Yeshua_Lives
Left the Forum
Not trying to attack anyone. Just a question about the foundation of the Mormon church.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The Problem With Missionaries
- Thread starter Smoke
- Start date
Not trying to attack anyone. Just a question about the foundation of the Mormon church.
M O N S T E R
Member
If God prefers faith to providing tangible, firsthand evidence, then we need some explanations for the following Scriptures:
John 2:23 Now when he was in Jerusalem at the passover, in the feast day, many believed in his name, when they saw the miracles which he did.
John 3:2 The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.
John 6:2 And a great multitude followed him, because they saw his miracles which he did on them that were diseased.
John 10:37-38 If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.
And here is another Scripture that shows that many people were very impressed with the miracles that Jesus performed:
Matthew 4:24 And his fame went throughout all Syria: and they brought unto him all sick people that were taken with divers diseases and torments, and those which were possessed with devils, and those which were lunatick, and those that had the palsy; and he healed them.
In the NIV, the book of Acts basically says that the disciples went about confirming the message of his grace by performing miracles. That is quite odd if Jesus had already performed many miracles, and had been seen by hundreds of people after he rose from the dead, and if the Holy Spirit had come to the church. Why were even more confirmations needed? We need tangible, firsthand confirmations much more today than people did back then because there aren't any still living eyewitnesses around like there supposedly were back then. Why would Jesus say "O ye of little faith" and then give in to some stubborn skeptics who demanded tangible, firsthand evidence? Jesus supposedly criticized Thomas for wanting tangible evidence that he had risen from the dead, but yet Jesus was perfectly content to perform miracles before some stubborn skeptics who were not convinced by his words alone.
If a God exists, and he wants people to have faith, he could easily directly communicate with everyone in the world without the use of written texts, whether tangibly, spiritually, or both. That would be much more effective than using written texts.
If God wanted to spread news about Jesus all over the world, why didn't he want to spread news about himself all over the world during Old Testament times? The correct answer is that the God of the Bible does not exist, and the Jews appointed themselves to be God's chosen people.
Sola'lor
LDSUJC
I'll try to keep my comments more general. But I only have background of LDS onwhich to base my views.
Cool.......do I get to pick the style of housing? Like Victorian, ranch, or whatever? Or do I have to go with the rowhouse?
Peace,
Mystic
DeepShadow
White Crow
I think the problem is truly ingrained at a fundamental level, but not in the church: it's in the people. See, I know two ways to proselytize, and they are diametrically opposite. One is to tear down someone else's beliefs, the other is to share yours, and see if they like it better. Despite our best efforts, the memes of the former are being handed down among missionaries--and even in families--because they are cheaper, more immediate, and don't require as much soul-searching. It's kinda like the dark side of the Force, really; not stronger, just quick and easy, in a spiritually lazy sort of way.
Smoke
Done here.
No, vandalism isn't. But vandalism is just an extreme outcome of the kind of aggression and arrogance that is inherent in the idea of proselytizing missions. Any time you engage a large group of nineteen year olds to perform an task that's inherently aggressive, embarrassing excesses will inevitably result. That's one of the reasons war is hell.
Sola'lor
LDSUJC
I think the 'Preach My Gospel' program is helping to cure the LDS missionaries of the quick and easy path.
DallasApple
Depends Upon My Mood..
Im sorry this was hilarious..Especially the part when the old man started hitting them with the broom....and the one man that yelled..Im a Bishop! ...LOL!
Blessings
Dallas
If I were to become a missionary, I wouldn't be able to preach to other religions. I am not entirely convinced that other faiths are wrong and I am not sure if all the Gods are the same one or not.
What if I were to find out that all the Gods are the same one? I wouldn't be able to live with myself if I told someone else that their faith is wrong and it turns out it isn't.
What if I were to find out that all the Gods are the same one? I wouldn't be able to live with myself if I told someone else that their faith is wrong and it turns out it isn't.
nutshell
Well-Known Member
Sola'lor
LDSUJC
I don't remember telling anyone they are wrong. I do remember building upon common doctrines. I also remem,ber says certain principles are incorrect and then explaining why using the scriptures.
But I've always told myself that if I ever left the church it would by my duty to go back to each and every person I talke dto on my mission and tell them what I taught was wrong. I think that's the responsibility of every missionary. If a missionary no longer believes what they preach they must tell all those they taught that they were wrong. At least apologize.
If you wanted something with no visible signs, you could've gone with carbon monoxide... though I'm not sure how a person walking by would notice it from the sidewalk.I think a better comparison would be trying to pull people out of their house against their will because you believe their house to be haunted. Any family whose house was on fire would be glad of the help once they saw the flames and smoke, but not just anybody is prepared to believe your claims of ghostly peril.
Sola'lor
LDSUJC
Personal carbon monoxide detector? Maybe like those laser thermometers.
Wandered Off
Sporadic Driveby Member
Missionary messages are predicated on the notion that "You are wrong and we're here to correct your error." Even if you don't come out and say, "You are wrong", that's the underlying reason for your activity, IMO. That could reasonably be viewed as aggressive, hostile toward existing beliefs and arguably the culture.
M O N S T E R
Member
Kosmin and Lachman wrote a book that is titled "One Nation Under God." Billy Graham endorses the book, but I do not have any idea why. The authors provide lots of documented research that shows that in the U.S., the primary factors that influence religious beliefs are geography, family, race, ethnicity, gender, and age. Those factors are entirely secular, and do not indicate that God has anything to do with the spread of Christianity in the U.S. It is reasonable to conclude that the Gospel message has always been spread entirely by human effort according to the prevailing inefficient means of communication, transportation, printing and translation of a given time period.
In the first century, God played favorites and made sure that no one who live far away from Palestine would hear the Gospel message. He also made sure genetically that a much higher percentage of women in the U.S. would be Christians than men. Women are more emotional than men are, so it is quite natural that they are more likely to become Christians than men are. If the reverse was the case, it would still be discrimination on God's part. God also made sure genetically that elderly people would be much less willing to change their worldviews than younger people. God is very discriminatory. Discrimination is not a good thing.
It is quite odd that there is not any credible evidence that God has ever personally told one single person about the Gospel message, and yet he supposedly wants Christians to tell people about it. This indicates that the spread of the Gospel message has never actually been of much importance to God.
If the universe is naturalistic, all tangible benefits would be distributed indiscriminately according to the laws of physics without any regard for a person's needs, worldview or requests. If God exists, it is quite odd that he would make it appear to millions of people that he does not exist by mimicking a naturalistic distribution of tangible benefits, especially considering the supposed fact that Jesus went out his way to make sure that people believed that God is able to discriminately distribute tangible benefits.
In the first century, God played favorites and made sure that no one who live far away from Palestine would hear the Gospel message. He also made sure genetically that a much higher percentage of women in the U.S. would be Christians than men. Women are more emotional than men are, so it is quite natural that they are more likely to become Christians than men are. If the reverse was the case, it would still be discrimination on God's part. God also made sure genetically that elderly people would be much less willing to change their worldviews than younger people. God is very discriminatory. Discrimination is not a good thing.
It is quite odd that there is not any credible evidence that God has ever personally told one single person about the Gospel message, and yet he supposedly wants Christians to tell people about it. This indicates that the spread of the Gospel message has never actually been of much importance to God.
If the universe is naturalistic, all tangible benefits would be distributed indiscriminately according to the laws of physics without any regard for a person's needs, worldview or requests. If God exists, it is quite odd that he would make it appear to millions of people that he does not exist by mimicking a naturalistic distribution of tangible benefits, especially considering the supposed fact that Jesus went out his way to make sure that people believed that God is able to discriminately distribute tangible benefits.
Don Penguinoini
Modi.
Let people see their life giving light for themselves.
Don Penguinoini
Modi.
Aren't eastern religion near perfect?
M O N S T E R
Member
It is said that you can catch more flies with honey than you can with vinegar. This truth obviously do not apply to people who become Christians. There is no doubt whatsoever that ANY powerful being who showed up and healed all of the sick people in the word would immediately attract a lot of followers, especially if his message was deemed to be acceptable, such as 1) promising salvation by merit, 2) not requiring faith, 3) providing tangible evidence of his existence, power, and goodness for everyone to see, thereby eliminating most doubt, and most religious wars, and 4) being available to have frequent discussions with everyone, tangibly and in person. If such a being started a new religion, it would quickly become the largest religion in history, and yet some Christians claim that it would be counterproductive for God to do anything more than he has already done. How utterly absurd.
Christians would be quite pleased if God healed all of the sick people in the world, but yet, they are quite content that God refuses to heal all of the sick people in the world. Do Christians actually have any opinions of their own? Apparently not.
God HAS NOT done everything that he can do in order to help ensure that as many people as possible go to heaven, and as few people as possible go to hell, and he IS willing that some people will perish or he would have done much more than he has done to prevent it.
Christians would be quite pleased if God healed all of the sick people in the world, but yet, they are quite content that God refuses to heal all of the sick people in the world. Do Christians actually have any opinions of their own? Apparently not.
God HAS NOT done everything that he can do in order to help ensure that as many people as possible go to heaven, and as few people as possible go to hell, and he IS willing that some people will perish or he would have done much more than he has done to prevent it.
nutshell
Well-Known Member
No. It's not about you're wrong / we're right. It's about offering something and letting them either accept or reject and then accepting either decision.
Wandered Off
Sporadic Driveby Member
If you (speaking in general) don't have something you consider "better", why would you see a need to proselytize at all?