Originally posted by Bosse de NageI made no restrictions on my question.
Your question's still really broad. Which society, which culture?
If a society is dominant through cultural superiority then there are reasons to value one's culture beyond its intrinsic value (which i define as a value of preference over one's culture, all things equal).
I think I should find a solid yes to my rephrased question, but I can't back up that with a why that I find satisfactory (I only can using biological explanations which are based on inductions regarding the TOE which are, in fact, not more than speculations).
1 edit
Originally posted by Bosse de NageHere's the good news... You don't need to die of smallpox. There is something called the alphabet. You can learn to read and write. Typhoid is because you drink the water you cr@p in. If you don't like your mother in law, you don't have to eat her. Lightning and disease is a natural phenomenon, not some spell cast by your neighbour. You don't have to give birth in cowdung.
Some of the most destructive Christians are the ones with good intentions. Missionaries! "Here's the good news...your culture is about to be wiped out...praise Jesus..."
It is unfortunate that the colossal industry of slavery was abolished, mostly due to the work of missionaries.
Its tragic that the beautiful tradition of suttee was ended by the work of a missionary to India.
It's sad that girls and women aren't kept illiterate and ignorant, but rather now have the opportunity to be educated in countries where missionaries did their worst in breaking down the barriers intelligently set up by the knowledgeable rulers that be.
The world is really a sadder and darker place due to the work of these morons. The list of their atrocities continues.
Human life in the Pacific Islands was cheap and cannibalism was rife. In Fiji, many of the children were boiled and eaten. Every village had a human butcher. Aged parents were butchered and eaten by their friends. Men would even cook their best wife or child as a special feast for friends. The widows of chiefs and warriors were strangled or hung, so that they could “accompany their husbands to the next world”, there to continue serving them! Isn't it heartbreaking that the work of John Patton a missionary to these islands put an end to this lovely culture of tolerance and learning. How many delicious recipes were lost in the mindless bigoted work that these moronic missionaries jumped into with reckless abandon.
I wish I could find this funny, but I am simply horrified at your vitriolic prejudice of missionaries. What on earth gave you this conclusion?
2 edits
Originally posted by HalitoseHere's the good news... You don't need to die of smallpox.
Here's the good news... You don't need to die of smallpox. There is something called the alphabet. You can learn to read and write. Typhoid is because you drink the water you cr@p in. If you don't like your mother in law, you don't have to eat her. Lightning and disease is a natural phenomenon, not some spell cast by your neighbour. You don't have to g ...[text shortened]... y horrified at your vitriolic prejudice of missionaries. What on earth gave you this conclusion?
Smallpox was introduced to the Americas, Australia & South Africa by Europeans, facilitating their conquest to no small extent.
There is something called the alphabet.
What use is that to us?
You can learn to read and write.
What do you have against oral culture?
Typhoid is because you drink the water you cr@p in.
Europeans know all about that shit.
It is unfortunate that the colossal industry of slavery was abolished, mostly due to the work of missionaries.
That is social work not missionary work. Was William Wilberforce a missionary?
Its tragic that the beautiful tradition of suttee was ended by the work of a missionary to India.
Lord William Bendinck was a missionary? Suttee was not widely practiced and efforts had been made to eliminate it by the Indians themselves (in the 16th century, for example).
It's sad that girls and women aren't kept illiterate and ignorant, but rather now have the opportunity to be educated in countries where missionaries did their worst in breaking down the barriers intelligently set up by the knowledgeable rulers that be.
I think wealth remains the defining factor in obtaining a decent education in most places in the world. Gender equality was a battle won by suffragettes rather than missionaries.
Human life in the Pacific Islands was cheap and cannibalism was rife.
Cannibalism is a bit too complex to handle in a single post...I enjoyed finding this:
One of the Spaniards' first experiences was the offer of a man's leg in sign of friendship, and their rejection of it with gestures of loathing was to the natives a declaration of hostility and a spurning of their proffered peace-offering.
A. I. Hopkins, In the Isles of King Solomon, Seeley Service, 1928. In Garry Hogg, Cannibalism and Human Sacrifice, p. 158
I wish I could find this funny, but I am simply horrified at your vitriolic prejudice against missionaries. What on earth gave you this conclusion?
In my understanding, the basic missionary objective is cultural genocide: to "save" the benighted of the earth it is necessary to eliminate the belief systems that they have evolved and substitute the missionary's own cultural values in their place.
People whose business is to help others (and who have been invited to help) are in a different category. I would call them social workers rather than missionaries because religion is irrelevant in this context.
Hope that makes my position clearer, Hal.
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesI went to that pitiful site and left an email I hope they read,
Pastor Fred Phelps and his Westboro Baptist Church:
http://www.godhatesfags.com/main/purpose.html
http://www.godhatesfags.com/main/faq.html
http://www.godhatesfags.com/fags/fag.html
I gave them an earful. If anything is sure in this world however,
I am sure it falls on deaf ears and the internal blinders of their minds.
Originally posted by Redmikethe logic fails when you assume that everyone who calls themselves a Christain is a Christain. Christains are called to follow in the ways of Christ, and Christs message was not one of hate.
I'm claiming that christians preach hate. Not all christians, perhaps, but some christians.
I can claim this because I see people who say they are christians do this. And who are we to judge whether they are really christians or not.
This is perfectly logical - there is a hypothesis, backed up by observation.
You, on the other hand, start from the ...[text shortened]... t meant to preach the messge of the entire bible, or do you get to choose which bits you prefer?
The criteria for a Christain is that you follow Christ, not that you proclaim to follow Christ.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageAbsolutely correct, Boss. In this respect, misionaries are and always have been tools of the ruling elites. Today the ruling elite are corporations and one only need look at the ties between the US government and the religious right to see the fruits of this evil relarionship.
In my understanding, the basic missionary objective is cultural genocide: to "save" the benighted of the earth it is necessary to eliminate the belief systems that they have evolved and substitute the missionary's own cultural values in their place.... People whose business is to help others (and who have been invited to help) are in a different cat ...[text shortened]... all them social workers rather than missionaries because religion is irrelevant in this context.
Originally posted by geniusOriginally posted by genius
the logic fails when you assume that everyone who calls themselves a Christain is a Christain. Christains are called to follow in the ways of Christ, and Christs message was not one of hate.
The criteria for a Christain is that you follow Christ, not that you proclaim to follow Christ.
everyone who calls themselves a Christain is a Christain. Christains are called to follow in the ways of Christ, and Christs message was not one of hate.
The criteria for a Christain is
Surely, this is a Freudian typo....but four times in a row? What are you trying to say?
Originally posted by widgetYou, sir, need to put down Marx and Engels more, and see where the real work is being done. I don't think you have the faintest idea what it means to set a well paying job aside and selflessly serve people who did nothing to deserve it.
Absolutely correct, Boss. In this respect, misionaries are and always have been tools of the ruling elites. Today the ruling elite are corporations and one only need look at the ties between the US government and the religious right to see the fruits of this evil relarionship.
1 edit
Originally posted by Bosse de NageExcuse the blunt reply but you seem to be focusing your attention on a minor part of the definition:
[b]Here's the good news... You don't need to die of smallpox.
Smallpox was introduced to the Americas, Australia & South Africa by Europeans, facilitating their conquest to no small extent.
There is something called the alphabet.
What use is that to us?
You can learn to read and write.
What do you have against oral culture ...[text shortened]... ies because religion is irrelevant in this context.
Hope that makes my position clearer, Hal.[/b]
1. One who is sent on a mission, especially one sent to do religious or charitable work in a territory or foreign country.
2. One who attempts to persuade or convert others to a particular program, doctrine, or set of principles; a propagandist.
Smallpox was introduced to the Americas, Australia & South Africa by Europeans, facilitating their conquest to no small extent.
So? Who was it who went to clean up the mess?
What use is that to us?
Are you serious?
What do you have against oral culture?
Nothing. Written culture is the next step.
Europeans know all about that sh!t.
The Europeans also knew what caused it.
That is social work not missionary work. Was William Wilberforce a missionary?
Please. I'm sure its quite obvious that it wasn't just one man. I have a long list of which Sir David Livingstone and Samuel Crowther are only the tip of the iceberg.
Lord William Bendinck was a missionary?
Read up on William Carey who continually petitioned him.
Suttee was not widely practiced and efforts had been made to eliminate it by the Indians themselves (in the 16th century, for example).
So?
I think wealth remains the defining factor in obtaining a decent education in most places in the world. Gender equality was a battle won by suffragettes rather than missionaries.
I never said decent when defining an education.
Cannibalism is a bit too complex to handle in a single post...I enjoyed finding this:
Interesting.
In my understanding, the basic missionary objective is cultural genocide: to "save" the benighted of the earth it is necessary to eliminate the belief systems that they have evolved and substitute the missionary's own cultural values in their place.
This seems to be a problem of semantics. Try definition no: 1 that is my understanding of a missionary. The second definition is one of proselytism which I am certainly not in favour of.
People whose business is to help others (and who have been invited to help) are in a different category. I would call them social workers rather than missionaries because religion is irrelevant in this context.
It think religion is still highly relevant, as many times it is the sole motivation factor.
1 edit
Originally posted by HalitoseWhat is the nature of the religious work mentioned in your first definition?
1. One who is sent on a mission, especially one sent to do religious or charitable work in a territory or foreign country.
2. One who attempts to persuade or convert others to a particular program, doctrine, or set of principles; a propagandist.
In historical terms, I see missionaries primarily as harbingers of death preceding a rain of guns, germs & steel. That they also at a later stage seek to "mop up" (as you put it) or alleviate this destruction--in which they remain implicated by virtue of their status as vectors of the control virus--is an historical irony to savour.
Don't forget the sanctimonious patronising attitudes adopted by the Victorian ruling class towards their own poor (sent to the workhouse for their moral improvement). Dickens saw this disgusting hypocrisy at work; its legacy persists.
That being said, two thumbs up to everyone trying to help others out, whatever your convictions.