No, they wouldn’t. You obviously do not know what a pyramid scheme is.
I have never heard of membership fees at a Catholic church. You can donate, but there’s no requirement to, and since donations are usually anonymous there isn’t much to feel guilty about.
Besides, what’s the harm in charging people to join? If you don’t want to pay, don’t play.
DNFTF*
[sub]*Do Not Feed the Fascist[/sub]
Shoot, Northern Piper, I was going to ask if kalt had somehow missed 800 years of Western civilization an a few insignificant revolutions to come to this conclusion.
kalt, your OP and responses are stunning. We begin with “christians” arrested in Afghanistan. You move on the the evils of proselytizing visited on people in this country, including the evils of feeding people. You also note that the Taliban is an “Islamic government”.
I think that you then take some sort of a leap where you assume that the horrors of proselytizing “christians” you’ve seen are what has happened in Afganistan. You seem to suggest that the Taliban has some “right” to protect their brand of religion. What worries me about your OP is that you seem to think it is acceptable for the Taliban to punish “christians” for being what you think are “christians”.
Now, for the part that terrifies me. I think that whatever it is you suggest (and for the life of me, I hope I’m wrong), means that a religious government can persecute members of another religion for trying to promote their religion. The terrifying part, is imagine these crazy “christians” someday have their way and make this a “christian” country. You’ve already argued that they can begin religious persecutions.
Please, someone other than kalt tell me that my last paragraph is just a strawman. Please.
'Fraid not, Robb.
Which is why I find it important to keep harping on what Christianity really says (at least as propounded by its Founder). Because the Religious Right, or at least a large portion of it, is as convinced as Wildest Bill that their moral code is the one thing that will save America from itself, and therefore must be imposed on everybody by law. Which is exactly the flipside of Kalt’s apparent decision that the First Amendment only governs the rights of atheists. :rolleyes:
The following is a true incident that I experienced firsthand…
The first weekend after the September 11th terrorist attacks, my wife and I were out running a few errands. As we came home, we saw a group of well-dressed folks, going door-to-door and handing out little booklets. Instantly recognizing them as Christian evangelists, my wife quickly slipped into the house and locked the door, while I went off to run a few errands.
By the time I came back, they had moved onto the next block. I told my wife it was all clear now (she ignored the doorbell when it was rung), then checked the front door – yep, sure enough, there was a booklet warning Is This The End of the World?, promoting the usual junk about salvation through Jesus. While it didn’t mention the terrorist attacks specifically, it was obviously chosen to feed on a frightened reader – someone who would be emotionally vulnerable in the wake of the attacks and susceptible to more terrorist-induced fear-mongering that the pamphlet was playing to.
If that isn’t behavior worthy of a vulture, I don’t know what is.
I would like to make it clear that I find kalt’s views extreme and do not agree with him/her. On the other hand, I think I may have some idea of where he/she is coming from.
I am an atheist who runs a non-religious charity medical clinic in the remote western hill region of Nepal. There is a large mission hospital about 7 km up the road from us, where they provide all kinds of services that our little clinic cannot. The work they do is very admirable and much needed. The foreign staff of the clinic have given up lucrative careers to come and live in a place where life is difficult, at best. I deeply respect their work and have nothing but praise for the quality thereof.
I do not know any of the missionaries very well, partly because they change staff often and also because I spend only a few months a year at our clinic. I’m sure our vastly different belief systems have something to do with our lack of socailizing as well. I can say that the contacts I have had with them suggest that they are mostly very nice people. While prosteletizing is illegal in Nepal (as is changing your religion) a church has grown up in the community over the 35 years the mission has been there. It is run by Nepalis, though I am told they get outside Christian support. I have no idea how much of the church growth was the result of active preaching by the missionaries, though one wonders how it may have came to be without such efforts.
I am not aware of the mission hospital ever withholding care or job opportunities unless someone converts and I know for a fact that they treat many Hindus. That being said, nearly all of the Nepalis on the hospital staff have converted to Christianity. Is this the result of being around Christians and freely deciding that Jesus is the way to go? Possibly. Might it also be that doing what you know will please the missionaries gives you a much better chance of getting a job with which you can actually feed your family? Could be that, too.
I know that the attitude among the Nepalis in the community is that if you convert, the Christians will help you get educated and get a job, will educate your children and will generally help you out. To people who barely survive by trying to grow enough food to eat in their tiny gardens, this is an appealing proposition. I have also heard many Nepalis say that Christianity must be correct because all the white people are Christian and they are all rich (their God is taking care of them). Additionally, there is now a definite rift in the community between the Nepali Christians and the non-Christians which includes a noticable “I’m better than you are” attitude on the part of the Nepali Christians.
Let me say loud and clear that I do not think that any of the negatives I’ve discussed are necessarily the fault of the missionaries. In fact, I would be extremely surprised to hear that they were intentionally strong-arming people to convert. I would also be surprised to learn that they are intentionally only hiring people who convert and/or are intentionally providing more assistance to those who convert. I can understand that it would be natural for them to find potential employees among those people they come to know through the church, or those who come to ask them about their religion. It’s understandable that these people end up getting the most aid because they make themselves known to the missionaries. I can see all of this occuring with no intentional bias on the part of the missionaries. But I’m also a firm believer that results are more important than intentions.
When you see that the perception is that you only help those who convert, do you sit back and reap the benefits of increased conversions without trying to make clear that your true motivation is to serve those in need, regardless of faith? Is it right to close your eyes to the holier than thou attitudes adopted by your converts? Is it right to let a rift in the community persist because it serves your own purposes? Is it OK to ignore the fact that the uneducated, illiterate people around you are very easily infunenced by your money, and to use that to your advantage?I would say “no”. Others may argue that saving souls is so important that these other things can be overlooked or sorted out later.
It’s one thing to try to convert someone of your general educational level and who has had the same sort of life you have. It’s a whole other ball game when you’re dealing with starving, uneducated people without hope. How should one change one’s approach in that situation? I fear that is a question that not enough missionaries ask–at least not in the spirit that I think it should be asked.
Yikes. Yep, that’s pretty evil.
Fortunately, for every such cite, there are plenty of other cites that show the opposite. I was sort of looking for cites that proved a wide-spread “vulture” behavior among most Christian and other religious charities.
Not to say that some of these charities don’t have a “sermon” attached to their giving (though my church doesn’t). But there’s a huge difference between giving something with the message “this was given to you to show the love of Jesus” and “We are all DOOMED!!! REPENT NOW!!”.
I don’t think it’s evil. It causes pain, but they’re trying to save us from hell, so they think the pain is for a good cause. I’m an athiest, and I did a little proselytizing immediately after 9-11. I figured now was the time where some people might be willing to be convinced of the Truth (i.e., no God) that normally aren’t ready to hear it. And if they did, it’s be very good for them. I can’t begrudge the same strategy to the enemy.
–Cliffy
It appears that the O.P. has been abandoned in disarray.
No doubt a wise decision.
Both Christianity and Islam are missionary religions, believing that their followers have an obligation to try to convert non-believers to the faith. Missionary religions which show a lack of tolerance towards other faiths on a broad basis are inherently dangerous, because of the potential to initiate confrontation with non-believers (beginning in Roman times, when Christians rejected the Roman initiative of elevating God as part of the pantheon of Roman gods). Other faiths, which accept the existence of religions or absorb them, are less ocnfrontational and therefore less prone to causing conflict.
(I’d write more on this but my wife is waiting for me! - and will return Monday my time to answer your responses)
The following is a true story, experienced first hand by me.
In the days shortly following the WTC and Pentagon attacks, a person showed up on my doorstep attempting to get me to donate money to an organization to which I don’t belong, and espousing ideals that are controversial and religiously based.
It is blatantly obvious that he was attempting to capitalize on the fear and insecurity felt by most in the wake of the terrorist attacks.
He was wearing a Cub Scout uniform, and I bought a Christmas wreath from him.
The vulture!
Regards,
Shodan
You were doing pretty well making a valid point until you put this malarkey into it. Care to retract or rephrase?
I’d like to know which verses in the Book of Mormon dictate that having sex with 10 year olds, and multiple wives is OK.
Um, y_b; that’s pretty much my question for Kalt.
Yeah, I know. I just wanted to be really specific. Cites. Chapter and verse. This is what I want (and you too, I gather!)
I don’t know about the sex with 10 year olds part…but polygamy is definitely allowed in the LDS Church. Well, at least it used to be. I know in order for Utah to gain admission to the Union polygamy had to be outlawed. But I don’t know if the Church actually changed doctrine, or if it is ok to do it under Church rules, but not allowed under secular Utah laws.
OK, I found the answer.
Polygamy is NOT allowed in modern LDS but it USED to be allowed.
I vaguely recall hearing that the Mormon Church did in fact change policy; IIRC the powers that be said that polygamy was no longer necessary (Not being all that familiar with Mormon doctrine, I’m not sure why it ever was necessary.)
Good grief. We seem to be back in the day of ARG swearing that the Book of Abraham is part of the Book of Mormon. Sheesh.
Let’s lay it out simply:
Books of the Book of Mormon (The abbreviations are for the LDS edition)
[ul][li]First Nephi (1 Ne.)[/li][li]Second Nephi (2 Ne.)[/li][li]Jacob (no abbreviation)[/li][li]Enos (no abbreviation)[/li][li]Jarom (no abbreviation)[/li][li]Omni (no abbreviation)[/li][li]Words of Morm (W of M)[/li][li]Mosiah (no abbreviation)[/li][li]Alma (no abbreviation, but I really wish 'twere abbreviated “Al.” Just imagine it: “Says so right here in the Book of Al.” What would be better?)[/li][li]Helaman (Hel.)[/li][li]Third Nephi (3 Ne.)[/li][li]Fourth Nephi (4 Ne.)[/li][li]Mormon (Morm.) (I know, but I rather like “Book of Al.” better than “Book of Morm.”)[/li][li]Ether (no abbreviation)[/li][li]Moroni (Moro.)[/ul][/li]
I can’t find my RLDS (now called “Community of Christ,” but still retaining the legal title of “Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Reorganized)” edition of the Book of Mormon so I can’t give you the abbreviations they use.
Then we have the Doctrine and Covenants, abbreviated D&C. The last two sections of this book are the Official Declarations, abbreviated OD.
Finally, we have the Pearl of Great Price:
[ul][li]Moses (no abbreviation)[/li][li]Abraham (Abr.)[/li][li]Joseph Smith-Mathew[/li][li]Joseph Smith-History[/li][li]Articles of Faith (A of F)[/ul][/li]
The bit authorizing “plural marriage” is D&C 132. The bit withdrawing the authority for same is OD 1.