Villagers furious with Christian Missionaries (http://in.news.yahoo.com/050116/139/2j1rp.html)

Jubilant at seeing the relief trucks loaded with food, clothes and the much-needed medicines the villagers, many of who have not had a square meal in days, were shocked when the nuns asked them to convert before distributing biscuits and water.If there's any truth (I don't know that it is, I can't find anything else on it)to this article :eek:

Interesting topic of discussion though: Is this an acceptable form of missionary work/conversion? Is this how you'd like followers added to your flock?

Aid from Israel was also denied. Some people never learn.

Edit: after reading this for the second time, i realise this has little to do with the topic. My bad.

WTF? Now some people obviously don't understand their own religion.

If the story is true and someone dies, his blood will be on the missionary's hands.

It is pretty common really, the large aid packages promised to Africa for AIDS prevention and treatment refuses to give any funds to organisations who performs abortions or advocates it and they are not even fond of organisations who advocates the use of condoms and the like.

That's understandable so long as the money can't be given directly to the people who need it. I.e. if the money goes to pay for abortions or to pay for the organisation's bills, it's understandable to withhold donations. Especially if there's another way of reaching the needy. If you are entrusted with some charity money by your church, it's quite reasonable that you don't hand it over to the church's enemies - or ideological opponents, if you prefer. But demanding conversion, religious or ideological, from a needy person under the pain of not receiving the aid is a travesty.

[ January 19, 2005, 18:09: Message edited by: chevalier ]

I hate this kind of socalled Christianity. Gives my Lord a bad reputation.
Like you could really expect these refugees would love God this way.

:(

If the story is true and someone dies, his blood will be on the missionary's hands.Ah, but which is more important--saving the body or saving the soul?

Or so the reasoning goes.

Good point AMaster, for the missionary it's a bit like a firefighter trying to help a suicidal man.
If the firefighter wouldn't grab the man from the ledge, then he would kill himself, if the missionary wouldn't grab a man from his 'ignorance' then he would burn an eternity.

Yes, but that argument completely falls apart when you realize that the missionary's failure to give aid may kill the person, but giving aid will allow a lifetime to reflect and perhaps come into the fold even if the person isn't quite willing to do it now.

I'll be honest, I haven't directly helped with the tsunami effort, even by giving money, so who am I to criticize people out there who are willing to help those of their faith?

Still, this unnerves me, and I share the opinion that religion should not have been a big deal in whether the missionaries helped the victims. But I've heard the deal has probably worked the other way around too, with some victims refusing help on the basis of faith.

I hope the story is false. Refusing aid unless you convert is (IMO) the same as demanding conversion at sword point. Die or convert. The conversion is made under duress and is null and void.

The conversion is made under duress and is null and void.And I'm certain the nuns would realise that. I think there is a high chance the report is false.

The story of the Good Samaritan is very much to the point, I think. You help those who need help. To refuse to give it, when you could, is not just un-Christian (if that is your religion), it is evil.

I wasn't saying the argument was valid, dmc--just trying to understand what was/is going through those missionaries' heads.

I thought the Christin attitude was to help all those in need unconditionally - not to convert.

When it comes down to it religion is a business just like Mcdonald's. Of course I am not talking about all religions or even all branches of Christianity.

I guess what the Bible teaches and what Christian leaders preach are 2 different things.

I guess what the Bible teaches and what Christian leaders preach are 2 different things. Unfortunately this is often too true.

I did a search and did not find any other reference to this incident. I wonder if anyone has seen it anywhere else?

Ah, but which is more important--saving the body or saving the soul?

Or so the reasoning goes.The soul is not saved by a forced conversion and I dare say the missionary endangers his own soul by making aid conditional upon conversion. If he really does that, though, and we only have this one source.

I guess what the Bible teaches and what Christian leaders preach are 2 different things.Not necessarily. The biggest problem is the relation between what some of them preach and what they do. There's also a difference between what the big leaders preach and what the small leaders do when they don't think they are being watched. When the cat's away...

Then again, this wasn't a truckload of self-proclaimed champions, but a convoy run by nuns. I don't say the report is false, but there might have been some misunderstanding. For example preaching in the same time as distributing the aid and the locals refusing the aid because they wouldn't accept the preaching. But fact stands, some Christians do behave like that. Which only shows they don't really understand what they are preaching.

If, and I empasize if, this story is true then these nuns should have known better. This is the exact same tactic the English used against Irish Catholics during the potato famine: food was available to starving Irish *if* they would give up their Catholic Faith first. Having been the victims of it, it would be a disgrace to do it to others. Additionally, despite lying propaganda to the contrary, the Catholic Church absolutely forbids forced conversions -- including the kind described here.

My country was christned by a viking, who was tasked by a king to do so. He traveled throughout the land, attacked chieftains at night, and gave them the choice between the cross or the sword. Hows that for saving souls? For as we all know, people that are forced to believe in God, would truely believe in him, and not just say they did because they were forced. Right?

As for the incident, well it does seem rather unlikely and could be an misunderstanding. If not, them I guess the nuns would have some explaining to do when they shuffled off this mortal coil.

And this, young ones, is why I don't belong to any religous group, even though I am a christian, a quite fanatical one.

If this is true than I suggest that the missionaries in questions read the 'New Testament' before trying to 'help people'.

It reminds me of certain charities in N.Ireland. Without naming names we have one in particular that helps the poor in winter (buy coal for fires, electricty cards, food etc), but there is one tiny condition - you must be Catholic! Actually you don't even have to be a practicing Catholic, you can just live in a Catholic area or go to a Catholic school. Everyone else can starve, die etc.

Regarding Khemsa from Ohio - you should read up on your Irish history before making statements like that - The south of Ireland was (is) mostly Catholic and the North mostly Protestant. There were some cases of forced conversion.

Pope Pius IX sent funds as did Queen Victoria. From North American it was the Native Americans that provided the bulk of help. The Irish emigrants were treated worse than slaves when they arrived.

If you are saying that the British favoured the Protestants over the Catholics (from your forced conversion comment) why did the provence of Ulster loose 15.7% of its population and Leinster less at 15.3%? But this is off topic.

[ January 21, 2005, 11:02: Message edited by: Cesard ]

Cesard, you mean the "I only help those who come to me" part? Then every missionary goes against the Bible.

I am very new to this site I know. But having just returned from Sumatara I have seen first hand the work of most christian and non. This is from my knowledge and experience in the field a False article.as told to me by a survivor "What fear we the terrorist who threatens your life when with one swipe god can take it all". My prasie and admiration to all here and thanks for the few times I was able to connect to this site while sitting in hell.
kaafromoz

Cesard:

I never said forced conversions to Catholicism never happened, I simply said the Church forbids it. The Church also forbids murdering people, but that does not mean that there have not been Catholics who have committed murder.

Concerning the Irish, I am not defending the way the Irish were treated in America (that is impossible to defend), and I never said that assistance did not come to the Irish from other sources. What I said was that the English, more specifically English "charities", would give aid only if the recipient converted to Protestantism. My point was that Catholics have experienced the injustice of "convert or get no help" and, thus, have no business doing the same thing to others.

Khemsa I think we mis-understood each other. I was just trying to say that that forced conversion to Protestantism may have/did happen on a small scale but from history lessons and books that I have read suggest otherwise.

I am pleased that the Catholic Church forbids forced conversion but some individuals may consider themselves above such rules. But as I said earlier I hope the story does turn out to be false as I hope people will help each other unconditionally.

This (http://www.ndtv.com/template/template.asp?id=16042&template=Tsunami&callid=0&frmsrch=1&txtsrch=tsunami%2Cchrist) is the only thing I could find.
Considering the quote was from a political activist I have no qualms accepting that no such thing happened.