, but Jesus was a Jew. Now I'm seriously pissed about the standard European anglo-saxon Jesus you see everywhere, but let's face it, Jesus wasn't black and he wasn't asian, he was a Jew.

 

Correct. However, He most probably didn't look like your average Jew. The line of David had way lighter hair than the rest of the populace. Both Jesus and His mother used to be depicted with light hair. The paint darkened over years and so new paintings were painted already with dark hair.

 

I saw on the History Channel that Jesus also wasn't the attractive character he's shown to be in movies. He wasn't all that pleasing to look at (which makes him more human, if you ask me).

Jesus helped people regardless of their race, gender, or beliefs. He wanted people to believe what he taught, but not through bribes or force - but through his actions.

In a perfect world, every Christian would behave EXACTLY like Jesus Christ did (but that would defeat the purpose of his sacrifice, because we'd all be sinless). However, Christians are supposed to follow his example. My impression is that if someone really wants to know what I believe, they'll ask me. Hopefully after observing how I behave first though. Christians are supposed to be representatives of Christ after all.

 

Chev, I suspect that those that are "converted" only to get assistance will go back to their old faith and their old ways when the fake Christians are gone home to feel good about themselves.

NOG: Yes, Jesus was a jew. I make no expectations on his appearance, but I should think that if I were to meed him, I would know him for who he is...

Now that Chev has spoken on that though, I should look it up in the book I have about Christ.

Cryo Mantis, you are right about the appearance. From all I've heard, he was followed not for physical beuaty, but because the people sensed that he was the promised Messiah, and the Saviour of the world. I should point out that nobody can hope to truly live up to His example, as we all are imperfect, hence the sacrifice on our behalf was mandatory so that we could return to the presence of the Father. I know that I have influenced people positively towards my faith (not converted, but they look at my faith more favourably) by trying to do what the Lord would have me do. This is a more powerful witness than words alone can be...

 

@Chev: sorry, but where did you get that about the line of David having lighter hair, and just how much lighter would it be after so many generations? Since Jesus was a Jew, it's only natural that he didn't look very different from most Israelis and even Arabs, where skin and hair color are cncerned.

Aside from that, I think there was an ancient Babylonian saying (attributed to Hamurabi, iirc) that he who slanders other creeds does his own the greatest harm.

 

Chev, I am not saying that missionaries should not attempt to convert any of the locals, but if they try and the victims still want to be Hindu's, Muslims etc, then why deny them aid and help?

Surely the point of Christianity is to help without forcing conditions upon people that have suffered enough. A simple act of kindness will have a greater effect, than the cruel practices that seem to be going on.

 

Chev:
I didn't know that about the hair color, though I'm not sure I believe it. Unlike European monarchies, the Israeli monarchies were not so eleitist about marrage and such, not only that, but the line of David was almost wiped out, so by the time it got to Jesus, I don't think it would make any difference.
Cryo:
We don't actually know anything about what Jesus looked like, there are no records, but there are several passages in the Bible that suggest He wasn't that good looking.
Cuchulainn:
Are they actually denying aid to those that don't convert? If so, that's as bad as the inquisition and such, but if not, then I don't see the problem.

 

I would say that it was rather because he turned water to wine, conjured up bread, and cured all form of decease's with naught but a touch.

They would, imho, actually send out a quite stronger message by not denying them aid despite wether they want to convert or not.

 

@Cryo Mantis: The perfect world would run out of citizens fast. While in certain matters all Christians should behave like Jesus Christ, even exactly like Him, there are matters where this is not so imperative. Jesus was a priest, for instance, and not many Christians are (not talking about universal priesthood of the faithful here... I'm talking about priesthood secundum ordinem Melchisedech (after the order of Melchisedech)). Thus the life of a perfect priest (not just cleric, mind you), no wife, certain other choices. Next comes personality. Jesus had some personality, as we all have, a temperament, a set of preferences... After all, He was also human. Some other ways are also legitimate. In the Catholic and Orthodox churches, there are saints who followed Christ's example but led quite a different life. Soldiers, earthly rulers, married people... When he was still a cardinal, Pope Benedict was asked how many ways to God there were. It was a tricky question. If he had said, "one" (i.e. the Catholic Church), he would have come across as a bull-headed conservative. If he had said, "many", he could have been labelled a liberal again, as he used to be, but this time they would have suggested he had said all religions were equally good. Instead, he replied, "as many as there are people". Those ways are all different, though they all lead through Jesus.

@Gnarff:

Acts or Letters, don't remember the exact passage.

@The Shaman:

In Samuel, David has red hair. In revelations, Mary has fair braids (Valtorta). In icons related to revelations claimed by saints, Jesus probably never has had black hair, nor Mary. Don't know if that means an ethnically foreign (non-Semite) mix-in. My mother, who got her MA in hebraistics, says she has known blond-haired Jews. I'm not sure if they were ethnically semite or not, though. Father was an artist and we talked a lot about such matters when I was a child. He said earlier paintings had lighter hair for Jesus and Mary but subsequent painters went for the dark because the paint on the old pictures had gone dark, suggesting the hair had been painted dark from the beginning. Look on some Byzantine art. More often than not, Jesus's hair is brown. They could have been painting Him like they looked themselves, but He doesn't look overly Greek.

There is wisdom in that. Pope John Paul's students, when he was still a professor, ridiculed a book by a certain non-mainstream (to put it lightly) theologian. He told them to stop and show some respected because the man had spent some time thinking about the matter and the book was the product of that time and effort thinking.

@Cuchulainn:

But of course. And any notion of soul for food barter should be avoided. I guess the missionaries forgot the evangelical scene where Jesus talked to a Samaritan woman about mundane water and the water of life that He had. They should read up.

@NOG: The line of David getting almost wiped out is by no means relevant to keeping the genes or not unless we're talking about inbreeding potential. There are various records of Jesus and Mary that haven't made it into the NT canon and there are also revelations of saints.

@olimikrig:

Prophets had done such things before Jesus and saints after. Jesus had a different "aura" because He was the source of that power. He did miracles like a god does, not like a prophet does. He also taught the law like a person with authority, not like a scholar. Remember when He said, "Blessed are you, Peter, because not the Body and Blood have shown it to you but the Father?"

 

Actually, the old saying goes: A Friend in Need is a Friend Indeed. Are we not commanded to befriend all? Therefore, they need help, then we must help where possible...

 

... 'where possible' actually should mean unconditional and neutral.

I think this episodes depict the determination of some missiaries to convert no matter what. The war for souls in Baghdad is just one more example of such an inflammatory approach, that hurts U.S. national interest, as it (a) questions U.S. policy and (b) reinforces Al Quaeda propaganda that Amercians did come to Iraq as crusaders and missionaries. Indeed, some did.

Considering recent reportings one cannot simply dismiss the two points. It is entirely possible that there might have even been quiet approaval on that by some (made extra clear, for easier consumption) in the military or even administration for that.

And it also demonstrates them misunderstanding their own Holy Bible.

This Samaritan in Jesus parable didn't try to convert that man he helped to his interpretation of Judaism either. His aid was unconditional and neutral.