Maybe a change in religion would generate a backbone in France.
Lutherans, among other groups, are sending missionaries to Poland, which is arguably the most religious nation in Europe. But Poles are not really Christians of course – they’re almost universally Catholic.
Well, color me edumacated on the subject, then! I’ll set my default assumptions to ‘skeptical’ on matters of missionary work from here on out.
I guess I should have known better, coming from an area deeply steeped in Calvinism, where deeds are considered irrelevant to salvation.
Gosh yes, what a wonderful idea. Let’s hope they get God properly - hopefully this will prompt them to start a war of agression, something they haven’t done for years now.
Why would this be foolish to suggest? If all Christians spent their mission efforts in Third World, working to help the poor and the sickly, I might not be any more convinced of the truth of their religion; but I’d definitely be more convinced of the sincerity of their desire to follow Jesus’ commandment: “Love one another.”
“Make disciples of all nations” doesn’t really strike me as a particularly Christian message. Stalin preached essentially the same thing. I am no Christian, but from what I have read of Jesus’ teachings, it seems as though helping the underprivileged was more important to him than conquering the world. When asked directly how to earn eternal life, Jesus didn’t say to preach to others, or to give money to his disciples; he said to give to the poor.
Who was the stricken man’s neighbor?
Eureka said that these deeds were important for demonstrating one’s faith. He didn’t say that they were required for salvation. There’s a difference.
I should say that the only Christian missionaries I’ve encountered recently were a Thai group from Chiang Mai, helping with tsunami reconstruction. A mixture of nationalities, these people were simply superb, the absolute salt of the earth. Committed, kind, gentle, hard working and they would only mention faith if asked. They certainly led by deed, and I salute them.
Because the purpose is not specfically to convince you, Terrifel, of the nobility of their cause. Rather, their purpose is to accomplish the greatest amount of spiritual good that they can. I listed several reasons why certain organizations or individuals might be able to accomplish more good in France, than say, Botswana.
And if somebody had claimed that Christianity was the only worldview that preached such a message, your objection would have more weight. With all due respect though, nobody said such a thing.
Besides, who cares if this message isn’t exclusive to Christianity? The point is that Jesus commanded his church to make disciples of all nations… period. Even if we accept that Stalin said the same thing, it doesn’t invalidate Christ’s command.
Cite, please? I’m quite certain that Jesus said no such thing.
Besides, nobody said that these missionaries were preaching in order to earn eternal life. Rather, they do so because of their commitment to their faith. Once again, there’s a critical difference.
Especially since He, ya know, said it first.
Actually, by your own earlier argument, the purpose is specifically to convince me. “Make disciples of all nations,” remember? Guess what: I happen to live in a nation.
I take it that “spiritual good” is just another way of saying “make disciples of all nations,” rather than helping the less fortunate in any tangible way. Obviously physical aid wouldn’t have any spiritual effect, I see that now.
You seem to regard it as the defining message of Christianity, though. It certainly seems to trump helping the poor.
Good point. Now, is there any other way to distinguish Christianity from Stalinism? Do their respective adherents behave any differently at all? Are they expected to?
Well, then I guess he didn’t. Like I said, I am no Christian. I was looking at Matthew 19:21-- “Jesus said unto him, if thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou wilt have treasure in heaven; and go and follow me.”
I misinterpreted the passage to mean, “Jesus said unto him, if thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou wilt have treasure in heaven; and go and follow me.”
On second reading I now see that it really means: “Jesus said unto him, if thou wilt be perfect, go and make disciples of all nations, and sell that thou hast, and give it unto me and my disciples, and go and follow me.” Sorry for the error; I’m using the King James version here.
Who was the stricken man’s neighbor?
I think it’s great. The more money they spend elsewhere, the less they spend on ruining the US government.
.
But you are not “all nations.” You’re not even A nation, as you surely know.
Please don’t pretend that you don’t see a difference. Why should missionaries give up on France just to satisfy an SDMB poster named Terrifel?
Please stop twisting my words around.
I did NOT say that “physical aid wouldn’t have any spiritual effect,” nor did I even remotely suggest such a thing. Rather, I said that there are valid reasons why missionaries would choose to serve in both the First World and in developing nations.
You know this full well, so please don’t pretend otherwise.
Please don’t play dumb. You know full well that there are a great many differences between Christianity and Stalinism.
None of that is relevant to the discussion at hand, though. The point is that Christianity **commands ** its people to make disciples of all nations. What Stalinism teaches has no bearing on that command. Or did Christ’s command suddenly disappear just because Stalin (supposedly) echoed it centuries later?
Unless you can demonstrate how Stalin’s words somehow invalidate those of Christ – that they are somehow relevant to this topic – I suggest that you stop dragging Stalinism into this discussion.
None of which says that this is what the young man must to in order to earn salvation. Quite the contrary; Jesus said that this is what he must to in order to be perfect. You’re putting words in Jesus’ mouth, just as you were putting words in mine.
It seems to me that you are deliberately misrepresenting what I say, as well as what Jesus said. I think that’s pretty obvious by now.
You know what? I think that in your heart, you know that you’re in error; you just don’t want to admit it. It’s pretty obvious by now, in light of everything that you’re saying.
One important thing a Christian ought to do is to help the poor and afflicted, yes. But you’ll notice that in that passage, Jesus is specifically addressing a rich young man who says that he has kept all the law for his whole life–what else should he do? Christ tells him to give up his riches, an instruction the young man can’t handle. In other passages, Christ tells his disciples to preach the gospel or to sacrifice other things. The point is that Christians are to put Christ first in their lives; other concerns are secondary and may need to be given up.
For someone above who said that the LDS Church sends missionaries even to Seattle, the LDS Church sends missionaries anywhere it’s legal, including Utah, the Ukraine, Ghana, and Taiwan. We do not proselyte to Muslims, on account of that whole ‘death penalty for converting away’ thing, though Muslims can apply for baptism–it just takes permission from the top level to happen. Next time you meet a person who served an LDS mission, ask them for their wildest stories–they are certain to have some good ones.
I thought works were really important. Going around telling people they believe the wrong thing and that you in your superior understanding are going to show them the way is kind of pointless and inane IMO. I don’t understand the point of trying to make someone into a Christian. I too thought that the Mission was to do such good works that people would notice the way you are living and you’d bring it to them that way.
In other words Jesus says:
“Show not tell.”
Um. Read again. This isn’t about ‘heathens’.
From the OP’s quote:
Apparently, it’s not enough to believe in Christ, you have to become a fundie/gay-hating bigot before you’re believing in Christ the right way. :rolleyes:
That’s true. However, I am a part of a nation, however small. Nations, you see, are made up of discrete cellular objects known as “people.” How do you propose to “make disciples of nations” without converting the people within those nations? People like me, who don’t understand what makes your particular flavor of Christianity any better than the Easter Island stone head religion? Because the world-domination mandate doesn’t cut much ice on its own.
Stop trying to read my mind, Kreskin. I DON’T know it full well; all I can go by is what you write. You said “their purpose is to accomplish the greatest amount of spiritual good they can.” You earlier cited the Great Commission to “make disciples of all nations.” So how does medical aid and charity contribute to this goal of “spiritual good?” Is it because Jesus taught to help the poor and infirm? Or are such acts purely irrelevant to Christianity except for propaganda purposes, to win the trust of the locals?
I agree that there may be reasons why it would be beneficial for an organization to send missionaries to France. However, I do not believe that France is in particularly dire spiritual straits that would require immediate evangelical triage. If they’re going to claim that “France is one of the neediest of all mission fields today,” then they ought to make a better case than “religious apathy” and explain why this is more important than raising funds to treat Senegalese orphans with eye worm infections or whatever.
If you say so. But then Jesus himself put words in that young man’s mouth, since he never asked how to be perfect, did he? He asked what he must do to achieve eternal life. Jesus said, essentially: follow the commandments, love your neighbor, give to the poor, and follow me. Nothing in there about preaching; nothing about making disciples of all nations. Commandments, love, charity. This is your Bible, isn’t it? What does your copy say?
You’re quite mistaken. In my heart, I think you’re in error, though I also think you’re being honest about it. So am I.
I concede that I may be entirely off base, and there are simply subtleties to missionary Christianity which I cannot appreciate, being raised on chirpy Readers’ Digest accounts of missionaries who seemed to think that feeding orphans and ministering to the leprous was the real substance of Christianity. Maybe Jesus would agree that “France is one of the neediest of all mission fields today.” Who knows?
my parents were Prebyterian missionaries in some very poor rural parts of american for many years. They are still involved with the church after retirement.
They would be shocked and disheartned to see sending missionaries to France when as the OP pointed out that there are a lot more needy people out there. In addition, at least the presbyterian faith I was raised in, didn’t think Catholics were going to go to hell. They worship the same god, but the role of the priest and church is different. My parents at least and the parishes they were involved in all subscribed to the OP’s take on missions rather than outright prostelyzing.
I am an agnostic but have utmost respect for the missionaries that go out to do good works and teach by example.
I think it’s significant that Jesus not only tells the guy to sacrifice his wealth, he gives specific instructions about what to do with that wealth. The money could have gone to the temple; to Jesus’ own ministry; to the guy’s relatives; he could have simply thrown it away. But Jesus specifically wanted it given to the poor.
I just don’t grasp the idea that charity is somehow a “secondary” value in Christianity, to be given a backseat in favor of preaching. As Mom used to say, “actions speak louder than words.” I can’t shake the notion that the guy who helps others the most would be more likely to meet with Jesus’ approval than the guy who talks about Jesus the most.
It’s been my experience that the French are not all that fond of Americans. In my mind, I keep thinking that the missionaries would be proselytizing evangelicals who would epitomize all the bad stereotypes of Americans.