Missionaries In Thailand

[Semper]

What is the difference (if any) between a missionary spreading the gospel of his or her religion, and persuade others to believe in it's doctrines and practices, and someone persuading other countries population to learn english?

Edited June 23, 2011 by Semper

[Nawtier]

English is the common international language of so many things....internet and aviation for just 2.

Religion is all hogwash and bullshit.

Thats the difference in my humble opinion.

next...

[Jingthing]

Learning English is a practically useful skill that will usually raise a person's potential standard of living in life. Pushing an arrogant religion that believes they are the one and only path towards eternal salvation down the throats of a foreign culture is an act of hostility and disrespect to the local culture and people. Not many people find English teaching offensive. Many, many people find aggressive missionaries VERY offensive. Not only talking about Christians, but at least one other major religion that aggressively pursues mass conversions.

[Semper]

Learning English is a practically useful skill that will usually raise a person's potential standard of living in life. Pushing an arrogant religion that believes they are the one and only path towards eternal salvation down the throats of a foreign culture is an act of hostility and disrespect to the local culture and people. Not many people find English teaching offensive. Many, many people find aggressive missionaries VERY offensive. Not only talking about Christians, but at least one other major religion that aggressively pursues mass conversions.

Fair enough, but I think you know what I mean.

[Jingthing]

Not really so why don't you tell us what you think about your question?

[Nawtier]

I would like to state by the way that I like the missionaries position on this.

[Semper]

Not really so why don't you tell us what you think about your question?

If I did, I would earn myself another holiday.

[Xangsamhua]

Most people don't need to be persuaded or manipulated to learn English. (Though if the kids had a choice .... )

[IanForbes]

I thought missionaries in Thailand were there to teach us the missionary postitiion. At least that is what I've been using them for.

[Nawtier]

you need to be taught the missionary position at your age......?

[smokie36]

Not really so why don't you tell us what you think about your question?

If I did, I would earn myself another holiday.

Not if you repent....REPENT YOUR SINS!

Ahh the zeal is quite cathartic y'know....give it a try....vent your spleen.

[IanForbes]

you need to be taught the missionary position at your age......?

I tell them all that I'm very innocent, but I'm willing to learn. It's amazing what missionary wives are willing to teach me.

[StreetCowboy]

Not really so why don't you tell us what you think about your question?

If I did, I would earn myself another holiday.

You tease us cruelly; how could we cope without threads such as 'why do expats wear shorts?'.

I guess for a lot of people, free speech is anathema, and they cannot countenance the preaching of any doctrine other than their own.

For most of us with a liberal education, though, religious intolerance is seen as the thin end of the wedge, at the very least.

I suppose one might take the view that Thais are too naive and unsophisticated to make up their own minds regarding religious belief, and therefore should be protected from foreign influences. That strikes me as arrogant condescension to the point of insult, not to mention pots and kettles (for the sake of political correctness...)

SC

[partington]

Not really so why don't you tell us what you think about your question?

If I did, I would earn myself another holiday.

You tease us cruelly; how could we cope without threads such as 'why do expats wear shorts?'.

I guess for a lot of people, free speech is anathema, and they cannot countenance the preaching of any doctrine other than their own.

For most of us with a liberal education, though, religious intolerance is seen as the thin end of the wedge, at the very least.

I suppose one might take the view that Thais are too naive and unsophisticated to make up their own minds regarding religious belief, and therefore should be protected from foreign influences. That strikes me as arrogant condescension to the point of insult, not to mention pots and kettles (for the sake of political correctness...)

SC

Don't know about this one. Of course as a namby pamby left of centre liberal I support free speech (though LOS doesn't).

But just as a matter of fact, it is not possible that all religions are equally 'good' (ie in terms of how much they enrich or restrict the lives of their adherents, how they enhance or diminish human rights, how violent or non-violent their precepts etc.) So all religions can't merit special treatment just by being religions.

In my view I suppose you have to allow religious people to try to preach and convert, but you should be able to argue against, criticise and demand justifications for all the unsupported claims they make, in a very robust manner, just as if they were trying to sell you a used car, with no special respect or deference accorded to them just because it's a 'religion'.

I don't have to like it though, and feel justified in preferring it didn't happen. Is that intolerance?

[CWMcMurray]

not making any judgements about missionaries or their goals (to each his own), but the difference in simple...

Teaching English is simply giving students another tool to use. It is the international language and as such allows the student to participate in any international venue or discussion. It is NOT a belief structure...

Converting to a new religion requires the student to completely change their entire belief structure.

Edited June 26, 2011 by CWMcMurray

[Escapologist]

"What is the difference (if any) between a missionary spreading the gospel of his or her religion, and persuade others to believe in it's doctrines and practices, and someone persuading other countries population to learn english?"

A country has an economic self-interest for learning a de-facto international language. Organised religion has political self-interest in dominating a country. Christianity appears to use a 'spoonful of sugar' approach nowadays. Give the natives a bit of what they fancy, gain trust and rapport, and get conversions. No point even commenting on Islam.

[Escapologist]

Of course as a namby pamby left of centre liberal I support free speech (though LOS doesn't).

So you are left-wing, which means you believe in forced redistribution of wealth via the guns of the State, and you support free speech. Whilst these two views don't seem necessarily at odds, they do seem a highly unlikely occurrence in the real world. In my experience of socialism in the UK, particularly in the last 15 or so years, "free speech" usually means that you can say anything as long as the socialist establishment agrees with it. Not much different from the Thai notion of free speech. Just a different orthodoxy.

[zzaa09]

Most people don't need to be persuaded or manipulated to learn English. (Though if the kids had a choice .... )

On the contrary, most are socially engineered to adhere so.

[bifftastic]

Of course as a namby pamby left of centre liberal I support free speech (though LOS doesn't).

So you are left-wing, which means you believe in forced redistribution of wealth via the guns of the State, and you support free speech. Whilst these two views don't seem necessarily at odds, they do seem a highly unlikely occurrence in the real world. In my experience of socialism in the UK, particularly in the last 15 or so years, "free speech" usually means that you can say anything as long as the socialist establishment agrees with it. Not much different from the Thai notion of free speech. Just a different orthodoxy.

We haven't had socialism in the UK for the last 15 years, we've had Tony Blair, who, it turns out, was a bit of a missionary himself.

Stalin was a socialist, the Labour government elected after the second world war, was left-wing. Stalin murdered millions of people, The Labour government started the NHS. There is, I hope you'll agree, a great deal of difference between the ideologies implemented by the two! The Labour party today is almost unrecognisable from the original party. We now have a choice of Conservatives and conservatives with red ties on.

As for the OP, converting people to one or another belief system is not comparable with teaching someone a language.

[AyG]

Converting to a new religion requires the student to completely change their entire belief structure.

And in some cases having their genitals hacked at with a rusty razor blade. Ain't religion wonderful.

[Mrjlh]

I thought missionaries in Thailand were there to teach us the missionary postitiion. At least that is what I've been using them for.

dam_n you mean there's another position besides standing up?

And I find birth control very difficult too. Holding that dam_n pill between ones knees....

[partington]

Of course as a namby pamby left of centre liberal I support free speech (though LOS doesn't).

So you are left-wing, which means you believe in forced redistribution of wealth via the guns of the State, and you support free speech. Whilst these two views don't seem necessarily at odds, they do seem a highly unlikely occurrence in the real world. In my experience of socialism in the UK, particularly in the last 15 or so years, "free speech" usually means that you can say anything as long as the socialist establishment agrees with it. Not much different from the Thai notion of free speech. Just a different orthodoxy.

We haven't had socialism in the UK for the last 15 years, we've had Tony Blair, who, it turns out, was a bit of a missionary himself.

Stalin was a socialist, the Labour government elected after the second world war, was left-wing. Stalin murdered millions of people, The Labour government started the NHS. There is, I hope you'll agree, a great deal of difference between the ideologies implemented by the two! The Labour party today is almost unrecognisable from the original party. We now have a choice of Conservatives and conservatives with red ties on.

As for the OP, converting people to one or another belief system is not comparable with teaching someone a language.

No , no his argument was so cogent and well thought out that it has completely changed my outlook! I just must have been blind!! Why didn't I see this before??

So I'm a Tory now, and fiercely proud of it!

Edited June 27, 2011 by partington

[Geekfreaklover]

Learning English is a practically useful skill that will usually raise a person's potential standard of living in life. Pushing an arrogant religion that believes they are the one and only path towards eternal salvation down the throats of a foreign culture is an act of hostility and disrespect to the local culture and people. Not many people find English teaching offensive. Many, many people find aggressive missionaries VERY offensive. Not only talking about Christians, but at least one other major religion that aggressively pursues mass conversions.

Can't help but agree 100%

The only situation where teaching English can be considered offensive is where it is taught by somebody from, say, Liverpool, or Newcastle, or Glasgow.

Christians are pretty inoffensive unless they are teaching.

Edited June 27, 2011 by Geekfreaklover

[zzaa09]

Christians are pretty inoffensive unless they are teaching.

....or instigating war, cultural-imperialism, or general homogeny - which is more reflective of their true historical nature.

[cdnvic]

This topic seems to be existing only to denigrate a religion.

/closed.