Concerns About Christian Missionaries

[cmsally]

Our assumption from the more christian leaning posts is that they feel an obligation to tell other people about their religion, save them etc etc.

The problem others are having with this, is that it infringes on others freedom to believe or lead their life minding their own business etc.

If we take the first point of view as face value and give them (Christian activists) the benefit of the doubt etc., I have one question to put to them.

I have seen some of the published material/leaflets etc that they give out to their volunteers/fellow activists. In this material it clearly states who is the most vulnerable to conversion and the methods/psychology most effective to use. Two of the groups to be targeted are children especially if they can be accessed out of the family unit and also foreign students in Western Universities and colleges.

How do they justify these tactics? It is a carefully thought out and researched plan based on economics and preying on people when they are at their most vulnerable.

How many christian groups do we see doing charity work in the old peoples homes or homes of the mentally ill. Or is that not economically and statistically viable. These groups don't seem to be mentioned in the leaflets of their corporate ethics.

[toptuan]

Historically, however, the churches have been in the service of imperialism and (neo American)colonialism, and it is this arrogant presumption of the superiority of the Judeo Christian tradition that I find utterly distasteful.

Your Judeo-Christian bias is showing through quite glaringly. Are you unaware of the heavy service Buddhism paid to the Thai/Burmese/Lao conflicts over the last three centuries here in Asia? Religion was used just as much as a club in these instances, as any Christian crusade in the Holy Land ever was.

I'm just asking you to be a little more objective in your historical perspectives.

Red herring, toptuan!

We are not discussing which religion/philosophy is "better" but rather the morality of exporting institutional religion with a view to imposing it on a disadvantaged population which has its own philosophical/religious tradition.

Would you like me to introduce you to thousands of Thai Christians who freely chose that path because of Thailand's freedom of religion, and not at the behest of some foreign missionary?

You're still spouting the outdated (by about 40 years) views of sociologists who held to the "noble savage" argument regarding "the white man's religion" vs. "disadvantaged population" societies. (I liked your euphemism).

You need to do your homework; meet a few missionaries, and a few Thai Christians. You would change your outdated worldview quite radically.

Edited February 3, 2007 by toptuan

[garro]

Lighten up everybody - Christians are funny; any bunch which believes that a giant invisible sky-pixie created the world in 7 days before impregnating a virgin and all the other superstitious nonsense in The Good Book deserve our pity.

he has eyes yet he cannot see...

mai pen rai.. simplistic interpretation reveals his current state of spirituality & or enlightenment...

Persevere my friend..! your on the right road with these views... someday your destination will most certainly come to you

Goshawk, I think that your post shows a very high degree of ill-will towards your fellow man. You seem to be expressing glee in your view that this other poster will be punished if he doesn't believe as you do.

Sorry you see it that way, it was purely an objective criticism based on observation.. Where in my post did you extract an impending punishment act?

and how do you know what i believe or don't believe?

Read my post again and imagine an not just a priest, but an immam, a sufi, a buddhist monk etc.. using very similar phrasing. I hope you see that my post actually applies to all belief systems both religious and non-religious..

If you read my post you will see that I used the word seem to be. As you point out I do not know what you believe. I just mentioned the fact that your post seemed to suggest that you could somehow see what the future held for other people who did not follow 'the right road' or perhaps you really meant it when you wrote 'your (sic) on the right road with these views'. I aploloigise if I have taken what you said in the wrong way but note that I am not the only poster to have done this. Maybe you could be less cryptic about your view and perhaps actually state it; this will probably lead to better understanding.

[Bryan in Isaan]

Just like to make one point here that came up earlier in the thread.

The Thai Constitution allows for freedom of religion.....This means that people are allowed to choose and practice the religion of their choice...

It doesnt cover trying to force that religion on others by means subtle or otherwise.

In other words, persuasion. Its used to promote political parties, to get villagers to give money to the Wat or stay off drugs, buy my vegetables instead of the other guy's, get good grades at school or any other idea that a person believes strongly about. What is so bad about that? As far as your point about the Thai constitution, I have never read it. I can only assume that it allows some form of freedom of expression constrained by discretion and decency.

Aside from a few quacks - and I have met some myself - those who try to persuade people to believe in Christianity are not usually as oppressive as some of the posters have suggested. If the kids don't want to go to the free English lessons, they don't have to go. In the Thai culture, if the village missionary is too pushy or oppressive he is simply avoided. That is sometimes called a social "quarantine". These things usually work themselves out.

I do believe that religion is important but feel that it should be a personal issue. I am 100% committed to my Buddhist beliefs but would never try and push these beliefs on to anybody else and the same could be said for most Buddhists. I always allow for the possibility that I could be wrong and so respect other peoples views.

Why wouldn't you push your beliefs on me? Buddhism has been fulfilling for you. I am missing out. Why wouldn't you want to show me a better way? Don't you care about me? If you talked to me about your faith and I didn't accept it I could just say no.

Edited February 3, 2007 by Bryan in Isaan

[phibunmike]

It hurts me to hear of all the Christian bashing on this post. We Christians, for the most part, are a loving and caring people. While there are misfits, cheats and emotionally disturbed individuals in any group, for the vast majority of Christians, it is our love that compels us to tell you about Jesus.

If you truly believed in the core of your mind AND heart that there is an everlasting destiny for you and everyone else on the planet and that the choices one makes here while alive affect what happens after you die, wouldn't you, out of love, warn those of the dangers of the wrong choice? Even the most callous and disreputable person would warn a pedestrian of an impending meet with death at the hands of a large truck barreling straight for him.

First, and this is not aimed at liberty9133, can we try to keep this thread on the subject of missionaries and the techniques they employ; if it goes off into arguments about Christianity, it will be a very long and ultimately bitter thread.

Liberty, I am sure you are a sincere and good person. But you must recognise that there are many different belief systems in the world, and the system you subscribe to is very much based on where you were born - had you been born in Indonesia, you might very well be espousing Islam with as much sincerity. I believe we should respect and tolerate different people's cultures; and in countries like Thailand, culture and religion are tightly inter-woven. To attempt to convert Thais to Christianity is to attempt to destroy Thai culture. Now, if you do that by engaging people in reasoned argument, that is one thing - but if you do it by bribing the poor and uneducated, I find it outrageous.

I live in a small village. I don't necessarily believe what I might refer to as the "superstitions" of the local people. However, I do respect their traditions and culture that are intimately tied to these beliefs.

[garro]

Just like to make one point here that came up earlier in the thread.

The Thai Constitution allows for freedom of religion.....This means that people are allowed to choose and practice the religion of their choice...

It doesnt cover trying to force that religion on others by means subtle or otherwise.

In other words, persuasion. Its used to promote political parties, giving money to the temple, staying off drugs, buy my vegetables instead of the other guy's, get good grades at school or any other idea that a person believes strongly about. What is so bad about that?

Aside from a few quacks - and I have met some myself - Christian persuasion is not usually as oppressive as some of the posters have suggested. If the kids don't want to go to the free English lessons, they don't have to go. In the Thai culture, if the village missionary is too pushy or oppressive he is simply avoided. That is sometimes called a social "quarantine". These things usually work themselves out.

I do believe that religion is important but feel that it should be a personal issue. I am 100% committed to my Buddhist beliefs but would never try and push these beliefs on to anybody else and the same could be said for most Buddhists. I always allow for the possibility that I could be wrong and so respect other peoples views.

Why wouldn't you push your beliefs on me? Buddhism has been fulfilling for you. I am missing out. Why wouldn't you want to show me a better way? Don't you care about me? If you talked to me about your faith and I didn't accept it I could just say no.

Bryan in Issan, the reason I wouldn't push my beliefs on you is that I feel that these beliefs to be of a very personal nature. What works for me may not work for you, due to many reasons. If you already have a belief system that works why would I want to intefer with that.

I came to Buddhism through my own investigations and not because somebody converted me. This is true of many Buddhists from Western countries who came to Asia and sought out answers that they couldn't obtain from their original religion. Of course if someone came to me for help I would do so in whatever limited way I could.

I do not claim to have all the answers. I only know what works for me.

Buddhism does not need me to promote it. It has managed over 2500 years without my help.

Metta

[Goshawk]

Just like to make one point here that came up earlier in the thread.

The Thai Constitution allows for freedom of religion.....This means that people are allowed to choose and practice the religion of their choice...

It doesnt cover trying to force that religion on others by means subtle or otherwise.

In other words, persuasion. Its used to promote political parties, to get villagers to give money to the Wat or stay off drugs, buy my vegetables instead of the other guy's, get good grades at school or any other idea that a person believes strongly about. What is so bad about that? As far as your point about the Thai constitution, I have never read it. I can only assume that it allows some form of freedom of expression constrained by discretion and decency.

Aside from a few quacks - and I have met some myself - those who try to persuade people to believe in Christianity are not usually as oppressive as some of the posters have suggested. If the kids don't want to go to the free English lessons, they don't have to go. In the Thai culture, if the village missionary is too pushy or oppressive he is simply avoided. That is sometimes called a social "quarantine". These things usually work themselves out.

I do believe that religion is important but feel that it should be a personal issue. I am 100% committed to my Buddhist beliefs but would never try and push these beliefs on to anybody else and the same could be said for most Buddhists. I always allow for the possibility that I could be wrong and so respect other peoples views.

Why wouldn't you push your beliefs on me? Buddhism has been fulfilling for you. I am missing out. Why wouldn't you want to show me a better way? Don't you care about me? If you talked to me about your faith and I didn't accept it I could just say no.

Good point Bryan...

It is the most natural thing in exsistance to share & pass on to others something you have discovered that improves your quality of understanding and or life. This selfless, spontaneous act of giving should never be denied anyone. To do so would truly be showing your fellow man ill-will

[Smilodon]

For the last two and a half years I have lived in a small village in Phitsanulok province. In the local area their is a Christian missionary which is very active in the community. It offers the local children scholarships, gifts for them and their families ( an example of this was duvets last month) as well as expensive holidays. They also have many fun activities at the centre. Apparently the money for this comes from the States. The children only recieve these benefits if they attend weekly services at the Christian centre and most of the children in our village now attend.

I think that this is a very unfair way of recruiting people to their religion. I also know that most of the villagers feel the same way but still send their children along anyway. Many will ask the question, why send their children? but I would imagine it is hard to turn down any financial incentives when you are poor. I do know that many of the children retain their Buddhist beliefs despite attending this Christian group.

Being a Christian, I can say that any and all means that do not involve sin are potential things to utilize to introduce people to Jesus Christ, which is the main point.

Beating the kids up and sending them to big cities to be prostitutes so the church could make money, for example, are not Biblical methods of getting anyone to do anything.

When you believe that Jesus is Lord, that God is Love, you also believe that part of the love that God has for mankind is that he offered Jesus Christ to be the final sacrifice (superseding and fulfilling all animal sacrifces initiated by God in the Old Testament starting with the animals God himself killed to provide coverings for Adam and his wife.)

This being the case, that he loved us enough to send his only Son to be the substitute for us on the cross, you realize that love and generosity are part and parcel of the Gospel. Jesus died, was raised from the dead, and sat down again in heaven. We only have to believe this and speak, with our mouth, that we accept him as our Lord, and we are saved. No more animal sacrifices, no more visits to some central temple where God is shut up behind gold covered decor to prevent his glory from consuming the sin and any of his people who practiced it. No more long, complicated lists of what animal to sacrifice for what sin, etc.

Using kindness to show the love of God to people is what God himself does. He would show more kindness to more people, but he will not force anything on anyone against their will, even salvation, so his greatest blessings usually land on the people who choose to give him lordship of their lives. Not that Satan is not actively at work trying to deprive EVERYONE of EVERYTHING, including life, health, peace, love, etc.

Since the resources of any given church or group trying to show the love of God to people are limited, they do what they can for who they can. It isn't discriminatory to primarily bless those who have chosen to subscribe to your beliefs, it is a matter of doing what you can for who those whom the Bible and the Holy Spirit direct you to. If they were to do everything for everyone, regardless of any indication of belief or alliance, they would quickly find that they were out of means to do anything for anyone.

They are sent to that village, ostensibly, by the Holy Spirit. They are doing what they know to do for whoever they are given responsibility to do so.

We, as Christians, are not responsible to give everything to everyone everywhere, as doing this will quickly result in having nothing and getting nowhere. We are called to do what we can to make the love of God evident to whoever God has called us to. It is no more prejudice or discriminatory to give more to and do more for the ones in the village who are indicating some interest in what they have to say, because the central message is the love God has for whoever wants to accept it.

Ever wonder why you aren't paying for another guy's wife's lifestyle? You are not responsible for another man's wife. God does what he can for who he can, but he can't just kick down the door and do stuff for you without prior consent from you. So he does what he can for whomever he can using whomever he can get to go wherever the people are.

[Smilodon]

Our assumption from the more christian leaning posts is that they feel an obligation to tell other people about their religion, save them etc etc.

The problem others are having with this, is that it infringes on others freedom to believe or lead their life minding their own business etc.

If we take the first point of view as face value and give them (Christian activists) the benefit of the doubt etc., I have one question to put to them.

I have seen some of the published material/leaflets etc that they give out to their volunteers/fellow activists. In this material it clearly states who is the most vulnerable to conversion and the methods/psychology most effective to use. Two of the groups to be targeted are children especially if they can be accessed out of the family unit and also foreign students in Western Universities and colleges.

How do they justify these tactics? It is a carefully thought out and researched plan based on economics and preying on people when they are at their most vulnerable.

How many christian groups do we see doing charity work in the old peoples homes or homes of the mentally ill. Or is that not economically and statistically viable. These groups don't seem to be mentioned in the leaflets of their corporate ethics.

First, one of the things we, as Christians, believe, is that this is God's planet. He owns it, and everything on it. The New Testament says that God now commands men everywhere to repent. Not requests. In line with that, Christians are not only allowed to preach the gospel, they are commanded to do so.

Why some concentrate on kids is because until they reach an age of accountability for their sins, children are pure in heart and would go to heaven if they died, and are more likely to make a choice for God instead of against him. You are more likely to help someone avoid going to hel_l if you reach them with the love of God when they are young, before they have turned into a hard-nosed cynical, dyed-in-the-wool sinner. The idea is to present the message of the love God to people. The people least likely to reject the message are usually people who haven't given themselves over to sin already.

In my particular case, I have usually found that the people I end up being an influence on have been pretty girls who are (sometimes extremely) sleazy, and the guys they hang out with. I have volunteered for whatever God wants me to do, but I usually end up with the party animals, without diving into the same lifestyle. God has someone to reach everyone, and can transport them supernaturally anywhere they are needed, as he did with Philip in the New Testament, but the most likely method of getting to people is getting on a plane, train, ox, whatever and going where they are.

And, people who are not yet out in the mean, raping, lying, cheating, greedy world and becoming part of that whole system of extracting as much money as possible from it with no regard for morals or character are much easier to reach with the love of God. I know I was saved in my last year of high school, and would never want to go back to what I was.

But, ultimately, everyone has a choice. hel_l was not created for man, but for Satan and his angels whom he convinced to rebel against God along with him. However, by submitting to the lordship of Satan by not accepting Jesus Christ, man falls under the same judgment as his chosen god, which in the case of the sinner, is Satan. In the case of Christians, they get the same judgment of their God, who is Jesus.

Everyone has free will. Christians, as imperfect as we are, do what we can to reach who we can. People can choose to reject the message, and so so by the billions. Our job is to make it available and as palatable as possible, but not to compromise the message or water it down for the sake of being afraid of what people think.

Having said that, yes, we ARE imperfect and do a less-than-perfect job of presenting the love of God top people. God is almighty enough to make up for however bad we may mess things up. But he allows everyone to do as they please. But, consequences await everyone, and Satan is the present god of this world, which is why it is such a mess. God delegated care of this world to mankind, man swiftly and promptly handed it over to Satan, and then God has been on the outside looking in and doing what he can through the few he could get on his side.

Edited February 3, 2007 by Smilodon

[pampal]

also what about the missionaries who stand outside Nana Plaza (presume they are still there) trying to force their evil ways on you?

I've seen the same guys from Nana trying to convert people in KSR.

They shout till they're red in the face, I have yet to see one convert.

[pampal]

Our assumption from the more christian leaning posts is that they feel an obligation to tell other people about their religion, save them etc etc.

The problem others are having with this, is that it infringes on others freedom to believe or lead their life minding their own business etc.

If we take the first point of view as face value and give them (Christian activists) the benefit of the doubt etc., I have one question to put to them.

I have seen some of the published material/leaflets etc that they give out to their volunteers/fellow activists. In this material it clearly states who is the most vulnerable to conversion and the methods/psychology most effective to use. Two of the groups to be targeted are children especially if they can be accessed out of the family unit and also foreign students in Western Universities and colleges.

How do they justify these tactics? It is a carefully thought out and researched plan based on economics and preying on people when they are at their most vulnerable.

How many christian groups do we see doing charity work in the old peoples homes or homes of the mentally ill. Or is that not economically and statistically viable. These groups don't seem to be mentioned in the leaflets of their corporate ethics.

First, one of the things we, as Christians, believe, is that this is God's planet. He owns it, and everything on it. The New Testament says that God now commands men everywhere to repent. Not requests. In line with that, Christians are not only allowed to preach the gospel, they are commanded to do so.

Why some concentrate on kids is because until they reach an age of accountability for their sins, children are pure in heart and would go to heaven if they died, and are more likely to make a choice for God instead of against him. You are more likely to help someone avoid going to hel_l if you reach them with the love of God when they are young, before they have turned into a hard-nosed cynical, dyed-in-the-wool sinner. The idea is to present the message of the love God to people. The people least likely to reject the message are usually people who haven't given themselves over to sin already.

In my particular case, I have usually found that the people I end up being an influence on have been pretty girls who are (sometimes extremely) sleazy, and the guys they hang out with. I have volunteered for whatever God wants me to do, but I usually end up with the party animals, without diving into the same lifestyle. God has someone to reach everyone, and can transport them supernaturally anywhere they are needed, as he did with Philip in the New Testament, but the most likely method of getting to people is getting on a plane, train, ox, whatever and going where they are.

And, people who are not yet out in the mean, raping, lying, cheaing, greedy world and becoming part of that whole system of extracting as much money as possible from it with no regard for morals or character are much easier to reach with the love of God. I know I was saved in my last year of high school, and would never want to go back to what I was.

But, ultimately, everyone has a choice. hel_l was not created for man, but for Satan and his angels whom he convinced to rebel against God along with him. However, by submitting to the lordship of Satan by not accepting Jesus Christ, man falls under the same judgment as his chosen god, which in the case of the sinner, is Satan. In the case of Christians, they get the same judgment of their God, who is Jesus.

Everyone has free will. Christians, as imperfect as we are, do what we can to reach who we can. People can choose to reject the message, and so so by the billions. Our job is to make it available and as palatable as possible, but not to compromise the message or water it down for the sake of being afraid of what people think.

Having said that, yes, we ARE imperfect and do a less-than-perfect job of presenting the love of God top people. God is almighty enough to make up for however bad we may mess things up. But he allows everyone to do as they please. But, consequences await everyone, and Satan is the present god of this world, which is why it is such a mess. God delegated care of this world to mankind, man swiftly and promptly handed it over to Satan, and then God has been on the outside looking in and doing what he can through the few he could get on his side.

Didn't I see you at Patpong and Nana trying to convert people?

If you can, try to save yourself.

[Smilodon]

Didn't I see you at Patpong and Nana trying to convert people?

If you can, try to save yourself.

Nein. As I said, Christians are not perfect, and often their methods are not even really what the Holy Spirit would condone. Just as you can't assume that all Thai women are hookers, just because you see them in public places in Thailand, you can't assume all Christians use coercive techniques to try to get the gospel to people, just because some of them do in some public place.

If you want to reject the Gospel, you have a free choice. What Christians act like may make you feel justified in doing so, but it is still your decision.

Edited February 3, 2007 by Smilodon

[pampal]

Anyone who tries to buy others over to their religion is sick.

Any one who tries to convert others by force is sick, just look at the history of missionary work in South America.

Remember the Spanish inquisition where Jews and Muslims and anyone not willing to convert was tortured, banished or killed.

If people want to accept Jesus, that is fine, but to convert poor people using gifts that they cannot afford and food that they cannot afford is sick.

[JohnC]

Just to get the thread back on track re free gifts & schooling in exchange for adopting religious beliefs let me quote an old chinese saying

" Charity needs no recognition"

Work that out for yourselves and your religion.

[garro]

Our assumption from the more christian leaning posts is that they feel an obligation to tell other people about their religion, save them etc etc.

The problem others are having with this, is that it infringes on others freedom to believe or lead their life minding their own business etc.

If we take the first point of view as face value and give them (Christian activists) the benefit of the doubt etc., I have one question to put to them.

I have seen some of the published material/leaflets etc that they give out to their volunteers/fellow activists. In this material it clearly states who is the most vulnerable to conversion and the methods/psychology most effective to use. Two of the groups to be targeted are children especially if they can be accessed out of the family unit and also foreign students in Western Universities and colleges.

How do they justify these tactics? It is a carefully thought out and researched plan based on economics and preying on people when they are at their most vulnerable.

How many christian groups do we see doing charity work in the old peoples homes or homes of the mentally ill. Or is that not economically and statistically viable. These groups don't seem to be mentioned in the leaflets of their corporate ethics.

First, one of the things we, as Christians, believe, is that this is God's planet. He owns it, and everything on it. The New Testament says that God now commands men everywhere to repent. Not requests. In line with that, Christians are not only allowed to preach the gospel, they are commanded to do so.

Why some concentrate on kids is because until they reach an age of accountability for their sins, children are pure in heart and would go to heaven if they died, and are more likely to make a choice for God instead of against him. You are more likely to help someone avoid going to hel_l if you reach them with the love of God when they are young, before they have turned into a hard-nosed cynical, dyed-in-the-wool sinner. The idea is to present the message of the love God to people. The people least likely to reject the message are usually people who haven't given themselves over to sin already.

In my particular case, I have usually found that the people I end up being an influence on have been pretty girls who are (sometimes extremely) sleazy, and the guys they hang out with. I have volunteered for whatever God wants me to do, but I usually end up with the party animals, without diving into the same lifestyle. God has someone to reach everyone, and can transport them supernaturally anywhere they are needed, as he did with Philip in the New Testament, but the most likely method of getting to people is getting on a plane, train, ox, whatever and going where they are.

And, people who are not yet out in the mean, raping, lying, cheating, greedy world and becoming part of that whole system of extracting as much money as possible from it with no regard for morals or character are much easier to reach with the love of God. I know I was saved in my last year of high school, and would never want to go back to what I was.

But, ultimately, everyone has a choice. hel_l was not created for man, but for Satan and his angels whom he convinced to rebel against God along with him. However, by submitting to the lordship of Satan by not accepting Jesus Christ, man falls under the same judgment as his chosen god, which in the case of the sinner, is Satan. In the case of Christians, they get the same judgment of their God, who is Jesus.

Everyone has free will. Christians, as imperfect as we are, do what we can to reach who we can. People can choose to reject the message, and so so by the billions. Our job is to make it available and as palatable as possible, but not to compromise the message or water it down for the sake of being afraid of what people think.

Having said that, yes, we ARE imperfect and do a less-than-perfect job of presenting the love of God top people. God is almighty enough to make up for however bad we may mess things up. But he allows everyone to do as they please. But, consequences await everyone, and Satan is the present god of this world, which is why it is such a mess. God delegated care of this world to mankind, man swiftly and promptly handed it over to Satan, and then God has been on the outside looking in and doing what he can through the few he could get on his side.

If the Christian message you are trying to spread is the one and only 'truth' why are the missionaries needing to resort to bribery to get people to listen? I would imagine if something was so obviously 'the truth', then people would be naturally attracted to it.

If it is the the 'one real truth' why are the churches in many former Christian countries now practically empty. Why are so many turning to different religions? Is this the work of the devil?

[gummy]

When will all you who posticulate with your high minded morals on Christians, who clearly know best for the rest of the world for the last 2000 years, and what the spread of that that can do via the missionary process please go back to basics and stop being the most sexually prejudiced collection of folk in the entire world. God must be a woman as who else could have actioned this whole mess and division which is currently masquarading under the guise of religion.

Of course God is female.

As I suggested earlier to one of your group please adapt your hypothesis as God was/is a women. The only truly none prejudiced civilisation in the last 2500 years that I can I think of are the early Greeks and Romans whom believed there was obviously more than one God of both sexes.

Further, the latter nationality group had a great deal of fun with you guys excercising their lions.

Edited February 3, 2007 by gummy

[Smilodon]

If the Christian message you are trying to spread is the one and only 'truth' why are the missionaries needing to resort to bribery to get people to listen? I would imagine if something was so obviously 'the truth', then people would be naturally attracted to it.

I have known people for years that I have not preached to. I just showed them the love of God in accordance with the Word of God. When I had a chance, I talked to them in detail about the gospel. It isn't bribery to show kindness to people. It is an expression of the nature of God. He is a giver. It would be out of God's character to point a rifle at people and force them to decide for your religion or die, as some religions do, and have done.

If it is the the 'one real truth' why are the churches in many former Christian countries now practically empty. Why are so many turning to different religions? Is this the work of the devil?

The reason the churces in many former Christian countries are practically empty is that the religions they were pushing had almost nothing to do with God, the Bible, or Christianity. I wish that the churches were not only empty, but never existed in the first place, because they so bastardized a relationship with Jesus into penance-doing, "saint"-worshiping, sicence-oppressing, marriage-forbidding, Christian-killing, homosexual-pedophile money worship cults.

The twisting of a relationship with God through Jesus Christ into the thousands of sects, false religions, and cults is definitely the work of the devil, and doesn't invalidate knowing God through Jesus Christ.

As stupid or ineffective, or unscriptural the methods some people use while being or thinking they are being witnesses for Christ does not make all Christianity into the gutless dead religion it got processed into in the Dark Ages any more than seeing hookers means all women are prostitutes.

But, if you want to point to prostitutes, specifically, the STD-infected loud ugly ones that call out to men on the street as your excuse for being gay, you are free to do so.

Edited February 3, 2007 by Smilodon

[svenivan]

Missionaries Suck!

I cannot understand why Thailand have special visarules for missionaries.

I wish Thailand followed Laos and kicked them out of the country.

If they want to build schools, hospitals and help poor people they are free to do that. But not in exchange of converting people from another religion.

:D

[Smilodon]

Missionaries Suck!

I cannot understand why Thailand have special visarules for missionaries.

I wish Thailand followed Laos and kicked them out of the country.

If they want to build schools, hospitals and help poor people they are free to do that. But not in exchange of converting people from another religion.

What difference does it make to you what choices people make? People everywhere are free to do whatever they want. If they are presented with the gospel and choose Jesus Christ, they are free to do so, with our without your Approval.

You can't have a free society without freedom of religion. Even if it isn't a religion of which you Approve. It's far worse living in a country that doesn't allow such freedoms. If you don't think so, please, MOVE to Laos and try it out. See if religion is the only thing you are not free to do there.

[gummy]

If the Christian message you are trying to spread is the one and only 'truth' why are the missionaries needing to resort to bribery to get people to listen? I would imagine if something was so obviously 'the truth', then people would be naturally attracted to it.

I have known people for years that I have not preached to. I just showed them the love of God in accordance with the Word of God. When I had a chance, I talked to them in detail about the gospel. It isn't bribery to show kindness to people. It is an expression of the nature of God. He is a giver. It would be out of God's character to point a rifle at people and force them to decide for your religion or die, as some religions do, and have done.

If it is the the 'one real truth' why are the churches in many former Christian countries now practically empty. Why are so many turning to different religions? Is this the work of the devil?

The reason the churces in many former Christian countries are practically empty is that the religions they were pushing had almost nothing to do with God, the Bible, or Christianity. I wish that the churches were not only empty, but never existed in the first place, because they so bastardized a relationship with Jesus into penance-doing, "saint"-worshiping, sicence-oppressing, marriage-forbidding, Christian-killing, homosexual-pedophile money worship cults.

The twisting of a relationship with God through Jesus Christ into the thousands of sects, false religions, and cults is definitely the work of the devil, and doesn't invalidate knowing God through Jesus Christ.

As stupid or ineffective, or unscriptural the methods some people use while being or thinking they are being witnesses for Christ does not make all Christianity into the gutless dead religion it got processed into in the Dark Ages any more than seeing hookers means all women are prostitutes.

But, if you want to point to prostitutes, specifically, the STD-infected loud ugly ones that call out to men on the street as your excuse for being gay, you are free to do so.

I stopped believing when the 1st sermons suddenly changed to become how to fill in the direct debit mandate for the bank. The only praying by that was done for us was to hope that we had all brought a pen and our bank details. By the way do the missionaries in Thailand yet accept credit cards ? If not may be a thought to get theselves down to Suk Soi 8 or that area at night so they can get a few more mugs, sorry converts, when they are too inebriated to know what they are signing for. Best to go for the lump sum donation though. As the bigger the donation the quicker they will find the truth and most importantly, they would probably cancel the direct debit mandate when they are sober.

Hallelujah brothers and sisters and may the great God up there bless you with the Jeasus Christ premium account in HER bank in Heavon

[garro]

If the Christian message you are trying to spread is the one and only 'truth' why are the missionaries needing to resort to bribery to get people to listen? I would imagine if something was so obviously 'the truth', then people would be naturally attracted to it.

I have known people for years that I have not preached to. I just showed them the love of God in accordance with the Word of God. When I had a chance, I talked to them in detail about the gospel. It isn't bribery to show kindness to people. It is an expression of the nature of God. He is a giver. It would be out of God's character to point a rifle at people and force them to decide for your religion or die, as some religions do, and have done.

If it is the the 'one real truth' why are the churches in many former Christian countries now practically empty. Why are so many turning to different religions? Is this the work of the devil?

The reason the churces in many former Christian countries are practically empty is that the religions they were pushing had almost nothing to do with God, the Bible, or Christianity. I wish that the churches were not only empty, but never existed in the first place, because they so bastardized a relationship with Jesus into penance-doing, "saint"-worshiping, sicence-oppressing, marriage-forbidding, Christian-killing, homosexual-pedophile money worship cults.

The twisting of a relationship with God through Jesus Christ into the thousands of sects, false religions, and cults is definitely the work of the devil, and doesn't invalidate knowing God through Jesus Christ.

As stupid or ineffective, or unscriptural the methods some people use while being or thinking they are being witnesses for Christ does not make all Christianity into the gutless dead religion it got processed into in the Dark Ages any more than seeing hookers means all women are prostitutes.

But, if you want to point to prostitutes, specifically, the STD-infected loud ugly ones that call out to men on the street as your excuse for being gay, you are free to do so.

So let me get this straight. Old Christianity = bad, but your new Christianity = good. Are you using a different book?

Cheese is cheese, and it doesn't relly make a difference what wrapper you put it in.

So, what you are saying is,it is not only that you are intolerant of people who belong to a different faith than you (and you must admit that bribing them to change their faith shows a high degree of intolerance) but also other Christians who don't share your interpretation of Christianity.

Metta

[dumspero]

Smilodon- So do you really believe that everyone burns in hel_l forever if they don't accept Jesus Christ the Lord as their personal Savior? No matter how good a life they lived? No matter if they never even heard of Christianity during their lifetime? hel_l? Forever?

No wonder Christians need to resort to bribery to spread "the Word."

[fruittbatt]

Would you like me to introduce you to thousands of Thai Christians who freely chose that path because of Thailand's freedom of religion, and not at the behest of some foreign missionary?

You're still spouting the outdated (by about 40 years) views of sociologists who held to the "noble savage" argument regarding "the white man's religion" vs. "disadvantaged population" societies. (I liked your euphemism).

You need to do your homework; meet a few missionaries, and a few Thai Christians. You would change your outdated worldview quite radically.

In Chiang Mai, toptuan, it is impossible NOT to meet missionaries. They are ubiquitous...from songtaews to markets to eating spots to shopping centres, the town positively bulges with muscular and not so muscular christians. I have had pleasant and less than pleasant conversations with several missionaries in the last 2 years.

I take your point that many urban middle-class Thais elect to become christian or to send their kids to christian schools. As you said, they do have a choice, and are not pressured by missionaries to convert.

However, the "disadvantaged" to whom I referred are hilltribe people and poor villagers, who are certainly disadvantaged economically, socially, politically. When these people are pressured into accepting christianity in return for material or social assistance, this is blatant christian colonisation still happening in the 21st century.

[JSixpack]

What an amusing discussion in light of all the brainwashing the Thai government does of its citizens from an early age, of which Buddhism is a central element, for political control of them. Why else would they put up with all the crap? Buddhism is taught to students and basically forced upon them from an early age in the Thai school systems. Members of other religions also pay taxes for that purpose, too. In addition, the Thai gov't offers financial and cultural support for Buddhism in numerous other ways as well.

It's amusing, too, the call for tolerance as long as it's Christians being tolerant of Buddhists.

I am not religious.

sceaduqenqa:

> Allow me to cheerfully upset and offend all who wish to listen.

Good idea. Me too! Let's stir up a hornet's nest. Here we go:

phibunmike:

> a heavy price - the cultural and religious heritage of the community.

Not at all, but anyway why must a culture remain as it is forever? Can it learn nothing from another culture?

>It has been described by some writers as a form of cultural and religious imperialism.

You mean, the way Buddhism is essentially forced upon the Thais (and they pay taxes for that, no matter their religion), and then culturally must "donate" all their lives later on?

> I object to taking advantage of someone's poverty as a means to impose one's own ideas upon them.

True, rich Thais can send their kids to certain private schools and abroad and so escape the government mandates. I take then you would approve of offering the opportunity for the impoverished to learn something else, even if it isn't free (everything should be free), which might work better for them, perhaps offer them some means of escaping their poverty, since the other way hasn't quite worked for them?

t.s:

> making benfits contingent upon attendance of religious services is cynical, hypocritical and just plain wrong.

Indeed so. A Thai student cannot graduate from school without having first studied Buddhism.

garro:

> despite 700 years of missionaries coming to Thailand, it still remains a mostly Buddhist country

Yep, and how can that be possible? Are babies born believing in Buddhism?

> I've never had a Thai Buddhist try to do anything other than have a chat to me...& usually not about religion.

The teachers are Buddhists and they certainly "encourage" their students to be Buddhists, and are paid to do so, in part.

elkangorito:

> Perhaps the "do-gooders" down south might like to take a feather out of the Buddhist cap & "mind their own business".

Perhaps, but that isn't really a feather in the Buddhist cap you see. Why aren't other religions also given equal weight in the school system, or all religious teaching banned in public schools as it is in free countries?

GuestHouse:

> Let us also remember that Thailand has no official religion and that the Thai Constitution protects freedom of worship.

Very difficult to remember--with good reason.

garro:

> My concern is with the methods used to recruit new followers by a certain a Christian group the village where I live.

And why no concern at all--NONE--with the methods used to recruit new followers to Buddhism? Are babies born as followers of a particular religion? Wouldn't Hinduism really be better for them?

GuestHouse:

> I think it is fair to say there are other threats posed by outsiders taking advantages of weaknesses.

But infinitely less so of course than the threats posed by the insiders!

dukka:

> It is the imposition of Christianity on a Buddhist country such as Thailand that I find offensive.

After Buddhism is already being imposed on the citizens? Why isn't *that* offensive? But of course Christianity isn't being "imposed" in the least. Why should Thailand remain a Buddhist country anyway? Can't people find out about something else and choose to have it if they wish? What's it to you?

phibunmike:

> I think that "freedom of worship" is being subverted by the missionaries. They are tricking the poor and uneducated into accepting a Christian brand of indoctrination.

It's impossible to subvert what has already been thoroughly subverted, or at least quite forgiveable; and indoctrination is, well, indoctrination, isn't it?

grtaylor:

> What has always amazed me is the ability of the Thai people to resist, politely.

But I'm amazed that you aren't amazed at how little ability they have to resist Buddhism etc. (I can't talk about the etc.), politely or impolitely. And the reason lies in the school system. It's a circle, the schools and the culture, as it usually is--for political reasons.

> It says a lot for the Thais, and the strength of their religion, that they have largely resisted the advances of not only Christian but also Islamic missionaries through the centuries.

Not really. Nor, you see, is that necessarily a good thing.

toptuan:

> 1) What about a captive audience?

Indeed!

fruittbatt:

> When they said "we are missionaries' I told them I was mighty sorry to hear that, since this is a Buddhist country.

Oh--THIS IS A BUDDHIST COUNTRY because . . . it IS. Why MUST that be, why must it be FOREVER, and what's SO MUCH BETTER about that, exactly?

toptuan:

> Are you unaware of the heavy service Buddhism paid to the Thai/Burmese/Lao conflicts over the last three centuries here in Asia? Religion was used just as much as a club in these instances, as any Christian crusade in the Holy Land ever was.

That is such an excellent point that it will be ignored amidst all the hosannas for a culture that keeps most of its population ignorant and impoverished and hence prices cheap for most of us farangs.

dog412:

> by the way, buddhism in thailand is not free.

How right you are--by the way.

richard10365:

> The all mighty dollar (not lately) is guiding their little souls towards the light. Take away the greenback and you take away the light.

But the all mighty baht (lately) . . . guiding their little souls around the circle, like a washing machine. Stop spending taxes to finance Buddhism and it starts to go away as well.

fruittbatt:

> the morality of exporting institutional religion with a view to imposing it on a disadvantaged population which has its own philosophical/religious tradition

You mean, because philosophical/religions traditions imported from Khmer, Indian, Chinese, and other cultures are already being imposed on the disadvantaged population, it's immoral to propose others? How so?

gburns57au:

> The Thai Constitution allows for freedom of religion.....This means that people are allowed to choose and practice the religion of their choice...

In theory only. A lot about Thailand is theoretical, you see. In theory, a person has to pass a test to drive a car.

>

> It doesnt cover trying to force that religion on others by means subtle or otherwise.

Well said! Now Buddhism, on the other hand . . . .

garro:

> My concern is that the Christian group im my village could be taken advantage of the tolerant attitude of the local Buddhist population.

How did they become Buddhist? Why not be concerned at how the school system and the parents take advantage of the naive kids in imposing the Buddhist religion?

phibunmike:

> I believe we should respect and tolerate different people's cultures; and in countries like Thailand, culture and religion are tightly inter-woven. To attempt to convert Thais to Christianity is to attempt to destroy Thai culture.

I don't understand. Buddhists should be tolerant of other people's cultures as long as they are also Buddhist? Why must it always be tightly inter-woven? Why can't the culture change as it wishes to change, maybe embrace some other ideas as well, perhaps to its benefit? And what was Thai culture without Kmer? Without Indian? We're awfully intolerant around here, aren't we?

OK, members--let it fly!

Edited February 3, 2007 by JSixpack

[Jimjim]

From the first post in this thread, I believe the missionaries you speak of could be any denomination, but quite possibly Mormon.

First off, I see many people stereotype way too much here. There are all different sorts of Christians, so please don't generalize about those "Christians" just like you shouldn't say that all those "Muslims" are terrorists.

As for Christians being allowed to convert people to their religion, what's wrong with that? To think it's bad would be to have the same thinking of Communists, in my opinion. People are free to chose their religion and convert to a new one. And I don't think anyone is converting to Christianity because of duvets. There are plenty of Christian schools in Thailand that are expensive to go to, so preaching is going on to both the poor and the rich in Thailand.

The answer is respect. Respect all religions. Buddhists should respect Christians and their human right to tell others what they believe in, and vice versa. Trying to convert someone to a religion, whatever it may be, is not disrespecting culture. It just means you believe strongly in that religion, and want to share it with others. As long as this is done with respect, there is no problem.

And just because you're a missionary I don't see why you can't help the poor. As long as they do it just for the good of doing it, what's wrong with that? Yes, they'd like to convert too, but if they can do some good for the poor in the process, I don't see the problem.

Finally, just because someone is a Christian missionary doesn't make them perfect. Christians are people too and can be rude and you may not like them. Some people don't internalize their religion enough in this area, I think. I think most religions have something about treating your fellow man in a good way, but of course we're all human and I've met rude and inconsiderate people who adhere to many different faiths.

My comments are general, and a reaction to some of the comments I read here, although I couldn't get to them all. Most of my objections would be to people stereotyping and seriously simplifying the issue.

Edited February 3, 2007 by Jimjim

[Chang_paarp]

This is probably not the most balanced forum to to be preaching the benefits of christianity, as many of us come from countries where it is endemic.

One of the many reasons we like Thailand is the different culture and attitude to life, this is steeped in dominant belief system. If it was just the weather I would move to tropical northern Australia, as there is far less aggravation from a new language, culture, and varying laws.

Many of us who have had christianity of is various forms rammed down our throats from a young age have very strong opinions of the organised church. Trying to justify the existence your your belief system to me is a waste of energy, so please desist. Please get back to the original topic.

How does this sect of christians justify the emotional blackmail they use to attract followers?

If as has been stated, the way is obvious to any who reads the story the religion is based, then give them a book when they are old enough to have self consciousness. Why are they not in their own backyards trying to prevent the onslaught of a different religion that is making inroads on their own patch.

[Jimjim]

How does this sect of christians justify the emotional blackmail they use to attract followers?

As I looked back at the original post for reference, I noticed that it was said that the scholarships, benefits, etc. were only given to those who attended weekly services. So, if they only get all that good stuff in a blatant exchange for attending services, than yes I believe this is not good. However, Christianity is a religion one can leave quite easily, so if they were not truly converted perhaps they can see the error if they realize Christianity is not for them later on.

Also, the original poster said that they were not too close to the situation, so is it possible that this exchange was misinterpreted. Could it be that the missionary gives expensive gifts not as an exchange, but from an honest attempt to help another person? How could that be? Perhaps the missionary has a relationship with those he/she knows, and if someone goes to their services regularly, they are able to form relationships. Wouldn't it make more sense in human relationships to give something to people you have to come to know as opposed to someone you don't know? My point is they could be manipulating in the name of Christianity, or it could be more innocent. But if the original poster is absolutely accurate in that it's a clear exchange -- YOU COME TO CHURCH, I GIVE YOU STUFF -- then yes, this is wrong.

[gummy]

-SNIP-

Bah and humbug - you left me out !!!

[garro]

JSixpack, you obviously spent quite a lot of time on your post and have indeed raised a number of intresting issues.

You argue that Thai parents indocternate their children into Buddhism, but I can't see how it could be any other way. Part of being a parent is sharing your values with them. As I mentioned in my post, the parents in my village allow their children to attend this Christian group' service; and I do believe that this shows a high degree of religious tolerance on their part.

There are Buddhists who fall away from their family's faith but I have never see these people condemmed because of it.

Your argument that the Thai government is responsible for brainwashing the population into supporting Buddhism in order to control them appears to me to be a Marxist argument. While this marxist/socialist argument makes some valid points it is yet just another belief system. It could equally be argued, and this is my view, that Thai society reflects what the majority of Thais value and respect.

Of course I agree that if the people of Thailand wish to become Christian we should let them. I, as a Buddhist, see no problem in this. I do however feel that this should be through being attracted to the religion not coerced into it.

I also get the impression that some of your post is a bit tongue-in-cheek but I could be wrong

Edited February 3, 2007 by garro

[rafval]

could be worse, at least the kids get something, many civilized countries pay people to go to other countries to kill kids, accidentally of course