Proselytize away, just not on my tax nickel

Hi Walter,

http://faithdefenders.com/category/atheism/

Any position takes faith to believe in, but it is what that faith rests on that is the real test, and that is where what you believe fall apart.

I find it interesting that you take your daughter to church and yet will not surrender or believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God yourself, yet something keeps you intermingling with Christian men.

The Christian life is not won on what we do for God but on what God has done for us and in us, for Christ is our life. It is a life of grace IN Christ.

"But thanks be to God! He gives us victory THROUGH our LORD JESUS CHRIST. (1 Corinthians 15:57)

You see it is God's work alone that secures us, and that work is through Christ. It is faith/trust/dependency in Him and in His life, not ours that is our merit before God. God has given the Christian the victory, the freedom and power over sin and death IN Christ.

That is something you will never understand unless your trust is in Jesus and Jesus lives in you (1 Corinthians 2:13-14, 16). You are trying to understand the Scriptures from a worldly wisdom, that God has proclaimed is foolishness (1 Corinthians 1:20).

His logic and truth do not go contrary to the way things are, for things are the way they are because of Him. I have tried to show you that repeatedly by asking you to make sense of your beliefs and how they can ultimately answer anything.

After Paul, through the Spirit, disclosed
that IN Christ "are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge' he said this, "So then, just as you received Christ Jesus as Lord, continue to LIVE IN Him, rooted and built up IN Him, strengthened in the faith..." (Colossians 2:3, 6-7)

Faith is believing God. Your faith is believing men. Where does it lead you? How can you have certainty on anything that comes from man living outside of God? Where is their ultimate authority based? All these men and women are doing to trying to build on their self-sufficiency and supposed independence, but without the ability to answer the vital questions of life.

Part 2

Many Christians mistakenly believe that we act synergistically with God in that we do the work hand in hand with God (Ephesians 2:8-10, esp. vs 9).

Colossians 2:27 says:
"To them God has chosen to make known among the Gentiles the glorious riches of this mystery, which is Christ IN you."

Christ in you! God does the work when we come to the realization and understanding, in faith, that Christ works through us. Faith is believing God in Christ.

"For through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God. I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ LIVES IN ME. The life I live in the body I live by faith in the Son of God..." (Galatians 2:19-20)

Our lives, as Christians, are by faith/belief/dependence on Christ, not by self-effort. We don't begin by believing that He has perfected us by His work and then ignore that gift and try to do the work ourselves. No, as Paul said,

"You foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you...Did you receive the Spirit by observing the Law, or by believing what you heard (i.e by faith)? Are you so foolish? After beginning with the Spirit are you now trying to obtain your goal by human effort? (Galatians 3:1, 2b-3)

God has made the believer complete or perfect in Christ (Hebrews 10:14) by giving us a new nature (Ezek. 36:26-27/Jeremiah 31:31-34 with Hebrews 10:15-16), and sharing in the life of Christ (Col. 2:9-10), His eternal life (John 3:36).

God alone has eternal life for we had a beginning and we are included in that life IN Christ. He is our life!

"And He did not do many miracles there because of their lack of faith." (Matthew 13:58)

That is where you stand now.

Faith in Christ does not rest on nothing, some fanciful wishful thinking, nor does it go against what is real and true.

Hi Timmy 2,

I read your post on what you like to do with Christian proselytizer's. I don't know of any that come two by two to their neighbor's door. The only ones that I'm aware of that do that are cults such as JW's and Mormons. That is aberrant teaching.

Likewise with me and atheists. I'm always interested in hearing about their justification and surety of knowing what they believe as true when they push their viewpoint across on national forums.

You say, "I feel compelled to put that knowledge to good use every time a couple of brainwashed young adults comes to my door to tell me about the thing they were brainwashed to believe."

How do you know that you are not brainwashed to believe what you believe?

TIMMY: "I consider every day that a christian proselytizer comes to my door a great day. I wish I got at least one every day."

Likewise with atheists for me.

Atheism is trying hard to compete as the dominant position, and not in subtle ways with such as the four horsemen as your spokesmen.

Continuing CT1,

CT1: "Contrast this with the Rig Veda, the oldest spiritual text in the world and the basis of Hinduism and secondarily Buddhism.
Rig Veda: "Truth is One, but sages call it by various names".
This attitude towards Truth seems much more rational, decent, & tolerant. No claims of monopoly of the Truth or God; no supremacism or exclusion. No need for proselytization, violence, or conflict.

You remind me of the story of the blind men and the elephant, how each supposes that a different part of the elephant is like something other than what it is. One feels the trunk and thinks it is like a snake, another the ear and thinks it is like a fan, another the leg and believes it is like a tree trunk, another the body and believes it is like a wall. The point is that none correctly 'see' or identify the elephant or know it for what it truly is. They only touch one aspect of it. They compare its body parts to things that they are not; not really seeing them for what they are. So not all claims to truth are true. Your religion is one that poses as true because you are like the blind man who believes truth is what he makes it to be. You compare things that seem alike but are in stark contrast to each other.

God cannot rationally be both personal and impersonal, or all knowing and wise and limited in knowledge and wisdom, or everything as opposed to separate from the creation, just as truth can never be false or the number 2 be the number 4. Try convincing someone that 2 is actually 4.

You say the Rig Veda is the oldest spiritual text in the world. The question is how do you know this? What evidence is there to make such a claim?

And the funny thing about your attack on Christianity and Islam is that you immediately place your spiritual book on the level of most rational and therefore best option for belief. Your guise is just as exclusive as any other. If it wasn't it would not be something you 'felt' better than the rest. And you definitely make that distinction as your statements on rationality and irrationality and your claims on your holy book as being more decent and tolerant show with words such as 'much more.' Your view is just as supreme as any other.

I don't think you are being honest with yourself. You are not as tolerant as you think you are, or as unbiased.

Hi Clearthinking 1 (hence CT1),

You say "The main source of the need to "share" or proselytize is the feeling unique to Christians and Muslims that they have the only right answer, right prophet, right book, right truth, or right way."

CT1: "Isn't this fundamentally irrational?"

Is it rational that two opposing beliefs can both be true that say different things about God?

It is not irrational to believe that truth is exclusive or narrow or that there is one way to God - His way.

What you are in effect saying is that Christianity, Islam and Hinduism are all true, the're all right, even though they say completely contrary things. 1 + 1 + 1 = 27. Is that right? Is that true? Can God be one way to one religion and another to the other?

If you do not have an accurate knowledge of God you don't know Him.

The main source of the need to "share" or proselytize is the feeling unique to Christians and Muslims that they have the only right answer, right prophet, right book, right truth, or right way.

Isn't this fundamentally irrational?

Contrast this with the Rig Veda, the oldest spiritual text in the world and the basis of Hinduism and secondarily Buddhism.
Rig Veda: "Truth is One, but sages call it by various names".
This attitude towards Truth seems much more rational, decent, & tolerant. No claims of monopoly of the Truth or God; no supremacism or exclusion. No need for proselytization, violence, or conflict.

Once again back to the topic with some questions:

Are proselytizing atheists exclusivists?

Are proselytizing "intelligent designers" exclusivists?

Some words of wisdom for those who proselytize- the more important observations:

http://www.theosophical.org/publications/questmagazine/julyaugust2000/somerville/index.php

"From Exclusivism to Convergence:
How We Relate to the Religions of Others;

Part 2. Pluralism, Convergence, and Response

By James M. Somerville

Faced with the fact of divergence in the religious traditions of the world, some believers in a particular tradition are exclusivists, rejecting all other traditions as errors. Other believers are inclusivists, recognizing other traditions as lesser or imperfect forms of truth."

D12,

That comic novel is the best piece of creative writing that has been seen here for a long time. LOL

But the one mistake you made is to think of Schaum as an Atheist. He is really a toxic Catholic by birth, training, and personality disorder. He thinks that because he hates the other toxic Catholics that he has freed himself. But far from it. Toxic Catholic hatred is engraved upon his heart, and he remains a slave to it. Probably always will.

Daniel
There is lots of truth in what you say.
Being a Mormon missionary is very much like being a door-to-door salesman, with a bit of the politician knocking on doors asking for your vote. Politically hostile? Maybe.

Since 5 of the 19 year olds have been my brothers or nephew/nieces, I see them as human beings in addition to odd, cult-like figures. I can understand why people see them as cult-like and wierd, but they are also pretty normal 19 year olds in most ways.

My own taste is very much against proselytizing, and I refused to do it myself because I didn't think religion should be sold that way.

I myself think it is delusional to think that people need to convert to your religion in order to be saved, or maximally placed in the after-life. But then, the world is filled with people who hold delusional beliefs as far as religion is concerned.

susan,
you have a talent/knack/something for covering every point i think of on an issue. thanks. ;-)

Jsmith4

I think that proselytizing is a politically hostile and predatory practice. People are free to engage in it if they wish, but they should be prepared to receive the same disrespect that they pay towards others, and they should accept the bad reputation that they earn for themselves, and not complain about how people are unfair to them and how no one really understands them, nor realizes how great they are.

Mormon missionaries are a little different than other proselytizers, because they are naive babes in the woods, who do not understand what they are doing. They are almost always teenagers, 18 or 19 years old. They have zero life experience to communicate to others; they are simple-hearted and naive, which I suppose, makes them charming.

Whenever I see them, paired up in their weird monotony of sophisticate and nerd, I am always interested to know how they are doing, because I do not think that they are necessarily idealistic, but just stuck in one of life's many awkard situations, with an unpleasant task that they must endure.

Daniel12:

I'm really impressed with your fiction writing skills. I've thought up a scenario that I'd like for you to develop into a plot outline for a book or movie. This is it:

The story is set in a funeral home, actually Joyboy's Funeral Home, where a failed writer, Daniel, is employed writing obituaries. The second character, Ms. Blackwell, is an elderly alcoholic drag queen whose "show business" career extends no farther than Joyboy's, where s/he is occasionally employed, in drag, as a hired-mourner. Daniel and Ms. Blackwell become very close and bond -- Daniel thinks of Ms Blackwell as a mother figure.

But problems arise when a small carnival comes to town. Daniel and Ms. Blackwell go to the carnival, on Mother's Day, where Daniel has his fortune told by a mystic-seer, who is named Bruce and who has read two books on science by Asimov, which is two more than Daniel has read, and with whom Daniel falls hopelessly in love. Clearly he is drawn to superior intellects.

Daniel has a great idea for a TV series, which he begins to write out in plot form to peddle in Hollywood, and which is called "I Love Brucie."

You take it from there D12. Come to think of it, you better go back and read this again, to make sure you get it all.

"Given how inept secular aid groups are at attempting to administer foreign aid, they are lucky that religious groups aren't power hungry enough (like the secular groups are) to attempt to ban secular aid due to its horrible inefficiency."

Pish Posh.

The Gates Foundation has more money, and provides more aid, to Africa than any other entity, and it is obviously
• completely secular, and
• uniquely effective.

Many other examples could be given.

Religious enthusiasts should not obscure the facts.

"Given how inept secular aid groups are at attempting to administer foreign aid, they are lucky that religious groups aren't power hungry enough (like the secular groups are) to attempt to ban secular aid due to its horrible inefficiency."

Last time I checked the USA is a secular agency that does a great job in administering aid as noted by our military's assistance to those Haitians in need. Our taxes so far have aided this cause to the tune of over $500 million which is significantly greater than the aid given by proselytizing religious groups aiding Haiti.

As an apostate Mormon whose two brothers and three nephews have served as Mormon missionaries, I can attest that these young people are not aliens or zombies or terrorists, but rather idealistic and well-meaning and fine young people.

And if a 36 year old Czech/Estonian/Peruvian can't hold their own with a 19 year old from Utah, maybe they ought to convert.

And though I left the faith, Mormonism has very rarely ruined people's lives, or forced them to pay taxes to the US when they didn't want to.

Let a hundred flowers bloom. Mormons don't coerce. They sell. They try to persuade. Let the buyer beware, but let the market of ideas be free.

So I have to pay taxes so that my government can spray pesticides on the amazon rainforest in its war on drugs, and also to fund global warming awareness that blames me driving my car to work for the amazon rainforest disappearing.

But its not those things that make you upset, its money going to religious groups which are far more effective at charity than international groups which supply food aid to drive indigenous farmers to bankruptcy and do very little to rebuild the country in need.

Given how inept secular aid groups are at attempting to administer foreign aid, they are lucky that religious groups aren't power hungry enough (like the secular groups are) to attempt to ban secular aid due to its horrible inefficiency.

It is actually the U. S. government that is free-riding on the evangelicals. When government disburses aid directly, either domestically or internationally, then it is tragically expensive to administer.

When the government partners with private groups like religious organizations, the taxpayer dollars go much, much farther. The aid is administered more honestly per dollar with less bureaucracy. Those who receive the aid are considered to be humans rather than disease threats. The aid workers are usually very conscious to not violate policy strings that go along with the help.

Assistance that is truly beneficial to individuals tends to be labor intensive. Teaching a person to farm or caring for the sick or instructing a group on how to dig a well is time consuming. That means giving of one's self far beyond what is possible when simply punching a government time clock.

Exporting the Bill of Rights just doesn't work very well. And Jacoby failed to cite a country where the poor resent the help.

Persiflage:

Thanks for the donotcall link. That is a big help!

World Vision does take a community approach, and that is more difficult than most can imagine. They are entirely dependent on the host communities, which may be riddled with corruption. If World Vision learns of a problem, they will send personnel to investigate, and, if what they were told turns out to be true, they will shut down the operation in question.

Of this I have knowledge from three people on two continents in two different operations. All three were nationals of the host companies and were in a position to resign their posts so as to notify WV of corruption. Unfortunately, WV cannot depend on this kind intelligence.

I'm not defending World Vision, but I have known folks who've worked for them, received training from them, etc. These people have done humanitarian work under very difficult conditions and saved lives.

Check out the link below for the telemarketer cure. I've registered landlines and cellphone and have rarely heard from telemarketers over the last several years. It may take a month or two for full activation.

https://www.donotcall.gov/

Timmy

More about Mormon missionaries ...

(I suppose if there are any current or former Mormon missionaries reading this, might they comment?)

As I get older, I feel more and more this way, that these Mormon missionaries are just kids, who are compelled by the religion of their elders to go off on this proselytizing odyssey. They know nothing; they are babes in the woods; I actually fear being the one to shake loose their fanciful religious ideas; I feel sure there is plenty to experience besides my free-thinking opinions, to shake them up a little.

They do not even know that they are proselytizing nor that anyone would object to it, on principle; they do not even know that word, or concept; they think they are doing good, because that is what they have been told they are doing.

Many of them do not really seem to be all that into it; many of them seem relieved and even greatful to meet and chat with someone about ordinary stuff, to tell you about their families, or their aspirations for college.

I am sure that the people in charge of the Mormon missionary program screen these kids and give them a very basic review of what they may encounter. But, they are still teenagers, who know nothing of life, or of the world, and how can I be angry at them for that? They just show up on your doorstep, like an abandonned baby that someone doesn't want. Perhaps this is part of the Mormon strategy at getting people to listen to them.

I have had the worst experiences with Jehovah's Witnesses. There seems to be no rhyme or reason to their proselytizing practices, but brute force. Usually, they arrive in a group of two or more; usually a lady with blue, grey, or white hair is the spokesman; they do not waste any time at all in getting down to the business of insulting you, and then when you ask them to leave, they always take back their "Watch Tower" literature, and go storming off, in a huff.

Most of the rest are garden variety Evangelicals who seem to have no plan at all, but are just conducting themselves, ad hoc, in a fairly meek way, and who leave quietly when told, "not interested."

I've been annoyed by and with proselytizers for years. They are a form of nuisance that is akin to telephone marketers, and both seem to be most active around the dinner hour.

Mormons, Baptists, Jehovah's Witnesses, and a couple of others, are famous in these parts for calling at an inconvenient time and 'just wanting to leave me some reading material.' I've begun to keep old issues of Washington Blade (a gay newspaper in DC) in a box in my hall closet. I agree to accept their reading literature only if they accept mine -- an old issue of WB.

I haven't been bothered much by proselytizing evangelical fanatics in the last six months. Telemarketers are still a pain in the butt, though. Haven't devised a way to retaliate against them yet.

DITLT,

I feel the same way as you about the ethics of proselytizing. And like you I feel sympathy rather than disdain for them. That is why I take the opportunity to have a conversation with them of the type that I see you attempting with christian proselytizers on this blog. I ask them to tell me why they believe what they believe and I honestly and bluntly tell them why I do not believe it. I try to raise their awareness.

BTW up here in Canada we don't have many Mormons. The folks that come to my door are mostly protestants and christians of all sorts. They also generally come in pairs.

I invite them in, and if I have time I even offer them a cup of tea or coffee. I actually want them to stay a while and talk. I take the opportunity to try and make them think more deeply about exactly what they believe and why. And I tell them what I believe and why. This they are not used to.

There's just not many people in this world that know as much about all of the philosophical arguments on religion as us weirdos who blog so much about it. Most of my friends are atheists but I'd bet my paycheck that none of them blog about it weekly or read as much about religion and philosophy as I do. I have much more knowledge on this particular argument than your average Joe by far. I must have typed and read tens of thousands of pages on this very specific argument for about 8 years now.

I feel compelled to put that knowledge to good use every time a couple of brainwashed young adults comes to my door to tell me about the thing they were brainwashed to believe. I can impart upon them awareness raising arguments they have never heard before and are not likely to hear in the bubbled world they live in.

Normally they either get a door slammed in their face or they end up speaking with someone who already believes what they believe. Seldom do they get the opportunity to talk to someone who might actually be able to get them to at least start to question what they have been taught. I have developed awareness raising skills and I like to use them.

I consider every day that a christian proselytizer comes to my door a great day. I wish I got at least one every day.

Admittedly I have the time for this during the day and not everyone does. All the more reason for me to do it.

Timmy

Over the years, I have allowed many Mormon Missionaries into my home, for a brief rest as they go about their missionary obligations.

I try to engage them in any kind of conversation that gets them away from their proseltyzing schtick, like, where are they from, how many brothers and sisters do they have, have they travelled much, are they homesick ... it is usually pretty easy to engage them in normal conversation. I never tell them what I believe, and so far, not any of them has ever cared.

I think that they are misguided and I do not respect at all this Mormon campaign of proselytizing the world; but I have never engaged these misisonaries in any kind of agrument, nor told them how I really feel about them; they seem very young and sheltered, and the thought of what they do is a little pitiful.

Timmy2

Perhaps you are referring to the Mormon missionaries. Over the years, I have met many of them, and can spot them in a crowd.

They always travel in pairs, and there is always one that seems polished and a little worldly, even a little chic, and there is the other one, a goofy nerd, with a wrinkled jacket and mustard on his tie. It is actually a pretty sophisticated program that the missionaries are ALWAYS paired up in this way; I have never seen an exception to this, and I have seem many Mormon missionary pairs.

Often, I feel a little sorry for them, because even though it is said to be "voluntary," they are engaged in this very wierd practice under family and parental compulstion; there is nothing at all voluntary about it, and so, I have this sense, that when they appear at my door, this is one of life's very difficult awkward moments; maybe they could use a little assistance or kindness, a drink of water, or just a brief rest, without being yelled at or given a hard time.

It is a weird and sad site; there is not getting around it.

Cassie

I have had many conversations with many people from a wide variety of nationalities and backgrounds on the subject of religion and what I believe. Perhaps that is what you mean by sharing.

I have never gone door to door, intruding into the private lives of strangers to share my thoughts on how wrong they are living their lives.

When my door bell rings, or I hear a knock, I always open the door. If I did not, what would you suggest I do? hide under the covers? you think people should have a sense of besiegement in the privacy of their own homes? That is ridiculous.

And when people begin their proselytizing spiel on me, it is difficult for me to be rude to them, or slam the door in their faces; it is called, "being put on the spot;" it is a lot more difficult to be rude to people in person than it is on this blog; the whole proselytizing scheme is based on the good will of people who will remain polite even when they are put on the spot in their own homes by these insenstive people who are perfect examples of how not to be a Christian.

I say I have a problem with proselytizing, not that it should be against the law. I am merely stating facts, that this is a politically hostile practice, which has nothing to do with Jesus Christ nor belief in God.

If someone points out that your behavior is hostile and rude, then don't argue with them; believe them, and see what you can do to change, to be a better person.

Cassie

Just a gentle point. Proselytizing does not equate to 'sharing a point of view.' Proselytizing usually indicates a desire to convince or convert. I think it is perfetly possible to share a point of view without desiring to chage the worldview of another. I hope I have convinced you...OOPS, now that is proselytizing!

I liked an agree with Susan's article. Everyone is entiled to their own view and should be entiled to sharing that view if they wish (never forcing it on anyone of course).

To DanielInTheLionsDen: You are proselytizing right now as you type. You are sharing your point of view with the world on this post. To say that someone expressing what they believe and sharing that with everyone is somehow bad or offensive, is strange to to me. If you don't want to hear their message...don't open your door or ask them to leave. I highly doubt you get that many people coming to your door to proselytize anyway, I never do.

Give proselytizers and endless supply of rope. They will hang themselves.

DITLT,

I don't know about you but I used to shut the door on proselytizers who came to my house. Now I invite them in for a little chat. Often they work in pairs. Sometimes an elder and a young recruit. I love to watch the face of the young recruit as I say things they have never been exposed to before. And I love to watch the face of the elder who is sorry they opened this can of worms in front of the young mind they are trying to brainwash.

I wake up every day hoping to get a visit from proselytizers. They provide me an opportunity to say what I'd like to say and to the right audience. Bring it on. The more the better.

I disagree with Susan.

I have a problem with proselytizers, a BIG problem.

It is a politically hostile practice, having nothing to do with spirituality or religion. There is no requirement for a Christian to engage in this ugly practice.

Emonty's comment on this is exactly right, and something, by the way, that many Christians believe, it is just that since they never come knocking at your door, you never hear from them.

Proselytizers do not just wreak havoc in third world countries in times of earthquakes and natural disasters; they come a'knockin' at my door as well; it is always offensive to me. I have been to church hundreds, if not thousands of times, my neighborhood has churches of all kinds all throughout it, I have a Bible and I can read, and I do not appreciate these people of poor character, literally muscling in on the private space of my home, uninvited, to tell me how bad I am and how wrong I am on things that I do affirmitively believe with all my heart heart and in deep sincerity.

I believe that the practice of proselytizing shows a great deal about the people who practice it; not that they are all ill-intentioned, but they are definitely people of narrow vision and view, who cannot comprehend the very concept of "tolerance" and cannot possibly imagine the human experience from any point of view but their own.

Proselytizing Christians are bad Christians, and unfortunately by the nature of this practice, it is this bad Christian image that is projected most prominently to the world. It never occurs to any of them that they could be giving Christianity and Jesus Christ a bad name.

This is one time where Susan was definitely much more polite than I would have been.

The best way to 'proselytize' is the life you lead. I don't need government money to do that, nor should I ask for it.

World Vision- information purposes only

Mission Statement

"Dr. Bob Pierce, a Christian leader and filmmaker, in response to the needs of Korean War orphans, founded World Vision in 1950. World Vision is an international partnership of Christians whose mission is to serve the poor and oppressed through meeting their basic needs, promoting human transformation and seeking justice. "

http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments//2008/951/922/2008-951922279-04f86695-9.pdf

World Visions total donations for 2008 were $1,113,918,057 with the US taxpayers donating $280,590,001 to this total.

Approximately, $27 million was spent on marketing in 2008. The head of World Vision, Richard Stearns was paid $336,472 in 2008. The CFO’s salary was $197,050.

www.brandchannel.com/features_effect.asp?pf_id=394

"One website, commenting on World Vision's work in India, accuses the organization of “consciously [infusing] Christian religiosity as part of the help they provide to socially and economically marginalized communities” and funding such efforts as Bible camps and supporting local pastors. This goes well beyond its branding as an aid and development organization. "

www.answers.com/topic/world-vision

"In a report on famine in Ethiopia, reporter Andrew Geoghegan visited his 14 year old sponsor child. The girl has "been part of a World Vision program all her life" yet says (in translated subtitle) "Until recently, I didn't know I had a sponsor." and when asked about her knowledge of World Vision sponsorship says "Last time they gave me this jacket and a pen." Geoghegan was disconcerted to find that despite being "told by World Vision that [the girl] was learning English at school, and was improving...she speaks no English at all."[15]

In their response, World Vision states "World Vision unapologetically takes a community-based approach to development – a fact we publicly promote at every opportunity. Providing money directly to the families of sponsored children simply does not work, no matter how dire the circumstances. A ‘direct benefit' approach creates jealousy among community members that do not have sponsored children and fosters an ethos of dependency.

So while sponsored children may receive some direct benefits – like school materials or a jacket for warmth – this in no way represents the entirety of our work in a community, and it was disingenuous for the Foreign Correspondent story to imply this."

It is clearly stated on the World Vision website: "When you make a gift, your contributions are pooled with that of other sponsors of children in the community where your child lives. Your child receives health care, education, nutritious food, and the entire community benefits from access to clean water, agricultural assistance, medical care, and more."

ZZIM:

"Jesus was well-known for his mastery of Jewish religious writings."

In fact, Jesus did not found the christer faith. That was done, generations later, by adherents of his teachings, of whom only John is "known" to have been a disciple.

There is only one place in the NT that suggests Jesus could read i.e. Luke 4:16.

This passage is not attested to in any other NT passage or in any other related document making it a later addition or poor translation as per most NT scholars' analyses.

See also Professor Crossan and Professor Reed's book, Excavating Jesus, p. 30.

See also Professor Bruce Chilton's commentary in his book, Rabbi Jesus, An Intimate Biography, pp 99-101- An excerpt:

"What Luke misses is that Jesus stood in the synagogue as an illiterate mamzer in his claim to be the Lord's anointed".

It is very unfortunate that Jesus was illiterate for it resulted in many gospels and epistles being written years after his death by non-witnesses. This resulted in significant differences in said gospels and epistles and with many embellishments to raise Jesus to the level of a deity to compete with the Roman gods and emperors.

See also Raymond Brown's 878 page book, An Introduction to the New Testament, (Luke 4:16 note on p. 237) for an exhaustive review of the true writers of the gospels and epistles.

With respect to Mohammed:

" It has been part of the Muslim’s belief, based on traditions, that Prophet Muhammad was illiterate. God says in verse 29:51 that the Quran itself is the only miracle of the prophet. By alleging illiteracy for him, traditional Muslims were trying to make the claim even "more miraculous," for a book of such literary quality was sent down through an illiterate man. "

www.submission.org/illiteracy.html

" Muhammad was born to the equivalent of a middle-class family. He was known as Al-Ameen, "the trustworthy" because of his spotless reputation in all his dealings. Islamic history records that Muhammad was illiterate, though some scholars argue that Muhammad is likely to have received some form of education, and point to his successful career as a merchant.

When he grew up, he traveled with many caravans as an administrator whose responsibility was to see that the caravan arrived safely and with all goods intact. He did this throughout most of his working life.

In 610 CE, Muhammad (now aged 40) reported that while he was sitting in a cave in the hills outside Makkah mediating, the angel Gabriel gave him a message from God. He was commanded to memorize all of his visions. Islamic historiography holds that since he was illiterate he could not write them down. He did so, and after reluctantly revealing his experiences to his wife Khadijah, he began to gain followers by the force and quality of the words he recited. By 615 CE, he had developed a large following in Makkah."

www.fact-index.com/m/mu/muhammad_1.html

2. The founders of Christianity and Islam were both illiterate.
Posted by: YEAL9 | March 3, 2010 12:10 AM
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=

I doubt if this is correct. Jesus was well-known for his mastery of Jewish religious writings. Mohammad was a member of the educated economic elite of his town and ran a very successful business enterprise before inventing his new religion.

Try to stick to the facts.

'World Vision is one organization that my wife and I have given to for 20 years. Compassion International also.'
_________________

World Vision is fortunate to be part of a secular society that supports all kinds of humanitarian activities, including those sponsored by religious organizations.

Participants are free to believe whatever they choose, and to adopt whatever motives serve their purpose - the important part is, after all, the humanitarian aid.

Whenever religion combines with fully humanistic principles, it becomes possible to do some real good in the world.

DITLD:

"And finally, regarding Daniel12's ideas for comic novels, why don't you write one?"

Because he can't. His inability to write, to manage grammar, to construct rational, logical thoughts and sentences would finally and ultimately be demonstrated even to himself if he ever attempted to write anything. His most important delusion, that he is a writer, would be ground to dust. He can't afford to take that risk.

Clearthinking1:

I correct myself: "1/8 of the US population" refers to statistics from 2008. In 2009, the figure rose to 1/7. Obama says he will end "child hunger" in the US by 2015. If we have so much food and money to send to Haiti, and to fight George Bush's holy war, why can't we end child hunger in the US this week?

People should be aloud to share their faith and religion or philosophy wherever and whenever they want. Open exchange of ideas is integral to any society that wants to flourish and succeed.

The truth is religion gained it's powerful grip on the world and has flourished precisely because of the oppression of a truly open and free exchange of ideas and philosophies. This went on for millennia where the open and free exchange of ideas and philosophies could get one hanged or crucified, or lynched, or burned, or banished.

Let them go and preach their stories of Hell. The truly open and free exchange of ideas today with the power of the internet and globalization of ideas will expose them for what they are in due time and all will be kosher. ;)

Religion's first great enemy was the printing press. Then radio and television and trains and planes. The final nail in the coffin is here. It's called the internet. Very soon people in third world countries will be able to crosscheck everything a Christian missionary tells them with the sum of all human knowledge at the click of a mouse.

The only people who should be afraid of complete and open and free exchange of ideas are the phony religions. Missionaries used to be a problem, but their day is now over. All worship the internet. ;)

The charity I most strongly support is the "One Laptop Per Child" program. Every child everywhere in the world, a laptop with access to the world wide web.

http://wiki.laptop.org/go/One_Laptop_per_Child

Donate now.

World Vision is one organization that my wife and I have given to for 20 years. Compassion International also.

Not sure about the Proselytization comments- complaining. And to claim it is about politics is a stretch. It's more about sharing the love of God through Jesus Christ the savior of the world. It is never forced, and if you look at it culturally, it does no compromise any culture to convert to Christianity. This is one of the biggest lies and mistruths I have ever heard. It is part and parcel of being Christian to share the good news. Yelling fire in a crowded theater when there really is fire is NOT evil.

Part one.

Plot for a comic novel:

The President of the United States speaks out against U.S. religious groups proselytizing overseas--specifically Christian groups--and in fact declares himself an atheist believing that declaring such is a piece of good will toward religions and peoples overseas.

The Southern Baptists in the U.S. are furious at the President but are also overjoyed because the remains of Jesus have been found by them (in a secret excavation) in Israel. The Southern Baptists conceive a plan to clone Jesus from his remains and in the accelerated process of cloning (for a baby can be transformed into an adult in a matter of months) fill Christ's head with God, guns and country.

Osama Bin Laden releases a video calling the U.S. President an atheist dog and asks how it is exactly one is to know delusion (for Osama objects to the atheists in general calling religion delusion) from non-delusion in a universe which, according to the atheists, has no intelligent design behind it at all. Furthermore Osama asks why the President should object to terrorist attacks--call such irrational--if the universe has no intelligent design behind it at all. Osama of course takes credit for an explosion in India saying it is the plan of God.

Part two.

Within the United States there is a character called Daniel who is in a relationship (gay) with a character called Schaum, and Daniel--of no particular belief--takes pleasure in teasing Schaum--an atheist--by saying he not only thinks of God often but that God is so much sexier than Schaum.

Schaum hears of the work of a wheelchair bound atheist named Timmy who constantly picks at his own crotch--voluntary work at prisons all across the U.S. trying to rehabilitate the prisoners by turning them to atheism, for they are such believers, having Bibles in their cells, using them to store drugs, shivs, etc. Schaum leaves Daniel for the work of Timmy.

Christ having been cloned by the Southern Baptists immediately joins the U.S. army and goes into battle in Afghanistan. The President of the U.S. gets wind of this and with other high ranking atheists in government works with the terrorists in a plot to kill Jesus thinking this is as good a plan as any to rid the world of religion.

Part three.

Jesus survives in Afghanistan--in fact wins the silver star. Furthermore he gets wind of the joint atheist/terrorist plot against him and returns to the United States determined to stamp out atheism.

The terrorists join forces with Jesus, attributing his survival in Afghanistan to God being displeased with the terrorists for having joined forces with the atheists. And Jesus seals the deal with the terrorists by saying Mohammed will soon be cloned and that he and Mohammed will reign together forever (Jesus of course plans to kill Mohammed as soon as possible).

Timmy and Schaum in the thick of this try to accelerate their program with the prisoners (they are trying to rehabilitate by turning to atheism) by having gay sex with the prisoners. The prisoners call Timmy and Schaum fresh fish and Timmy and Schaum get wind of this but feel better to have the prisoners engrossed with fresh fish than the Jesus fish. The prisoners prefer having sex with Schaum than Timmy, for Timmy, being wheelchair bound, is a dead f*ck.

Part four.

Jesus to his own horror discovers that the plan to clone Mohammed has backfired, for Mohammed proves to be much better at war making than Jesus and threatens to do him and the atheists in. Jesus strikes a deal with the atheists and has them working with the Christians against the Islamic, and in order to fire up his base Jesus has himself crucified on television. (CNN and Fox provide great coverage of the latter).

The atheists being in league with the Christians now sneak Jesus's body out of the morgue so the belief in resurrection takes hold and the Islamic hordes can definitely be brought to bay. A pitched battle between Christendom/atheism and Islam ensues and Mohammed is killed in battle. All seems favorable to the Western world.

In fact after the developments in the preceding paragraph Osama declares himself an atheist and goes into the construction business in Saudi Arabia. Following the atheist aesthetic (or so he believes) he creates houses of no apparent design (according to the atheist creedo that there is no intelligent design behind existence) but soon runs into trouble with both religious and atheist clientele who accuse him of shoddy workmanship.

Osama throws his hands up and goes back to Islamic terrorism. Soon it is revealed that the atheists snuck Jesus's body out of the morgue and Christianity and Islam join forces against the atheists. The atheists, desperate, clone Jesus and Mohammed and raise them (in accelerated development) in atheism. Jesus and Mohammed publish books on atheism superior to the atheist writers of the day.

Part five.

Meanwhile the subplot of Timmy, Schaum and Daniel has taken a new development. Daniel starts a cult dedicated to the proposition of having sex with God. Apparently all Daniel's teasing of Schaum about God being sexier than Schaum has affected his mind. Many movie stars and musicians join Daniel and declare their bodies intermediaries between God and man and they have sex with all and sundry.

Timmy and Schaum form a countermovement to Daniel and many movie stars and musicians join them declaring their bodies free of God and for purely f*cking. Gradually it becomes difficult to tell the difference between the two cults because the religious are being f*cked so sinfully and ungodly well and the atheists are achieving ecstasy by God...

Timmy gets killed in prison by a prisoner in ecstasy throwing his Bible away and turning to atheism. The prisoner accidently threw his Bible straight at Timmy and it hit him in the forehead and drove him down a flight of steps. Schaum returns to Daniel and mentions a plan of bringing social order by removing the limbs of people leaving only their heads, and defending his position by saying we look at talking heads on television all day anyway.

The plot of the atheists to have Jesus and Mohammed cloned and raised in atheism backfires because the two, having published works on atheism superior to the leading atheist writers of the day, are taken paradoxically for being divine for such. Apparently their great powers, despite their professed atheism, are taken as proof of divine origin.

Part six.

Jesus and Mohammed declare their superior work in atheism is not the result of any divine power and help get the Buddha cloned to prove that superior work can be done in atheism without having a divine origin (the Buddha of course has no God and if he can do superior work in atheism it would help Jesus and Mohammed's claim).

But the Buddha stinks at atheism despite having no professed belief in God! He declares reincarnation and enlightenment incompatible with atheism and goes his original Buddhist course. Everyone gets wind of Jesus and Mohammed's plot and Jesus gets crucified. Mohammed goes to Afghanistan, finds Bin Laden's cave purely by accident, tosses Bin Laden out (who immediately gets struck by a Predator drone) and lives in the cave for the rest of his life babbling to, possibly, the angel Gabriel.

The Buddha, out of his great integrity, turns the entire world to Buddhism. The comedy has a happy ending. The Buddha has his own television show which is the most popular and lasting of all time. Late night comedians recognize this and turn to Buddhism hoping to succeed the Buddha as hosts on late night television. They succeed. The world laughs and meditates and all is well in the world and with man.

But a small complication ensues when it is discovered the cows and other ruminants are better than man at meditating, following the Buddhist path. An eat meat movement grows rapidly out of sheer envy of the ruminants. But the ruminants pledge to do everything they can for rodeos and a compromise ensues: they will be allowed to have their status if the more promising among them fulfill bull riding duties.

The Buddha becomes a big fan of the rodeo.

The subject of proselytism relates directly to the subject of the foundations of religion.

And what has history, scriptural text reviews and archeology taught us about these foundations?

Some examples:

1. Abraham is the reported founder of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Based on all we know now, Abraham was at best a combination of three separate individuals with 1.5 million Conservative Jews no longer believing he existed at all. (ditto for most of the characters in the OT/Torah).

references: National Georgraphic review on Abraham and http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F20E1EFE35540C7A8CDDAA0894DA404482

2. The founders of Christianity and Islam were both illiterate. i.e. neither one proof read or approved the NT or the Koran so we are taking the word of scribes and embellishers with their own agendas.

references: NT exegetes from the last two hundred years, Karen Armstrong et al's reviews of Islam and http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html

3. Christianity is based on the whim of Pilate, the false prophesy of the imminent second coming, and the sword of Constantine.

4. Mormonism is a business/religious cult based on Joseph Smith's hallucinations which has bought respectability with a $30 billion business empire, the BYU "mission matured" football team and a great choir.

lds-mormon.com/time.shtml

These are some of the facts about religions that need to be promulgated/ proselytized around the world and it should be supported by USA taxpayers and should be the only thing about religion we support.

With the recent earthquakes in Haiti and Chile, Christian missionaries have been mobilizing to those nations. With devastation, pain, and grief comes an opportunity to proselytize and spread the “Good News” about Jesus.

Missionary apologists will often sing the praises of the good work that missionaries do. They feed the hungry, build shelters, teach the illiterate how to read, etc. These are all great things but they can all be done just as effectively if not more so by leaving religion at home. People in third world nations or nations which have been devastated by a natural disaster are in a vulnerable position. They are at a disadvantage economically, scientifically, and often emotionally (due to the losses suffered by natural disasters).

You can read the rest of my response to this topic:
http://tinyurl.com/yfkg47u

I will be responding to every issue posted in the 'On Faith' section. If you would like to be notified when my new response is up, please subscribe.

-Staks
http://www.DangerousTalk.net

Susan,

Quick web perusal yeilds info that Southern Baptists, among others, are proseltyzing in India.

Catholic Church still at it there and in environs.

Bishop Spong has protested loudly.

Nothing about World Vision. OnFaith should bring us the FACTS. Then, we need to consider what our tax money has been used for, whether it has been used illegally.

We need a policy. I don't want to see this continue. I understand the justifications re the Dalit. Still, unacceptable.

Not on my dollar.

Schaum,

In the not-so-inner city, here in New York, it is not uncommon to see four or five children living with four or five adults in three rooms.

How does one spell "disgusted"? As in I am disgusted.

Schaum,

A significant number of Americans do not have enough to eat--you are right. Reservation Indians often go to bed hungry. They are among the World's poorest developing nations, so to speak.

They are often wholly without any medical care whatsoever. In the rural South and elsewhere, entire families live as squatters without electricity and running water.

We do not know how many Americans, in total, have not seen doctors or dentists in decades.

Periodically, a travelling medical crew sets up weekend "hospitals" across the US. Thousands wait for days in advance. They have diagnosed children with cancer, people who needed all their teeth pulled due to disease, women who had no follow-up following breast cancer surgery, and worse.

The number of battered women trapped with children is escalating.

And the list goes on. Gets bigger as the economy "improves."

Clearthinking1:

" Go to the inner city in America and help those in need."

Absolutely. 1/8 of America has difficulty finding enough to eat.

Clearthinking1,

Re: Your post

You are correct--Jews, Buddhists, Sikhs, Zoroastrians, B'hai, Hindus, Wiccans, Animists, etc, do not proseltyze.

Proseltyzing is linked to politics. Those at the front, however, do not necessarily know this.

At all events, I would like to know exactly which organizations are proseltyzing overseas, aside from the one I mentioned. This is an issue of fact, not "deduction."

Farnaz

Proselytization is a manifestation of the supremacist foundation of Christianity & Islam.
No one else has this serious flaw that Christians and Muslims have in their "religions" or spiritual systems. Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs, Zoroastrians, Jews, Wiccans, Animists, etc.. are all trying to make themselves better, not trying to undermine others.

Conversion has caused some of the biggest problems in third world countries.
The "charity" and "kind deeds" are insincere and deceptive actions, and therefore, are acts of evil.

Muslims & Christians don't seem to get the basics of goodness and spirituality. Pretending to be good while having and ulterior motive fools no one and is an act of evil. This can lead to crusades and suicide terrorism.

REMEMBER: Almost all religious conflicts in the world involve Muslims or Christians on one side or both.
Sneakiness, deception, conversion, undermining other cultures, etc... is offensive and nonspiritual.

You really feel the urge to do charity? Go to the inner city in America and help those in need. Look in your own family and help those who are depressed or drunk or angry.
Stop going to 3rd world countries and causing problems & hurting others.

Susan,

Re my last post, I am aware, of course, that the RCC has been proseltyzing away in Africa. If US money is involved, the RCC should be required to refund it. Ditto any other organizations found guilty of same.

Susan,

I think by this point I have made it clear that I am a strict separationist, devoutly wishing for an end to nonprofit status for religious institutions, "conscience" clauses, faith-based funding, presidential "Faith Councils," you name it.

However, you write as if World Vision's proseltyzing could be deduced from its refusal to hire nonChristians of its "kind."

World Vision does not proseltyze. They work with Muslims, Hindus, B'hai, et al, and do not proseltyze--not, at least, in Pakistan, India, Bangaladesh or anywhere else in Asia, for that matter.

If you have evidence to the contrary--EVIDENCE--please provide it.

If you have evidence of any religious institution or organization proselytizing overseas, please provide it. I'm referring to factual evidence, verifiable.

This is an Empirical, not an Intuitive question. One cannot deduce or infer the answer. Institutions either proseltyze or they do not.

Of course you are right. The number of organizations trying to turn this nation into a theocracy is truly scary.

One only needs to look at the theocracies and near theocracies around the world and the count of religious wars going on (about 30 at any particular time) to see how much better our foreign policy would work if we were to officially take sides.

The damage done to US foreign policy under the more or less unofficial theocracy of Bush/Cheney will take decades to undo, to get back to honest broker levels of trust by any other country.

And they try this with a straight face?