|
|
Post by doggymom on Dec 10, 2012 19:27:28 GMT -5
I'm rather angry about our young warrior getting killed while rescuing an American doctor in Afghanistan. Yes, I know the doctor was trying to help the unfortunate people in that country. But his thinking with his heart instead of his head caused the death of a young man who didn't need to die. I'm always a bit miffed when people put their lives in danger just because they want to do something that is not safe. The reason they want to do it really is irrelevant. When they get in trouble then other people have to risk their lives to pull their bacon out of the fire.
Personally, I don't think the doctor should have been allowed to go there by our State Department. Even the fine group, Doctors Without Borders whose member live in some pretty awful places so that they can help people, pull out their members when the place becomes just too dangerous. They use their good judgment when trying to help folks. That is what this doctor should have done. Now a young man is dead and the doctor will have to live with the knowledge that it was all his fault!
|
|
|
|
Post by jerrysmith on Dec 10, 2012 19:36:46 GMT -5
Dittos with missionaries. They should stay home and mind their own business.
|
|
|
|
Post by doggymom on Dec 10, 2012 20:02:19 GMT -5
Jerry, your bias is showing. ;D
Actually I'm not against people trying to help others. They just have to use their heads when doing so. Missionaries have done good and bad. I don't think they should be condemned just because you don't like organized religion. I also don't think they should go in as if only their religion could be pleasing to a supreme being. I've always admired the Maryknoll missionaries who don't just try to convert people. They provide doctors, nurses, teachers, social workers, farmers, and engineers. These women don't try to convert anyone but simply live good lives among people who need help. If a person wishes to learn about the Catholic religion they are happy to give instructions in that faith. But no one has to convert to get the benefit of their help. In fact their reputation is for being able to work with people of all faiths. They are very loved, even in Communist countries. They give up lives of comfort to go and live in the same situations as the people they help. And I call that putting your money where your mouth is.....or in their case, their lives.
|
|
|
|
Post by jerrysmith on Dec 10, 2012 20:44:46 GMT -5
Jerry, your bias is showing. ;D . How come it's a "bias"? I call it a belief. |
|
|
|
Post by Tommy Thompson on Dec 11, 2012 1:41:28 GMT -5
only problem in this case is that the doc put our military men in danger.
|
|
nancy
Full Member
Posts: 119
|
Post by nancy on Dec 11, 2012 8:07:54 GMT -5
I guess this is a bit off the subject but....what I can't seem to understand is this. I know so many church groups who spend large amounts of money to go to some these foreign lands to 'witness' for a week or two. What kind of impact does that really have? Wouldn't the funds to travel to these places be put to better use by sending the money to some group or church that is staying there and working on a more permanment basis. I tried to talk to a lady about this and she was highly insulted at the suggestion. She said doing it this way gave them the 'uplifting' experience of traveling there and witnessing and doing other work that was needed. She went to Kenya with a group.
|
|
|
|
Post by jerrysmith on Dec 11, 2012 8:28:49 GMT -5
Nancy, I think a lot of that is based loosely upon "hey, look at me and the good stuff I did in a dangerous place way off from home". It's like they're collecting brownie points and feel-good points, rather than actually doing some real good at a level that makes best use of funding. Reminds me of the hypocrites praying aloud in the streets that's mentioned in the Bible; "they already have their reward".
|
|
|
|
Post by jb on Dec 11, 2012 9:43:31 GMT -5
Southern Baptists are really big on the 'foreign missions'. I remember talking to a deacon one time asking if a man for example was deep in the jungle somewhere and was never witnessed to, would he still go to Heaven? He said that man should have been able to look at a tree and figure out that God made it. I don't how that man would know about Jesus from that. But if this is the case, stay home and let the rest of them figure it out the same way. Saves money and keeps from endangering the people with our germs and us from their germs.
|
|
|
|
Post by jerrysmith on Dec 11, 2012 11:07:25 GMT -5
John, I think a lot of the supposed justification for evangelism comes from the scriptures where Jesus allegedly tells his disciples to go out and spread the word. They apparently did, and the word has been spread. So why bother to do it now, especially among people who already have a perfectly workable faith of their own that may even predate the Christian variety.
It's amazing that so many are so sure they know exactly what everyone else needs and what is right for all. I doubt if there is a single culture anywhere that has actually benefitted from becoming Christian or Muslim.
Better that all these do-badders should apply themselves to something useful, like the Mormons who have created the world's best genealogy database. It's a part of their faith that everyone can benefit from, and they gladly share it with all.
|
|
|
|
Post by doggymom on Dec 11, 2012 11:20:58 GMT -5
You certainly have a good point j.b. I'm reminded of what the missionaries did in Hawaii. They came in with their morels and rules of conduct much to the detriment of the Hawaiian people. Because they thought unclothed bodies were sinful they bundled up people in clothing. What happened? Well, people who were used to not coming in out of the rain found themselves walking around in wet clothing, which lowered their resistance to such things as pneumonia, TB and other respiratory illnesses brought by the White folks. The missionaries stole the lands and for a long time completely controlled the economy. They changed a society that they thought needed changing. But who were they to make that decision? It wasn't their land, nor were the people of Hawaii coming to their homes trying to change their way of life. So in my opinion they should have stayed home. It was an example of politics joining up with religion and economics to scam a native people. Hardly Godlike in my estimation.
But then can you compare those missionaries with the missionaries that went to Molokai and took care of the Hawaiians with leprosy? They wanted only to help people who had been abandoned by their own kind. Father Damien died from the disease because he refused to distance himself from the lepers. The good sisters risked their health to care for those with a horrible and frightening disease. Should they have stayed home?
As I said before, missionaries have done both good and bad. And it's the individual missionary who should be judged, not the act of kindness and love.
Getting back to the doctor; he should have judged what he could accomplish against what it could cost to others.
|
|
