Anyone else here think they might want to do part time (or maybe not so part time) Christian medical missions either in the US or abroad?

Anyone else here think they might want to do part time (or maybe not so part time) Christian medical missions either in the US or abroad?

I've definitely thought about it.

I've definitely thought about it.

What sort of path do you envision? To tell the truth, I've always envisioned something adventurous. Trekking through Europe, Asia, Africa, etc. like wandering gypsies, ministering especially to the poor and forgotten with medicine and with gospel. Of course, this belies the fact that most ministry is slow, methodic, and unexciting, and God uses all kinds of ministry, even the uninspiring and "humiliating" kind to further His Kingdom.

Anyone else here think they might want to do part time (or maybe not so part time) Christian medical missions either in the US or abroad?

I've thought about it too. I found this website, and I'd like the opportunity to do something on a short term basis while in school... but then again, I have to get in first :)

http://www.missionfinder.org/medstudents.htm

Anyone else here think they might want to do part time (or maybe not so part time) Christian medical missions either in the US or abroad?

I am interested in doing short-term missions as a physician. Two summers ago, I served on a Christian medical team in Inner Mongolia for two weaks. It was a wonderful experience. I suggest checking out the Christian Medical and Dental Associations for missions and information (including scholarships).

CMDA Missions (http://www.cmda.org/?BISKIT=2049990778&CONTEXT=cat&cat=32)

I've gone on 5 medical missions through a christian organization and I have two more planned for this upcoming year. I've been to Ecuador once and the Dominican Republic 4 times. One trip is planned for Bolivia and the other is a return to the DR (although it will be in a different "town"). They are amazing and I would highly recommend it.

Definitely! Also, most medical schools have a chapter of the Christian Medical Association, and they typically go on an annual missions trip.

What sort of path do you envision? To tell the truth, I've always envisioned something adventurous. Trekking through Europe, Asia, Africa, etc. like wandering gypsies, ministering especially to the poor and forgotten with medicine and with gospel. Of course, this belies the fact that most ministry is slow, methodic, and unexciting, and God uses all kinds of ministry, even the uninspiring and "humiliating" kind to further His Kingdom.

I've thought about trying to get involved with medical care for the homeless attached to a shelter and mission. Give them food, medical care, and let someone minister to them while they're waiting.

I've also thought about some sort of rural mission, but that would need to be traveling. I don't know, I'll have to research it.

For those who've gone on the missions trips, what kinds of opportunities are there to share your faith?

Definitely! Also, most medical schools have a chapter of the Christian Medical Association, and they typically go on an annual missions trip.

Cool, I didn't know this.

I was told two days ago that I might be able to go along on a trip to Nepal to work at an eye surgery clinic. The father of one of my friends is an ophthalmologist and he asked if I was interested.

As for a trip through a Christian group, despite being a frequent (3 out of 4 Sundays) churchgoer I wouldn't go on a trip through such an organization.

I plan on doing short term missions and am open to doing long term as well.

I totally want to do this too. That is assuming I can get into medical school in the first place. I went on a work trip to Haiti for a week last year and I definitely plan to go back when I am a doctor.

I'll be doing a medical mission in Nicarugua during Spring Break for Christian Medical and Dental Association.

well, my fiancee is a nurse, and someday I'll be an MD, so we'd both like to do some kind of medical missions work (short-term - probably less than a month? I dunno where we'll be in a decade). I'm not sure if we'd go through a Christian organization or not. I'd like to support believers in other countries, so maybe I'd go through a Christian organization.

I'm all about secular intl medical programs. There's no need to interject western religious beliefs into developing countries. International aid is already ethnocentric enough.

There's no need to interject western religious beliefs into developing countries.
How dare you insinuate that Christian medical missions proselytize to sick, vulnerable people who basically owe the missionary doctors their lives after they're treated?!? Secular is soo middle-ages.

How dare you insinuate that Christian medical missions proselytize to sick, vulnerable people who basically owe the missionary doctors their lives after they're treated?!? Secular is soo middle-ages.

If you're not Christian and are anti-Christian, perhaps you'd best not post on this thread. It's really none of your business.

LMAO....that's great....sarcasm- many attempt it, but few achieve it.

I'm all about secular intl medical programs. There's no need to interject western religious beliefs into developing countries. International aid is already ethnocentric enough.

If you are not christian you do not see the need, the same is not true for a christian.

By the way christianity is an eastern religion. The fact it is highly practiced in the west does not make it a western religion.

How is it an "eastern" religion? Just because the Holy Land happens to be east of the US does not make it an Eastern religion (i.e. in the same classification as Buddhism, Shintoism, etc)....

If you are not christian you do not see the need, the same is not true for a christian.

By the way christianity is an eastern religion. The fact it is highly practiced in the west does not make it a western religion.

Originally it was more obviously so. But the Roman Catholic church especially, as well as many Eastern churches, fused it with paganism. A useful "conversion" tool, I guess.

How is it an "eastern" religion? Just because the Holy Land happens to be east of the US does not make it an Eastern religion (i.e. in the same classification as Buddhism, Shintoism, etc)....

I think the point was the it is not a European religion. It was founded in the Middle East, in and by a Middle Eastern culture. Europe doesn't have a monopoly over it. What are we talking about, anyway? That's right, Christian medical missions.

If you are not christian you do not see the need, the same is not true for a christian.

Actually one can be a Christian and realize that professional actions and religious recruiting can be seperate. I mean if someone is receptive to the ideas of my religion, then I will be more than happy to discuss it with them, but I'm not a fan of the "beat people over the head with it until they convert" approach that some Christian agencies utilize. Granted I know of a lot of very good non-medical missionary work that is done by groups that don't seem to be simply trying to fill a quota or something similar. As for the medical side of the coin, the only group I have dealt with seemed to be more hellbent on reaching a certain number of converts than healing people and I think that if you are going there for a stated purpose then that should be your primary focus (i.e. treating blindness if you are going over to do cataract surgery, etc), regardless of which group you are with.

I think the point was the it is not a European religion. It was founded in the Middle East, in and by a Middle Eastern culture. Europe doesn't have a monopoly over it. What are we talking about, anyway? That's right, Christian medical missions.
Sorry....didn't mean to get off topic.

Actually one can be a Christian and realize that professional actions and religious recruiting can be seperate. I mean if someone is receptive to the ideas of my religion, then I will be more than happy to discuss it with them, but I'm not a fan of the "beat people over the head with it until they convert" approach that some Christian agencies utilize. Granted I know of a lot of very good non-medical missionary work that is done by groups that don't seem to be simply trying to fill a quota or something similar. As for the medical side of the coin, the only group I have dealt with seemed to be more hellbent on reaching a certain number of converts than healing people and I think that if you are going there for a stated purpose then that should be your primary focus (i.e. treating blindness if you are going over to do cataract surgery, etc), regardless of which group you are with.

Then you are ignorant. I don't advocate "beating" anyone over the head. The missionaries I saw weren't doing this. There was no discrimination towards the patients because of their religion.

Why do you have to destroy every Christian thread and every thread I start? Can't you just leave it alone? If we want to heal and preach, that's our business. The patients' reception of our message has nothing to do with our treatment of them as people and as patients. It would be immoral if it did.

If you're not Christian and are anti-Christian, perhaps you'd best not post on this thread. It's really none of your business.

Oh, I'm sorry, did I confuse this site with ChristianDoctor.net? Oops sorry, my bad!! As long as you post on this *public* non-Christian, non-sectarian board, you have absolutely no right to tell me to mind my own business and tell me not to post. I hope as a good Christian you have the decency to apologize to me.

And fyi, I'm not anti-Christian, I have plenty of practicing Christian friends -- I'm just completely against missionaries who bait innocent, naive people with riches, medical treatment, etc. and then preach to them "while they wait". I think it is completely unethical and disingenuous to treat someone, then offer them the doctrine. It crosses so many lines! Imagine if GWB started handing out personal checks to poor people, and then followed with campaign brochures? Buying innocent people's faith is wrong. I don't disagree with people spreading their faith -- if you believe something's correct, by all means, tell people far and wide. I don't disagree with medical camps in developing nations -- curing sick people is why we want to be doctors. I don't disagree with groups of Christians coming together and going to other countries to sick people, as long as they aren't preaching as they cure. It's "spreading the gospel" while "curing the sick and vulnerable" (as a deus ex machina) that I find morally reprehensible. I mean, can't you pick one or the other? Conflict of interest?

If you have anything intelligent and rational to say on this, I would really love to hear your perspective.

If you are not christian you do not see the need, the same is not true for a christian.

By the way christianity is an eastern religion. The fact it is highly practiced in the west does not make it a western religion.

Just for the record. When I wrote "western religious beliefs", the adjective "western" is modifying the noun "beliefs" as is the word "religious". Much in the same manner as the modifiers in the phrase "covert unwanted brainwashing". I made no reference to the locale of Christianity and do not insinuate that medical missions are attempts at brainwashing.

Actually one can be a Christian and realize that professional actions and religious recruiting can be seperate.


And that is respectfully respectful praetorian. However, also realize that to a great number of christians (and for most christian scholars for that matter) saving the soul is more important than achieving health. For this reason I stated that to a christian there might be a need to not only do a medical mission but do a medical evangelistic mission.

I doubt there exists any christian/medical mission which directly or subtly exchanges help for people's faith. It is a matter of preaching at perhaps the best moment to have someone's attention and hear about the christian faith, which to most christians is the only way to an afterlife with the creator. With this in mind (not necessarily agreeing) it is completely understandable that christians may wish to not only go to deprived countries with goods but also with what christians believe is the word of salvation of one's soul.

And BTW, one does not need to wait to be a med student or a physician to be involved in an overseas (or local) christian mission. Volunteers are extremely valuable regardless of medical preparation.

Oh, I'm sorry, did I confuse this site with ChristianDoctor.net? Oops sorry, my bad!! As long as you post on this *public* non-Christian, non-sectarian board, you have absolutely no right to tell me to mind my own business and tell me not to post. I hope as a good Christian you have the decency to apologize to me.

And fyi, I'm not anti-Christian, I have plenty of practicing Christian friends -- I'm just completely against missionaries who bait innocent, naive people with riches, medical treatment, etc. and then preach to them "while they wait". I think it is completely unethical and disingenuous to treat someone, then offer them the doctrine. It crosses so many lines! Imagine if GWB started handing out personal checks to poor people, and then followed with campaign brochures? Buying innocent people's faith is wrong. I don't disagree with people spreading their faith -- if you believe something's correct, by all means, tell people far and wide. I don't disagree with medical camps in developing nations -- curing sick people is why we want to be doctors. I don't disagree with groups of Christians coming together and going to other countries to sick people, as long as they aren't preaching as they cure. It's "spreading the gospel" while "curing the sick and vulnerable" (as a deus ex machina) that I find morally reprehensible. I mean, can't you pick one or the other? Conflict of interest?

If you have anything intelligent and rational to say on this, I would really love to hear your perspective.

Well, I have nothing to apologize for. The thread was intended for other people involved or interested in Christian medical missions. It was not meant for you to waltz in and attack the work of worthy people who save lives and merely tell others about their faith.

Your GWB analogy is entirely erroneous, because all patients are treated equally regardless of their religion or receptivity to Christianity. At least that's what I saw at the hospital I shadowed at. And by the way, that dirty little tactic was used by Democrat NJ governor candidate Jon Corzine; he handed out sandwiches to homeless people so they would hold up promotional signs and posters.

I think you're just being ignorant of how these things really work. Fortunately, I have experience and can point out the fallacies in your claims.

As someone who originally planned on becoming a minister, I completely understand the view of valuing salvation over health. But at the same time, I don't agree with religion being crammed down the throats of everyone someone comes in contact with. I've always found that the best way to recruit is to demonstrate the best characters of our faith, rather than the typical "You all are going to burn in hell" approach.

By the way thanks for staying polite and adult in your reply Medhacker. A lot of people could stand to learn from your example when it comes to religious discussions. :thumbup:

"You all are going to burn in hell" approach.

Who told you that is the usual approach? I certainly don't use it. I repeat, religion isn't "crammed" down their throat. Let me explain how these things work: the witnessing technique was primarily by posting verses from the Bible in the native tongue on the walls of the hospital wards. A portable television was kept in the ward and periodically, the "Jesus" video was shown. Those who didn't want it could have a silk screen put in front of their bed. Another TV was kept in one of the reception areas for family members, playing the same video. People who didn't want to see it could just turn away or go elsewhere.

Unfortunately you're not understanding what I'm saying. I don't doubt that you medically treat everyone equally, regardless of faith or "receptivity". It's the "after" part that I have a problem with. Say you cure someone's life-threatening infection, this person's indebted to you for saving their life, and clearly in a more vulnerable position [you've saved their life, after all!]. If you preach to them afterwards, they will be much more receptive to your doctrine because you've given them something, you've dangled that carrot in front of them. I don't see how that isn't luring people. "Receptivity" is a complete non-issue if you offer them nothing, but people become much more receptive if you do offer them something... which is wrong, if you're trying to achieve some purpose. If you disagree, why not just do the medical camp, but not preach? Or why not just preach, without biasing your audience with incentives? Don't you realize you're not giving people a "no strings attached" service? Sure, they can choose not to worship. Is that going to happen? Unfortunately the average world consumer isn't wise enough to objectively separate the charity from the strings. I'm sad that you feel threatened by people who question you.

That's the standard approach of the Pentecostal (the "praise Jesus and pass the rattlesnake" version of Pentecostals) missionaries I've dealt with. Granted that's kind of like judging Muslims by looking at jihadis (both extremists, but differing degrees thereof)....but I digress...

Oh, I'm sorry, did I confuse this site with ChristianDoctor.net? Oops sorry, my bad!! As long as you post on this *public* non-Christian, non-sectarian board, you have absolutely no right to tell me to mind my own business and tell me not to post. I hope as a good Christian you have the decency to apologize to me.

And fyi, I'm not anti-Christian, I have plenty of practicing Christian friends -- I'm just completely against missionaries who bait innocent, naive people with riches, medical treatment, etc. and then preach to them "while they wait". I think it is completely unethical and disingenuous to treat someone, then offer them the doctrine. It crosses so many lines! Imagine if GWB started handing out personal checks to poor people, and then followed with campaign brochures? Buying innocent people's faith is wrong. I don't disagree with people spreading their faith -- if you believe something's correct, by all means, tell people far and wide. I don't disagree with medical camps in developing nations -- curing sick people is why we want to be doctors. I don't disagree with groups of Christians coming together and going to other countries to sick people, as long as they aren't preaching as they cure. It's "spreading the gospel" while "curing the sick and vulnerable" (as a deus ex machina) that I find morally reprehensible. I mean, can't you pick one or the other? Conflict of interest?

If you have anything intelligent and rational to say on this, I would really love to hear your perspective.

Read the GLBT and allies thread. I respected their request to stick to topic. Why won't you?

Unfortunately you're not understanding what I'm saying. I don't doubt that you medically treat everyone equally, regardless of faith or "receptivity". It's the "after" part that I have a problem with. Say you cure someone's life-threatening infection, this person's indebted to you for saving their life, and clearly in a more vulnerable position [you've saved their life, after all!]. If you preach to them afterwards, they will be much more receptive to your doctrine because you've given them something, you've dangled that carrot in front of them. I don't see how that isn't luring people. "Receptivity" is a complete non-issue if you offer them nothing, but people become much more receptive if you do offer them something... which is wrong, if you're trying to achieve some purpose. If you disagree, why not just do the medical camp, but not preach? Or why not just preach, without biasing your audience with incentives? Don't you realize you're not giving people a "no strings attached" service? Sure, they can choose not to worship. Is that going to happen? Unfortunately the average world consumer isn't wise enough to objectively separate the charity from the strings. I'm sad that you feel threatened by people who question you.
Another related point is that regardless of what one thinks, no one is completely objective. No matter if you think you aren't treating people differently, 99.9% of you are to some degree, at least subconsciously.

Unfortunately you're not understanding what I'm saying. I don't doubt that you medically treat everyone equally, regardless of faith or "receptivity". It's the "after" part that I have a problem with. Say you cure someone's life-threatening infection, this person's indebted to you for saving their life, and clearly in a more vulnerable position [you've saved their life, after all!]. If you preach to them afterwards, they will be much more receptive to your doctrine because you've given them something, you've dangled that carrot in front of them. I don't see how that isn't luring people. "Receptivity" is a complete non-issue if you offer them nothing, but people become much more receptive if you do offer them something... which is wrong, if you're trying to achieve some purpose. If you disagree, why not just do the medical camp, but not preach? Or why not just preach, without biasing your audience with incentives? Don't you realize you're not giving people a "no strings attached" service? Sure, they can choose not to worship. Is that going to happen? Unfortunately the average world consumer isn't wise enough to objectively separate the charity from the strings. I'm sad that you feel threatened by people who question you.

These people are not witnessed to before the treatment - it's after. Just because they are more receptive, why does that bother you? So what if they're more receptive? They aren't bribed to believe. They are treated regardless - and often for free! Many of these surgeries would be thousands if not tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of dollars in the US. How much do you think a liver tumor resection would cost in the US? At the hospital I was at, such a surgery was performed at no cost to the patient.

I think you must think that people are being treated as a kind of carrot for conversions. That's not the point. Physicians go out into the field because Jesus was a healer, and if you are equipped to heal the poor and are willing to do it without compensation, that's great. If that makes someone more receptive to faith, what's so wrong with that?

You're really not making any sense at all here.

Actually he's making sense, it's just that you're not getting what he is saying.

Remember most people are a good 50-80 IQ points below most of us on this board, they are simple minded and if you associate free stuff with your group then chances are they are going to get on board in hopes of getting more stuff. It's the same idea that marketing companies use all the time.

I have never worked with Christian missionaries, so I can not speak from direct experience. My experience comes from working with the people who have felt the direct effects of Christian missionaries. I have gone on several trips to the Peruvian Amazon working with the tribe’s people to help facilitate long term health through HEALTH education, while being CULTURALY sensitive to the BELIEFS of the people. What I found, as an observant of many tribes, was that the Christian ministry was relentless in its effort to CHANGE the tribes. Not simply the religious beliefs, but also the beliefs of hierarchy as a way of life. Those who had NOT embraced Christianity (which were few due to the fact that the Christian ministry had REFUSED MEDICAL CARE to those who failed build a church and "embrace" God) were much more egalitarian. On the other hand, those chiefs who felt the medical care provided by the missionaries was necessary over the traditional beliefs, had subjected their people to a plague of social side effects. Namely, in those tribes, I observed a much higher rate of spousal abuse, sexually transmitted infections, women's health issues, and subservient women. This is irregardless to the TYPE of tribe. I visited four types total, and I can say with confidence that the ONLY common thread between these people was the "embracing of Christianity".

I do not mean to trump any persons beliefs, but simply stating an observation. I am Christian. I went to a Catholic grade school. I studied under nuns and priests. I have nothing against Christianity except those who find the inability to embrace the beauty of diversity.

Perhaps a lesson may be taken from the Jesuits. Their initial work in ministry was to themselves embrace cultures not their own, to learn new languages and the intricacies of society and culture, only then to present the idea of God and Christianity. Not to force. Not to offer life (read: health care) in exchange for complete disregard of lifelong/ancient beliefs for foreign ideas. Present, don't force. In exchange, listen. The world is diverse. Everyone has something to share. Don't be so quick to impose an idea, unless you are as prepared to have a person impose his or her belief on you.

These people are not witnessed to before the treatment - it's after. Just because they are more receptive, why does that bother you? So what if they're more receptive? They aren't bribed to believe. They are treated regardless - and often for free! Many of these surgeries would be thousands if not tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of dollars in the US. How much do you think a liver tumor resection would cost in the US? At the hospital I was at, such a surgery was performed at no cost to the patient.

I think you must think that people are being treated as a kind of carrot for conversions. That's not the point. Physicians go out into the field because Jesus was a healer, and if you are equipped to heal the poor and are willing to do it without compensation, that's great. If that makes someone more receptive to faith, what's so wrong with that?

You're really not making any sense at all here.

I think people equate the "miracles" of medicine they are experiencing with Christianity and faith, not with pharmaceuticals and science. This misperception causes them to be more receptive to conversion. They aren't converting because they like your values and philosophy.

YES, of course it is after! I agree with you! I wasn't saying that the system is "if you are christian, you get treatment". I know you indoctrinate them AFTER the medical treatment, and that's what's wrong in my opinion. You save someone, they obviously owe you (at least they feel). How can they pay you back for that $10,000 resection? By converting to your faith. It's what you wanted right? You can't go wrong obviously. I'm willing to bet that the liver tumor patient is now a happy Christian [maybe wouldn't necessarily have been, if s/he didn't have a tumor and was healthy, but was merely introduced to the faith on its own merits].

People shouldn't be introduced to faith at a time right after they've been cured with expensive treatments. It BIASES them, and just serves as an easy way to increase your faith's numbers. It's fine to try to attract more Christians, but convince people because of the faith's innate strengths, rather than because their healer was a Christian.

The cost of the treatments is a red herring, many secular camps offer free treatment as well (including the ones I was part of, I saw 9 hernia operations in one day!)

Actually he's making sense, it's just that you're not getting what he is saying.

Remember most people are a good 50-80 IQ points below most of us on this board, they are simple minded and if you associate free stuff with your group then chances are they are going to get on board in hopes of getting more stuff. It's the same idea that marketing companies use all the time.

No, because the place this hospital was in is hysterically Muslim, with a Hindu minority, and converts are hardly "in for free stuff". They are persecuted by their own families. I personally know a woman whose two Chistian sisters were abducted, raped, and forced into marriage by their Muslim cousins, and their *mother* was a key player in plotting the abductions.

Your arrogance and condescension is sickening. At least I respect people enough to believe that they have enough dignity to choose their faith for themselves.

I have never worked with Christian missionaries, so I can not speak from direct experience. My experience comes from working with the people who have felt the direct effects of Christian missionaries. I have gone on several trips to the Peruvian Amazon working with the tribe’s people to help facilitate long term health through HEALTH education, while being CULTURALY sensitive to the BELIEFS of the people. What I found, as an observant of many tribes, was that the Christian ministry was relentless in its effort to CHANGE the tribes. Not simply the religious beliefs, but also the beliefs of hierarchy as a way of life. Those who had NOT embraced Christianity (which were few due to the fact that the Christian ministry had REFUSED MEDICAL CARE to those who failed build a church and "embrace" God) were much more egalitarian. On the other hand, those chiefs who felt the medical care provided by the missionaries was necessary over the traditional beliefs, had subjected their people to a plague of social side effects. Namely, in those tribes, I observed a much higher rate of spousal abuse, sexually transmitted infections, women's health issues, and subservient women. This is irregardless to the TYPE of tribe. I visited four types total, and I can say with confidence that the ONLY common thread between these people was the "embracing of Christianity".

I do not mean to trump any persons beliefs, but simply stating an observation. I am Christian. I went to a Catholic grade school. I studied under nuns and priests. I have nothing against Christianity except those who find the inability to embrace the beauty of diversity.

Perhaps a lesson may be taken from the Jesuits. Their initial work in ministry was to themselves embrace cultures not their own, to learn new languages and the intricacies of society and culture, only then to present the idea of God and Christianity. Not to force. Not to offer life (read: health care) in exchange for complete disregard of lifelong/ancient beliefs for foreign ideas. Present, don't force. In exchange, listen. The world is diverse. Everyone has something to share. Don't be so quick to impose an idea, unless you are as prepared to have a person impose his or her belief on you.
Heretic! How dare you suggest that we listen to non-Christian heathens! :meanie: :laugh:

Heretic! How dare you suggest that we listen to non-Christian heathens! :meanie: :laugh:

:laugh: crazy, i know :laugh:

I think people equate the "miracles" of medicine they are experiencing with Christianity and faith, not with pharmaceuticals and science. This misperception causes them to be more receptive to conversion. They aren't converting because they like your values and philosophy.

Whatever. Obviously you take yourself for a genius and them for idiots.

Whatever. Obviously you take yourself for a genius and them for idiots.

not that, but when you see something that is completely outside the realm of that which you are accustom, there is some willingness to be persuaded to the rest of what that person has said. It does not matter that in our own society the two are not scientifically related. In such a case, the two become inextricably linked, unless otherwise taught or shown.

anon-y-mouse, I agree with you 100%, but the problem lies with intent. I dislike proselytizing as much as anyone, but many conservative Christians truly believe they are saving others from the depths of Muslim/Jewish/Hindu/Buddhist/Sikh/Shinto/Taoist/Confucian/Tribal/Agnostic/Atheist Hell. We might disagree with preaching, but as long as their intentions are good (which they consider them to be, I know they're not purposely being malicious), your point isn't really going to be understood or appreciated. Great post, lexy10.

I love the fact Mercapto that your only response is to claim I am ignorant and hateful. I am neither. Your opinions are your opinions, but we all have a right to disagree. Personally I think you're bright and probably a very nice person, but the fact that you can turn any conversation into a discussion of how that issue can be used to recruit is a little disturbing.

As for people who live in a non-Christian friendly country, there's a reason why they don't like us. Maybe people should take a hint and move or just keep their faith to themselves? Is it really so wrong that there are countries out there that are not Christian theocracies as you wish this country to be? Why is it that if Christians are being repressed you all are lined up to help, but there are other groups that are being repressed by Christian majorities and I don't see you crying out for it to stop or offering to go in harms way to aid them (the repressed not the Christians). It states in at least in a couple of places in the Bible that you treat your opposition ("enemy") as you would treat your own, but yet you seem to miss this point. Now who's being ignorant and shortsighted? If you are really one who cares for his fellow man then that consideration should be given without thought to creed, color, location or their actions.

Whatever. Obviously you take yourself for a genius and them for idiots.
Just like when I see a tree I see an organism that has evolved over millions of years through natural selection, whereas you see something that was created by God......hmmm.....

Just like when I see a tree I see an organism that has evolved over millions of years through natural selection, whereas you see something that was created by God......hmmm.....


:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: perfect.

Thank you.....I try.

Whatever. Obviously you take yourself for a genius and them for idiots.


If you give cataract surgery and restore sight to someone who has never been to a doctor, then show them a video on the promise of heaven and why it is important to be a Christian, wouldn't you expect to influence the patient somehow?

BTW, I'm not the one assuming that I know what "they" should do. If you really think that you can categorically better people's lives by imposing your belief system, then you are the one who is taking himself for a genius.

"Wile E. Coyote, SUPER genius" :laugh: :meanie: :laugh:

If you give cataract surgery and restore sight to someone who has never been to a doctor, then show them a video on the promise of heaven and why it is important to be a Christian, wouldn't you expect to influence the patient somehow?

BTW, I'm not the one assuming that I know what "they" should do. If you really think that you can categorically better people's lives by imposing your belief system, then you are the one who is taking himself for a genius.

Why is influencing someone so evil?

Influencing them is not evil, but playing off of their ignorance or playing off of their gratitude is not kosher. Giving them the "Hey, here's what we believe. You can take it or leave it" speech is one thing, the "The only reason you can see is because of Christ" diatribe to a Nepalese yak herder who has no clue what an ophthalmologist is is (to borrow the British expression) dirty pool old man.

Why is influencing someone so evil?

Nothing wrong with influencing someone. But the ways certain groups go about it often can be considered evil (i.e. buying votes to gain public office, publishing misleading research to market a new drug, providing essential medical treatment as an incentive to perpetuate a set of beliefs).

Influencing them is not evil, but playing off of their ignorance or playing off of their gratitude is not kosher. Giving them the "Hey, here's what we believe. You can take it or leave it" speech is one thing, the "The only reason you can see is because of Christ" diatribe to a Nepalese yak herder who has no clue what an ophthalmologist is is (to borrow the British expression) dirty pool old man.

Well, lying is bull****. Trying to guilt someone into a religion is bull****, because it's not a genuine conversion. Taking the opportunity to show by example what Christianity looks like isn't bad.

i'm sorry but if you dont believe in Jesus or the emaculate conception, your going to hell.

we're doing these paegans a favor and saving their souls before their disease. after all, souls are the most important thing.

Influencing them is not evil, but playing off of their ignorance or playing off of their gratitude is not kosher. Giving them the "Hey, here's what we believe. You can take it or leave it" speech is one thing, the "The only reason you can see is because of Christ" diatribe to a Nepalese yak herder who has no clue what an ophthalmologist is is (to borrow the British expression) dirty pool old man.

First of all, you're lying. The surgeon I shadowed never pretended to be conducting miracles. Things were never clouded up. And treatment and success of treatment were never connected to the spiritual.

I'll tell you what the problem is: you think that faith is a result of ignorance, stupidity, "50 to 80 IQ points lower", lack of education, etc. So you probably think that I should give some treatise on the Big Bang and Darwin's theory of evolution to a Muslim illiterate before telling them about the gospel of Jesus Christ. Yeah, that'll work.

No, it's not bad to show what Christians are really like (our current PR sucks because we can't seem to keep the ignorant, bigoted and uncouth amongst us off the television and press; two words: Pat Robertson) But many people take it to an extreme. If it's properly delivered and respectful of those who choose not to convert then I do not have a problem at all with it. Sadly this is not often the case.

No, it's not bad to show what Christians are really like (our current PR sucks because we can't seem to keep the ignorant, bigoted and uncouth amongst us off the television and press; two words: Pat Robertson) But many people take it to an extreme. If it's properly delivered and respectful of those who choose not to convert then I do not have a problem at all with it. Sadly this is not often the case.

I wouldn't ever dream of forcing or dishonestly pushing a conversion. Christianity is something you can only come to honestly. You can't point a gun at someone's head and make them become a Christian, nor can you trick them into it. I agree with you.

I wouldn't ever dream of forcing or dishonestly pushing a conversion. Christianity is something you can only come to honestly. You can't point a gun at someone's head and make them become a Christian, nor can you trick them into it. I agree with you.

Give it up. These clowns are not being consistent. Sometimes it's "coercion", sometimes it's "carrots", "incentives", evolution, yaks, and all the rest.

Their problem is that they don't want us telling other people about Jesus - regardless of the method or context.

First of all, you're lying. The surgeon I shadowed never pretended to be conducting miracles. Things were never clouded up. And treatment and success of treatment were never connected to the spiritual.

I'll tell you what the problem is: you think that faith is a result of ignorance, stupidity, "50 to 80 IQ points lower", lack of education, etc. So you probably think that I should give some treatise on the Big Bang and Darwin's theory of evolution to a Muslim illiterate before telling them about the gospel of Jesus Christ. Yeah, that'll work.
No, I'm not assuming anything and I'm certainly not assuming that religion is a function of intelligence (if I were I'd be assuming you're some form of drooling retard with a chromosomal abnormality), although I do believe that people who are less intelligent tend to turn towards religion as a source of answers. The "50 to 80 points" comment was meant to speak to people in general not just those with strong beliefs and you are well aware of that.

As for requiring you to do a treatise, no, I don't believe that's appropriate and being hyperbolic and attempting to divert attention away from the flaws in your approachs has become glaringly obvious as one of your standard responses (along with accusing those who question you of "lying" or being "ignorant"). And I get the feeling regardless of what you tell a Muslim "illiterate" (nice choice or words by the way) chances are good that it won't "work".

I am glad to hear that your group keeps things seperate. That's your group, but others have stated that their experiences were different. Is it possible that others are not lying and that maybe you happened to get in with an honest group as opposed to the more underhanded groups described?

Give it up. These clowns are not being consistent. Sometimes it's "coercion", sometimes it's "carrots", "incentives", evolution, yaks, and all the rest.

Their problem is that they don't want us telling other people about Jesus - regardless of the method or context.
Actually we're being consistent- because all of those methods are used.

And as I said, I don't have a problem with respectful preaching (such as what the Campus Ministries group I am involved with utilizes). It's the heavy handed groups that I have issues with.

I'm all about secular intl medical programs. There's no need to interject western religious beliefs into developing countries. International aid is already ethnocentric enough.
I'm not planning on going over there and insisting on a conversion prior to medical treatment, but I'd like to go over there and let them know what exactly compelled me to come over (secular humanitarian intent + my Christian compulsion to help others). Besides, like other posters have said, I'm not sure how you figure Christianity to be a western religious belief. :p

Just curious, but for those of you who participate in medical missions:

Do you have many non-Christian docs on your team?

Would your teams still do work in a country if community leaders asked you to refrain from attempts to convert natives?

Whatever. Obviously you take yourself for a genius and them for idiots.
Come on, mercapto, this kind of thing is beneath you.

I think volunteering mission trips can be (please forgive the expression) a god-send to people who would not have access to the help otherwise. I've even gone on one myself (which is a long story for another time, since I'm not a believer. ;) ), and I would consider going on a medical mission trip as a medical student if it were open to non-Christians. But the goal would have to be medical care, not soul salvation. The problem isn't that people in other countries are idiots while we are geniuses. The problem is that we are educated and they are not. We have technology and they do not. We have medicines and they do not. That's ostensibly the whole point of us helping them, right? Because they are needy, and we are not. We are morally obligated to help them, but also morally obligated to do so in a non-coercive way (as much as possible, anyway).

Moose, it is wrong to "influence" needy people precisely because those people are so desperate that they might be willing to try anything, to believe anything, in order to be cured or to save their lives. I would argue that they aren't "real" conversions, either, if they're done under conditions of severe stress like suffering with a debilitating disease or injury. I think the point that several of the other posters are trying to make is that many of these so-called conversions would likely not have occurred without the medical care. Do you really consider people who convert based on a quid pro quo to be true Christians?

Besides, like other posters have said, I'm not sure how you figure Christianity to be a western religious belief. :p

Read Page 2 of this thread.

Read Page 2 of this thread.
you can keep your imperatives to yourself


I already read page 2, thanks.

Moose, it is wrong to "influence" needy people precisely because those people are so desperate that they might be willing to try anything, to believe anything, in order to be cured or to save their lives. I would argue that they aren't "real" conversions, either, if they're done under conditions of severe stress like suffering with a debilitating disease or injury. I think the point that several of the other posters are trying to make is that many of these so-called conversions would likely not have occurred without the medical care. Do you really consider people who convert based on a quid pro quo to be true Christians?

"Influence" is pervasive. It can be manipulative or it can just be part of life and human nature. Have you ever heard the saying "No atheists in a foxhole"? If someone genuinely comes to believe in God during a stressful time in their life, that's ok. Because I believe in human beings intelligence. Even dumb people can think for themselves. If they come to genuinely believe, then they genuinely believe. I'll tell them when I have the chance to tell them. I'm not going to wait until they hit a particularly calm point in their life just to be sure they're up to the strain of using their judgement. That's condescending.

"Influence" is pervasive. It can be manipulative or it can just be part of life and human nature. Have you ever heard the saying "No atheists in a foxhole"? If someone genuinely comes to believe in God during a stressful time in their life, that's ok. Because I believe in human beings intelligence. Even dumb people can think for themselves. If they come to genuinely believe, then they genuinely believe. I'll tell them when I have the chance to tell them. I'm not going to wait until they hit a particularly calm point in their life just to be sure they're up to the strain of using their judgement. That's condescending.
I guess that is the point of contention. Do the person's motives for converting matter? Is it genuine belief if it's a quid pro quo? I would say no. But maybe you disagree?

Come on, mercapto, this kind of thing is beneath you.

I think volunteering mission trips can be (please forgive the expression) a god-send to people who would not have access to the help otherwise. I've even gone on one myself (which is a long story for another time, since I'm not a believer. ;) ), and I would consider going on a medical mission trip as a medical student if it were open to non-Christians. But the goal would have to be medical care, not soul salvation. The problem isn't that people in other countries are idiots while we are geniuses. The problem is that we are educated and they are not. We have technology and they do not. We have medicines and they do not. That's ostensibly the whole point of us helping them, right? Because they are needy, and we are not. We are morally obligated to help them, but also morally obligated to do so in a non-coercive way (as much as possible, anyway).

Moose, it is wrong to "influence" needy people precisely because those people are so desperate that they might be willing to try anything, to believe anything, in order to be cured or to save their lives. I would argue that they aren't "real" conversions, either, if they're done under conditions of severe stress like suffering with a debilitating disease or injury. I think the point that several of the other posters are trying to make is that many of these so-called conversions would likely not have occurred without the medical care. Do you really consider people who convert based on a quid pro quo to be true Christians?


Thanks for being the voice of reason, Q -- you are so level-headed. I really need to end up in residency with you someday :)

I guess that is the point of contention. Do the person's motives for converting matter? Is it genuine belief if it's a quid pro quo? I would say no. But maybe you disagree?

I already said a forced or coerced conversion is BS. Listen or not.

I also really appreciate the complete sidetrack to attack the topic of the thread. That's real nice. I'm sure you'll expect more courtesy than you're willing to give. Hypocrites.

I think one thing needs to be explained: Medical treatment is not used by missionaries to entice those they serve to accept Christianity. Christian medical missionaries seek to minister, not just spiritually, but to meet the physical needs of the people as well (hence medical treatment, helping them build houses or dig wells, etc.). This is done out of a genuine love and care for those they are serving. I think the vast majority of those that are being served understand the genuineness of the medical missionary's intentions. I firmly believe it doesn't take someone with a SDN IQ to decipher if something is being done out of love or as a bribe.

The reason I think the work of Christian medical missionaries may influence the served to accept Christianity is because they do see and understand the true motivation of the missionaries. When the served are loved and cared for in such a genuine way, some may want to learn more about what motivates the missionaries (their Christian faith).

Can't we just preach to people respect and tolerance of all religions and the importance of being a good person instead of assuming other people even need to hear about our own religion? I don't care if it's coerced conversion or not, if the central tenet of Christianity is as Jesus as the savior of mankind, preaching will without fail come across as "accept it or else."

For goodness sakes, can't we just preach to people respect and tolerance of all religions and the importance of being a good person instead of assuming other people even need to hear about our own religion? I don't care if it's coerced conversion or not, if the central tenet of Christianity is as Jesus as the savior of mankind, preaching will without fail come across as "accept it or else."

Sure you can, but that wouldn't be a Christian mission, which is the topic of this thread. If you want to start your own thread about some pansy religion of mutual respect for everything and yet nothing at all, the new thread button is at the top of the forum. Use it.

I think you guys need to close this thread and start a new one. Maybe you'll get the peace and discussion you were looking for rather than constant ideological questioning. The haters have already ruined this one so just rather than argue, start a new one. I find it completely ironic that the reason some of these people are in here is to make sure you don't "impose" your beliefs on other people yet that is exactly what they are doing here... imposing their beliefs on you. :laugh:

Sure you can, but that wouldn't be a Christian mission, which is the topic of this thread. If you want to start your own thread about some pansy religion of mutual respect for everything and yet nothing at all, the new thread button is at the top of the forum. Use it.
I'm glad to hear you feel your religion, the one you want to share with people all over the world, is the antithesis of a "pansy religion of mutual respect."

I think you guys need to close this thread and start a new one. Maybe you'll get the peace and discussion you were looking for rather than constant ideological questioning. The haters have already ruined this one so just rather than argue, start a new one.

They'll suddenly learn respect when we take the extreme action of closing the thread in response to their off topic arguments and start a new one?

I wish the freaking libs would start a thread titled "Why Christians are evil." and just preach to each other in it. Then we wouldn't have to read it in every other thread.

I'm glad to hear you feel your religion, the one you want to share with people all over the world, is the antithesis of a "pansy religion of mutual respect."

oh snap!

^

Well if the goal is "mutual respect" and "tolerance" than you guys can demostrate it by staying out of this thread and not imposing your beliefs on other people. OK? Bye bye now.

I'm glad to hear you feel your religion, the one you want to share with people all over the world, is the antithesis of a "pansy religion of mutual respect."

Hmmm... that looks like a period rather than an ellipsis. At least you quoted before you changed the quote.

Respect for... what? Obviously not respect for an on-topic thread. Obviously not tolerance for Christianity.

Come on, mercapto, this kind of thing is beneath you.

I think volunteering mission trips can be (please forgive the expression) a god-send to people who would not have access to the help otherwise. I've even gone on one myself (which is a long story for another time, since I'm not a believer. ;) ), and I would consider going on a medical mission trip as a medical student if it were open to non-Christians. But the goal would have to be medical care, not soul salvation. The problem isn't that people in other countries are idiots while we are geniuses. The problem is that we are educated and they are not. We have technology and they do not. We have medicines and they do not. That's ostensibly the whole point of us helping them, right? Because they are needy, and we are not. We are morally obligated to help them, but also morally obligated to do so in a non-coercive way (as much as possible, anyway).

Moose, it is wrong to "influence" needy people precisely because those people are so desperate that they might be willing to try anything, to believe anything, in order to be cured or to save their lives. I would argue that they aren't "real" conversions, either, if they're done under conditions of severe stress like suffering with a debilitating disease or injury. I think the point that several of the other posters are trying to make is that many of these so-called conversions would likely not have occurred without the medical care. Do you really consider people who convert based on a quid pro quo to be true Christians?

Q, you are really missing something if you don't realize that I absolutely reject all coercive or bribing methods to get people to believe. Basically, these medical missionaries sacrifice their own lives (and no doubt potentially lucrative careers in the US) to serve other people. They tell them about God and Jesus, just as they would to any American colleague, friend, etc. I myself have witnessed to people in multiple contexts - colleagues at work, fellow students, even an elderly French lady at a classical music concert. Is it so terrible if I tell my patients about God AFTER I've treated them. In other words - NO PRESSURE.

There's no quid pro quo. Even if it 'worked' I wouldn't do it, but because faith is about belief, it's pretty pointless to go about 'converting' people in an underhanded way, as it simply isn't genuine.

imposing your beliefs on other people

someone help me out, what's the definition of irony!! QUICK!

^

Simple question anon-y-mouse: Are you interested in doing Christian Medical Missionary?

someone help me out, what's the definition of irony!! QUICK!

Yeah, except I tell other people with argument, and passion, and love. And you here are heaping aspersions and insults on Christians. Now who's imposing?

Hmmm... that looks like a period rather than an ellipsis. At least you quoted before you changed the quote.

Respect for... what? Obviously not respect for an on-topic thread. Obviously not tolerance for Christianity.
Well first, I have no idea where that first comment came from (oops, excuse me, from where that first comment came). I took out the "For goodness sakes" because after reading that I thought it could be read as a little too harsh and that wasn't my intention. Perhaps it should have been...

And secondly, I am definitely tolerant of Christianity; my comments should not have been construed as such. In fact, I consider myself a very personally religious person...what religion that is you have no way of knowing. Saying that I disagree with proselytizing one's religion, especially if it uses a "fire and brimstone" method, is exactly that and is not me being intolerant of a particular religion. If you were a Muslim who believed only Muslims go to Heaven and wanted to preach to other people after helping them on mission trips, I'd be saying the same thing.

I'm getting out of this argument now. I just wanted to clear that up.

the problem lies with intent. I dislike proselytizing as much as anyone, but many conservative Christians truly believe they are saving others from the depths of Muslim/Jewish/Hindu/Buddhist/Sikh/Shinto/Taoist/Confucian/Tribal/Agnostic/Atheist Hell. We might disagree with preaching, but as long as their intentions are good (which they consider them to be, I know they're not purposely being malicious), your point isn't really going to be understood or appreciated.

Exactly! Whether you disagree with proselytizing or not, its important to understand that most Christians are doing this with a caring heart. For the longest time, I would HATE how people would repeatedly ask me to go to their church or to visit "fill in the blank" church activitiy. But after finding a wonderful church for myself, I realized where they were coming from--they were doing this because they cared for me! At the risk of sounding like a superficial, airheaded girl, take this as an example of what people are thinking when they invite you to church/try to tell you about Christianity/etc:

Let's say you find this great new clothing store. The clothes are stylish, well-made, and very affordable! So what would I do? I would call all my girlfriends and tell them about this awesome new store I found, and tell them they need to check it out (now in real life, I'm not perfect, and part of me would wonder--hmm, maybe i shouldn't tell EVERYONE. If everyone starts shopping there, they might mark up prices due to higher demand, they might run out of my size, etc. But God's love is infinite and we don't have to worry about any shortages). Anyway, my point is that alot of people want to spread God's word because of a positive experience they've had--and not in that condescending "we're superior to you" type of way.

Also, I'd like to say I have seen Christians who do try to convert others by using the "condescending" approach and that disgusts me.

PS - Sorry for the length of this post...hopefully i was able to convey my point without stepping on too many toes

Why do Christians organize medical missions in the first place? The whole purpose behind the mission is to provide medical care. The premise behind administering this care is that this group of people (Christians in this case) feel compelled to help their fellow man. The fact that religion is what has united these people does not diminish that they are doing something wonderful for the people they help. Being a good Christian is helping others whether or not there is some bigger reward to be gained. These medical missions are for the purpose of providing medical treatment but I don't think its inappropriate for the group sending this support to be upfront about what has motivated them.

For example, when you see an activist group holding a function or donating time or money, do you think it inappropriate for them to provide information about the organization that is sponsoring the event, or do you see it as a way to make the ideas and beliefs of the group known. And perhaps, someone who is involved will like what they see and want to become involved in the group themselves. Perhaps on these medical missions, someone will say to themselves that they like the idea of helping other people as the right thing to do and that the ideas that the missionaries bring with them make sense. Or maybe they're too dumb, right?

Well first, I have no idea where that first comment came from (oops, excuse me, from where that first comment came). I took out the "For goodness sakes" because after reading that I thought it could be read as a little too harsh and that wasn't my intention. Perhaps it should have been...

And secondly, I am definitely tolerant of Christianity; my comments should not have been construed as such. In fact, I consider myself a very personally religious person...what religion that is you have no way of knowing. Saying that I disagree with proselytizing one's religion, especially if it uses a "fire and brimstone" method, is exactly that and is not me being intolerant of a particular religion. If you were a Muslim who believed only Muslims go to Heaven and wanted to preach to other people after helping them on mission trips, I'd be saying the same thing.

I'm getting out of this argument now. I just wanted to clear that up.

You have no idea where that first comment came from? Were you ever exposed to academic writing? If you take a quoted line and randomly stick a period on it where it did not originally belong in such a way as to change the meaning... that's a misquote. If I thought you were intelligent enough for it to have been purposeful, I'd be madder. As it is, I think you just made yourself look stupid and slightly dirty. I laugh at the folks who think you made an excellent point.

To point out what you did in the extreme, I could point out that you said:

"My religion is me being intolerant of a Muslim."

Well, minus some minor punctuation and words that were omitted...

RunnerMD- You did a good job explaining where Christians are coming from when they share their faith.

No toes stepped on here. As I said before, so long as it is done in a respectful manner, I have no problem with other sharing their religious beliefs with me. No hate, no disrespect, not animosity intended from me- but what I have said in this and other threads has been taken to be attacks on Christians or anyone else. As I have made very clear I am a practicing Episcopalian but I do enjoy questioning my beliefs and that is what many of you have witnessed in other threads and what riles Mercapto up so badly for some reason.

I apologize for side tracking this thread, but I do feel that the dark side of Christian service groups (and really in this sense the term Christian is sometimes used so loosely as to almost deserved being placed in quotation marks) was something that needed to be brought up. Those groups who do things of a very un-Christian nature and then claim they are doing it in the name of the Lord are out there and please I hope anyone who is of good enough heart to seek out people who need help finds a group as nice as Mercapto described his to be, and not likely the petty immature and self-righteous persons that other members here have dealt with. I have one final comment for this and I will be done for now: Please find a way to serve your fellow man, regardless of whether it is through a secular or religious organization.

I apologize for side tracking this thread, but I do feel that the dark side of Christian service groups (and really in this sense the term Christian is sometimes used so loosely as to almost deserved being placed in quotation marks) was something that needed to be brought up. Those groups who do things of a very un-Christian nature and then claim they are doing it in the name of the Lord are out there and please I hope anyone who is of good enough heart to seek out people who need help finds a group as nice as Mercapto described his to be, and not likely the petty immature and self-righteous persons that other members here have dealt with. I have one final comment for this and I will be done for now: Please find a way to serve your fellow man, regardless of whether it is through a secular or religious organization.

Why? In what sense did the thread invite your off topic diversion?

You have no idea where that first comment came from? Were you ever exposed to academic writing? If you take a quoted line and randomly stick a period on it where it did not originally belong in such a way as to change the meaning... that's a misquote. If I thought you were intelligent enough for it to have been purposeful, I'd be madder. As it is, I think you just made yourself look stupid and slightly dirty. I laugh at the folks who think you made an excellent point.

To point out what you did in the extreme, I could point out that you said:

"My religion is me being intolerant of a Muslim."

Well, minus some minor punctuation and words that were omitted...
When you have a quotation, it is grammatically incorrect to put the period on the outside of the closed quotation mark. Therefore, my putting the period inside your quote was not a misquote; rather, doing so was grammatically correct.

I got really nervous for a second there when I thought, "Moosepilot thinks I'm dumb! What if it's true??" But then I looked at my diploma from a top 5 university and felt a little better. Please don't try and insult my intelligence. I was trying to be civil in my explanations and you harp on some little fact that, besides being incorrect, is of absolutely no importance to the conversation. Nice rebuttal, by the way...when in doubt, insult the person's grammar! Impressive strategy.

When you have a quotation, it is grammatically incorrect to put the period on the outside of the closed quotation mark. Therefore, my putting the period inside your quote was not a misquote; rather, doing so was grammatically correct.

I got really nervous for a second there when I thought, "Moosepilot thinks I'm dumb! What if it's true??" But then I looked at my diploma from a top 5 university and felt a little better. Please don't try and insult my intelligence. I was trying to be civil in my explanations and you harp on some little fact that, besides being incorrect, is of absolutely no importance to the conversation. Nice rebuttal, by the way...when in doubt, insult the person's grammar! Impressive strategy.

You never learned of the ellipse? You don't use those at your top five university? They want their diploma back, smart guy.

Did your quote change my meaning? Was there a more correct way that would have indicated that I said more in the same sentence that you chose not to quote? It's not a trivial grammar nit-pick.

Why? In what sense did the thread invite your off topic diversion?

The thread would be incomplete without some trashin'-n-bashin' of Christians, would it not? You see, medical missionaries short-circuit the tolerance BS; they suggest that there are positive aspects to Christianity. The entire focus of the thread must thus be redirected to coercion, Pat Robertson, and the Crusades. Praetorian, congratulations, you've succeeded in obliterating the thread.

You never learned of the ellipse? You don't use those at your top five university? They want their diploma back, smart guy.

Did your quote change my meaning? Was there a more correct way that would have indicated that I said more in the same sentence that you chose not to quote? It's not a trivial grammar nit-pick.

Chill out, it was perfectly clear what burns had to say (whether you agree with it is another issue).

Chill out, it was perfectly clear what burns had to say (whether you agree with it is another issue).

The point was that he wasn't clear about what I had to say. I don't mind him disagreeing with me, but leave my words as my words.

You never learned of the ellipse? You don't use those at your top five university? They want their diploma back, smart guy.

Did your quote change my meaning? Was there a more correct way that would have indicated that I said more in the same sentence that you chose not to quote? It's not a trivial grammar nit-pick.
I was simply quoting you because you implied that Christianity is not a religion of mutual respect; I don't think it changed the meaning of your quote. But it doesn't matter. I really hate arguing like this, even if it's on some anonymous internet forum, so I'll be a smart girl and go play some Fifa 2006. I'm sorry we sidetracked your thread. Proceed.

I was simply quoting you because you implied that Christianity is not a religion of mutual respect; I don't think it changed the meaning of your quote. But it doesn't matter. I really hate arguing like this, even if it's on some anonymous internet forum, so I'll be a smart girl and go play some Fifa 2006. I'm sorry we sidetracked your thread. Proceed.

That's the point. You missed what I said because you put a period right about where your agenda needed it.

I contrasted it to a pansy religion that had mutual respect for everything, which in the end is really respecting nothing. If you don't condemn anything, then you don't respect anything, either, because there has to be a difference in your attitude towards multiple things before you can say you "respect" something. If I respect everything equally... what does that really mean? Think about it.

Why? In what sense did the thread invite your off topic diversion?
Because everyone was talking about how great all of these groups are, and no one bothered to mention that there are some bad ones out there and that people have gone along on trips expecting one thing and finding out that what they signed up to do- take care of people- took a backseat to other concerns. That is why I made a comment. I had no intention of this snowballing like it did- but I feel that it has been a meaningful discussion nonetheless.

Because everyone was talking about how great all of these groups are, and no one bothered to mention that there are some bad ones out there and that people have gone along on trips expecting one thing and finding out that what they signed up to do- take care of people- took a backseat to other concerns. That is why I made a comment. I had no intention of this snowballing like it did- but I feel that it has been a meaningful discussion nonetheless.

Totally off topic. The topic was stated in the first post. Did you actually go on a mission and have this experience or have you heard about it?

The thread would be incomplete without some trashin'-n-bashin' of Christians, would it not? You see, medical missionaries short-circuit the tolerance BS; they suggest that there are positive aspects to Christianity. The entire focus of the thread must thus be redirected to coercion, Pat Robertson, and the Crusades. Praetorian, congratulations, you've succeeded in obliterating the thread.
Mercapto, you need to learn the difference between bashing Christians, questioning beliefs, and bashing those who have ulterior motives for their actions (profit, egotism, etc). These three are not the same thing, nor is questioning your beliefs exclude one from being able to have faith.

You seem stuck on this idea that I don't like Christians as a group.... :confused: Granted there are Christians whom I don't care for, but that's because they are scumbags, not because they consider themselves Christians.

And when did the Crusades come into this?

No, I didn't go, but the lead missionary came to our church and spoke about it. Her exact words when I asked about the medical care rendered were (because I was thinking about going on the next trip with them): "Oh, well if you really want to take care of people then you should go through another group. The medical treatment we went down to give was just an excuse to go win some souls for the Lord. We spent most of our time telling these people about our faith." That sounds like a pretty good admission of false pretense if you ask me because the flyers for this trip had talked about how many people they were going to vaccinate, etc, etc.

Could be that this group was just an abberation, but it does serve as a warning to be very, very sure of the people you are getting involved with. All is not always as it seems.

This thread makes me realize one has to make this decision himself: either to read the Bible, believe what it says about being a follower of Christ and live it out or he can chose to reject it as false. I think this thread is just one small example that there is no middle ground and there is no compromise. Tolerance doesn't work; if you believe something to be "true" anything that contradicts it must be understood as "false". I am going to believe you are incorrect and you are going to believe I am incorrect. The best I can do is "tolerate" you being wrong and to many this does not sit well and isn't what is meant when they use the word "tolerance".

My true desire is that people would not try and seek after unattainable mutual acceptance nor get caught up in all the relatively superfluous arguments that overshadow the central issue but would instead invest the time and energy to truly examine what the Bible says (the best way is by reading it) and be sure of what they believe.

No, I didn't go, but the lead missionary came to our church and spoke about it. Her exact words when I asked about the medical care rendered were (because I was thinking about going on the next trip with them): "Oh, well if you really want to take care of people then you should go through another group. The medical treatment we went down to give was just an excuse to go win some souls for the Lord. We spent most of our time telling these people about our faith." That sounds like a pretty good admission of false pretense if you ask me because the flyers for this trip had talked about how many people they were going to vaccinate, etc, etc.

Could be that this group was just an abberation, but it does serve as a warning to be very, very sure of the people you are getting involved with. All is not always as it seems.

Did you ask if they actually vaccinated the numbers they'd discussed? Maybe medical wasn't her part. There might have been a medical lead that would have downplayed the ministry part.

Basically, though, you interrupted an on-topic discussion to tell us about one bad mission you'd heard of.

No, this lady was an RN and was openly listed as the "medical contact" for the trip, so I am quite sure that what she told me was correct. As for the vaccination program, one of the EMT's I know who went along said they ended up only using about 1/3 of the supply they took along.

But anyhow, there is obviously an assumption that anything with Christian in the title is a good thing, so I guess my suggestion to exercise caution is falling upon deaf ears. Oh well.....

No, this lady was an RN and was openly listed as the "medical contact" for the trip, so I am quite sure that what she told me was correct. As for the vaccination program, one of the EMT's I know who went along said they ended up only using about 1/3 of the supply they took along.

But anyhow, there is obviously an assumption that anything with Christian in the title is a good thing, so I guess my suggestion to exercise caution is falling upon deaf ears. Oh well.....

Is there an assumption? I wasn't aware I needed you to do research for me and tell me to be cautious before I went out of the country with a group of strangers. Can you do specific research for me, or is this caution as good as it gets?

Basically, though, you interrupted an on-topic discussion to tell us about one bad mission you'd heard of.

That's exactly what he did. Whether he likes it or not, every single one of his posts has been completely antagonistic towards Christianity and one needs only to see what group he saw eye-to-eye with in this thread more... he joined the chorus of haters pretty quick, and the haters are the ones who were supporting him. If this guy does indeed attend church I would love for him to print out this thread and show it to the people around him and see what they think about it.

And no offense but I think we are smart enough, old enough, and able to think on our own enough to not need to hear about all the "bad aspects of Christianity." That has NOTHING to do with seeing who was interested in missionary work and how to get involved. Congratulations though for trampling a perfectly good thread that might have had some real fruit come out of it. Instead we get yet another debate about Christianity and a complete focus on the negative.

I've been on 2 medical missions.

1 with a non-religious group (to Egypt), 1 with a religious group (to Haiti).

Both were the same at the core. We went and helped, we didn't force anything on anybody. The only difference was who was facilitating our trips.

When we went to Egypt, it was a Cardiac EP trip so it was done through some local Cardiac EPs.

When we went to Haiti, it was linked through the local church, they hosted us. Other than that, there was no religious involvement in what we did except we attended their mass on Sunday. We treated everybody, regardless of their affiliation with the church. (BTW. for anyone that has been on missions to Haiti, we were based out of Tourbeck.)

Both of these were life changing, I'll definately continue to go on medical missions as a doc.

i'd just like to say that you guys are a bunch of retardos.

you'd believe anything a preacher told you.

people like you create religious wars like the crusades and massacre millions. its how Hitler controlled an entire nation...because of morons like you.

not going to "heaven" because you are not a Christian is the dumbest thing i've ever heard in the world. It is an aspect of the religion that makes it just as fanatical as radical Islam or any other radical group.

so convert away, you idiots.

oh Jesus, where art thou, save me, for my collegues are going to tell me that this post will condemn me to the pits of hell, where i shall feel the wrath of the notorious Lucifer himself. :laugh:

one question, so if a guy is dying in a hospital bed, and he has found faith and hope in a religion outside of Christianity, do you not treat him because he doesnt want to convert or wait while he gets sicker until he converts (oh yeah, God would really want that) or do you cure him and pray for the paegans soul.

you guys are fanatical idiots. i say put you in a huge island with all the other religious fanatics in the world, give you all a machete and let you guys hack each other to little bits....this way would be better than allowing you to kill innocent women and children like our faith loving pressy is doing.

where is the "God" in that?!

by converting someone to give them treatment, i think its the equivalent of stripping the man of his dignity before you treat him. This man or woman has found peace with a belief in something that they have held their entire life. now your telling the guy to give up the belief that gives him peace of mind and changing to your belief, forcibly.

i think i'm going to go on a medical mission myself. i'm going to make all those sick people lick my shoes, after i dipped them in a pile of crap, before i treat them. that way i can strip them of their dignity and self-identity too! (sarcasm implied)

and another thing.....if u saw any other religious group doing what you radical Christians are doing (bc i'm not generalizing this to those Christians who still use their brain to think for themselves), they would be "evil doers".....imagine a group of Muslim doctors doing the same thing, the entire world would be against them.

one question, so if a guy is dying in a hospital bed, and he has found faith and hope in a religion outside of Christianity, do you not treat him because he doesnt want to convert or wait while he gets sicker until he converts (oh yeah, God would really want that) or do you cure him and pray for the paegans soul.

Well, you could read some of what we've already said or you could ask a question I had answered, Q had asked again, I pointed out that I'd answered, and then you asked again as your only vaguely readable contribution in an entire post. Did you intend to be a moron or is it a total accident?

Honestly, there are three cases I can see for me going on a Christian medical mission.

1. A person could have no medical knowledge, experience, or interest. They're going along to augment the mission in non-medical ways. Perhaps administrative, but also perhaps to do the witnessing that the medical types might not have time to do. I doubt I would ever go in this capacity, but it's an important role given case 3.

2. I could see going now or as a med student. I would want to be a medical support type. Maybe I could take histories or assist the physicians and nurses in some way, because that's my interest and how I could best help the people. I might have time to witness to people during those times when you're just in the way. I think everyone has had those times as a volunteer. I'm not a super charismatic guy and I'm pretty private, so I'd probably be uncomfortable doing it, but I think it's important.

3. If I was a physician, I imagine I'd spend the entire trip working medical issues. That's where a physician is going to be most useful and help the most people. If I'm not helping a patient, I imagine I'd be eating or sleeping, unless the volume just wasn't that high (which is probably more likely, honestly, isn't it?). I think this could be the way I could help most, because I'm not a minister, not charismatic, probably can't convey the deep belief I have through words, but maybe I can show it through action and help given.

Given the thoughts expressed here, maybe people are beyond help. The first one of you I ran across would probably sour the whole experience. Why help people when they just disapprove of you and think you're trying to manipulate them?

i'd just like to say that you guys are a bunch of retardos.

you'd believe anything a preacher told you.

people like you create religious wars like the crusades and massacre millions. its how Hitler controlled an entire nation...because of morons like you.

not going to "heaven" because you are not a Christian is the dumbest thing i've ever heard in the world. It is an aspect of the religion that makes it just as fanatical as fundamentalist Islam.

so convert away, you idiots.

oh Jesus, where art thou, save me, for my collegues are going to tell me that this post will condemn me to the pits of hell, where i shall feel the wrath of the notorious Lucifer himself.

one question, so if a guy is dying in a hospital bed, and he has found faith and hope in a religion outside of Christianity, do you not treat him because he doesnt want to convert or wait while he gets sicker until he converts (oh yeah, God would really want that) or do you cure him and pray for the paegans soul.

you guys are fanatical idiots. i say put you in a huge island with all the other religious fanatics in the world, give you all a machete and let you guys hack each other to little bits....this way would be better than allowing you to kill innocent women and children like our faith loving pressy is doing.

where is the "God" in that?!

You, miss, are the "moron" and "retard" in this case. Moose and Mercapto may be religious but are by no means or sense of the word idiots. Quite to the contrary, although I disagree with the extent to which Mercapto takes his religious fervor, he could take care of me any time I needed a doctor. The same goes for MoosePilot (except the part about taking his beliefs too far)

If this guy does indeed attend church I would love for him to print out this thread and show it to the people around him and see what they think about it.
Actually, my father-in-law (or rather the man who will be my father-in-law as of July) happens to be a Reverend in the Episcopal Church and I showed him this. His comment was, "You defended your stance, and you pointed out the shortcomings of certain groups. There is nothing wrong with what you said. There was nothing hateful across the board about it- you singled out certain individuals. Remember, people just see and hear what they want to hear and if they can not deal with that then the problem lies with them for being close-minded. A 'you can take a horse to water' issue if you will."

better yet, i think i'll have them lick my butt :laugh:

Actually, my father-in-law (or rather the man who will be my father-in-law as of July) happens to be a Reverend in the Episcopal Church and I showed him this. His comment was, "You defended your stance, and you pointed out the shortcomings of certain groups. There is nothing wrong with what you said. There was nothing hateful across the board about it- you singled out certain individuals. Remember, people just see and hear what they want to hear and if they can not deal with that then the problem lies with them for being close-minded. A 'you can take a horse to water' issue if you will."

Praetorian, there's nothing particularly wrong with what you said. It could even have been on topic if you'd answered the question more specifically and added that your reasons for not wanting to go on a mission were the RN's speech that you mentioned later.

My big issue is look at the thread prior to your post and then look at it after. Do you see a difference? I would have really liked to have the opportunity to talk to people about medical missions. Hopefully someone with experience would have posted and I could have heard how they did it. How they found a group, where they went, what the experience was like. That opportunity was lost and all we got was a fight. Did anyone really feel anyone's mind would be changed by coming into a thread for Christians to talk about mission trips and yell at them?

I want to remind everyone that this is a professional forum & the conduct here is expected to remain professional.

For clarification & future reference, please read this thread: http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=244028

My big issue is look at the thread prior to your post and then look at it after. Do you see a difference?

Point well taken.

people like you create religious wars like the crusades and massacre millions. its how Hitler controlled an entire nation...because of morons like you.


Actually, Hitler had some very strong pagan and Satanic links- the broken cross (now the symbol of the Nazis) is a part of this. And many of the Christian churches that preached what mainstream denominations today do got in trouble with the Nazis. It was the ones who dumped Christian doctrine and gave the trumpet call for German nationalism that helped raise national support for that kind of movement. The Crusades like almost any war was not really about religion. The Crusades were partly a response to the fear of the growing power of Muslim groups coming out of the East like the Mongols (who in many cases converted to Islam), the Ottomans who conquered parts of Eastern Europe, and the Moors who would eventually conquer large portions of Spain. The other major reason for the Crusades was the desire for spoils of war among greedy mercenaries. Religion simply provided a way to unite several different countries, which were often at odds with one another, to unite under a common banner. To say that spreading Christianity was the motivation for the Crusades is like saying that the reason Pizarro went to the Americas was to convert the natives to Christianity. The Spanish may have claimed that afterwards, but it was a justification for what was done in the name of political power and financial gain...

one question, so if a guy is dying in a hospital bed, and he has found faith and hope in a religion outside of Christianity, do you not treat him because he doesnt want to convert or wait while he gets sicker until he converts (oh yeah, God would really want that) or do you cure him and pray for the paegans soul.

by converting someone to give them treatment, i think its the equivalent of stripping the man of his dignity before you treat him. This man or woman has found peace with a belief in something that they have held their entire life. now your telling the guy to give up the belief that gives him peace of mind and changing to your belief, forcibly.

i think i'm going to go on a medical mission myself. i'm going to make all those sick people lick my shoes, after i dipped them in a pile of crap, before i treat them. that way i can strip them of their dignity and self-identity too! (sarcasm implied)
.
I think you're misunderstanding the purpose of medical missions, at least as I see it. No one that I know in medical missions is advocating forcing someone to convert before giving them treatment. What they're saying is that while they're over there, giving surgeries for the blind and caring for the dying, they will clearly explain what motivated them to leave behind good paying jobs in America and go to the slums of India. Mother Theresa told the people that worked with her to treat every dying individual as if they were handling the eucharist, Christ's own body, in the view of the Catholic church. It was her faith that motivated her, and I'm sure she told other people about it. But that doesn't mean she was forcing Hindus to convert before giving them a drink of water.

Teresa's philosophy was convert before you treat. save the soul first. no conversion, to treatment.

i am just saying you can help people with having a condescending view of them or their beliefs and acting condescendingly by preaching to them.

if u really want to do GOOD, treat all of them WITHOUT preaching....treat them as you would treat Jesus, Moses or whoever else you believe in...or as you would treat a brother.

thanks Mom for telling me to simmer dunna.

Teresa's philosophy was convert before you treat. save the soul first. no conversion, to treatment.


That's not true. Most of Mother Theresa's patients died without converting and she still cared for them. I don't know where you're getting your info from...

Teresa's philosophy was convert before you treat. save the soul first. no conversion, to treatment.

i am just saying you can help people with having a condescending view of them or their beliefs and acting condescendingly by preaching to them.

if u really want to do GOOD, treat all of them WITHOUT preaching....treat them as you would treat Jesus, Moses or whoever else you believe in...or as you would treat a brother.

thanks Mom for telling me to simmer dunna.

I wouldn't talk religion with Jesus, Moses, or whomever? Right...

if u really want to do GOOD, treat all of them WITHOUT preaching....treat them as you would treat Jesus, Moses or whoever else you believe in...or as you would treat a brother.


If you believe, as the mainstream Christians do, that those who die without believing in Jesus are going to hell, then the way to do the most good is to tell people about what you would believe in (aka "preaching"), let them make their own decision, and treat them with compassion regardless of what their choice is. And, most Christian medical missionaries operate on this principle, because Christ healed people before they converted- read the story of the lepers that were healed and you'll see that not only did he not ask them to convert beforehand but that only one even returned to say thankyou.

What are you talking about? Dr. Mom is hot! Especially if you go for the tall, leggy variety....

take me out of my misery and addiction and kick me out of SDN...PLEASE!!! block me or something,,,,,,erase me.

YES, of course it is after! I agree with you! I wasn't saying that the system is "if you are christian, you get treatment". I know you indoctrinate them AFTER the medical treatment, and that's what's wrong in my opinion. You save someone, they obviously owe you (at least they feel). How can they pay you back for that $10,000 resection? By converting to your faith. It's what you wanted right? You can't go wrong obviously. I'm willing to bet that the liver tumor patient is now a happy Christian...
You said it yourself: the tumor patient is now a "happy" Christian. Why do you oppose his happiness? He is thrilled at his new healthiness and at his new knowledge of truth. You keep declaring that one can either choose to espouse Christian values or else to heal others physical ills but not both. Yet you have offered no logical reason as to why the two must be mutually exclusive. Your only protests come from your own emotions--your "dislike" for what you perceive as exploitation. You have not justified this belief. "Oh they're going to be grateful and this will make them exceptionally biased toward receiving the belief system of their healers!" And how is this bad? Their healers just traveled half-way around the world and healed him. And they're not allowed to say, "You're welcome. The reason we came to help you is because of our religious beliefs. We believe that we ought to follow the example of our Savior, whose name is Jesus Christ. God is perfect and therefore cannot allow us, who have all done wrong things, into his presence. Because of our wrongdoings Jesus was sent as a sacrifice in our stead, that the demands of perfect justice be fulfilled. Jesus paid the debt of our weaknesses and we now live free, with the guarantee that we will come before God as his righteous children."

Now explain with logic why those who HEAL are not allowed to mention the REASON they heal?

Is it possible that others are not lying and that maybe you happened to get in with an honest group as opposed to the more underhanded groups described?
Is it possible that the original poster intended this thread to discuss such honest groups with other interested students before being hijacked by people like you?

Did it ever occur to you that if you don't like what I have to say, then don't respond to me, especially if you can't at least come up with a witty reply to make it worth the glucose my brain burned reading your post?

The problem is that we are educated and they are not.

And, may I ask, why is that?
We have technology and they do not.
Why?
We have medicines and they do not.
Why?
Because they are needy, and we are not.
Why?

Moose, it is wrong to "influence" needy people precisely because those people are so desperate that they might be willing to try anything, to believe anything, in order to be cured or to save their lives.
Snap. And here we have the contradiction. You go on and on about how these people don't have the blessings we have and then have the gall to say that we absolutely must not influence them! Did it ever cross your mind to answer the "whys" above? Could it be, perhaps, the reason we have all those things is because...dare I say this politically incorrect (yet logically true) statement...perhaps our western values are BETTER at producing those things above then their system of values is? It is absurd that you should list all these things we have and they don't but then suggest that we should NOT influence their beliefs in any way. Maybe if their belief system were better suited to existence then they would not need our help in the first place? The "give a man to fish, feed him for a day; teach him to fish feed him for a lifetime" cliche comes to mind.

We are morally obligated to help them, but also morally obligated to do so in a non-coercive way (as much as possible, anyway).
Why? You people keep throwing out these supposed axioms yet have no philosophical or logical statement as to why it must be so.

Did it ever occur to you that if you don't like what I have to say, then don't respond to me, especially if you can't at least come up with a witty reply to make it worth the glucose my brain burned reading your post?
Did it ever occur to you to start your own thread instead of stealing this guy's? No? Thought not.

I concur. I would also like to know what the impetus behind these postings are... especially the ones that just flame rather than put in thoughtful comments.

The impetus behind my postings is to point out that everyone needs to be careful and not to just assume that intentions of groups claiming religious affiliation are honest and pure, although most are.

Did it ever occur to you to start your own thread instead of stealing this guy's? No? Thought not.
Why waste bandwidth and risk the message not being heard when I can just post here and give everything equal billing?

Besides do you think that if I started a post entitled "Christian groups suck" that it would not be immediately locked down because of the complaints from some of the immature and close-minded persons on this board? I'm supposed to (according to a lot of you) have the "decency" to mind my own business, but if I say such things elsewhere you are all immediately on me like a pack of dog on the bloated carcass of a Hurricane Katrina victim (EDIT: sorry for the analogy, but that's what they are showing on TV at the moment).

To answer the initial question posted, yes, I would do a Christian medical mission.

My duty as a Christian is to love my neighbor and to serve them in order to show them the love that I have come to know through my savior, Jesus Christ. It is not my duty to "convert" anyone to become a Christian because that can only be done between that individual and God; it is out of my hands. As a *healer* (one who has the knowledge and abilities to decrease the incidence of disease and sickness), I am called to reach out to the ones who need help. That includes people here in the U.S. without health insurance as well as individuals in third world countries that do not have access to modern medicine and practices. I do good deeds in order to shine my "light before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven" (Mat 3:16). I, personally, have a reason to reach out to others in the name of God. I will openly tell them why I am there and what my constitutes my reasons for helping them and, hopefully, through those actions, one would be interested in learning more about the love of God and his son. My job is not to convert them. That is too narcissistic of any human to believe that they could be the negating link between another human and God.

You said it yourself: the tumor patient is now a "happy" Christian. Why do you oppose his happiness? He is thrilled at his new healthiness and at his new knowledge of truth.

What is this "truth" that thrills Mr. Tumor Patient?

Anyone else here think they might want to do part time (or maybe not so part time) Christian medical missions either in the US or abroad?

Yea, I was wondering if there were any other Christians doing missions on SDN. I'm going on medical missions in Vietnam this summer, before med school, and I'm really looking forward to it! Are any of you guys involved with CMA/CDMA at your schools? My pastor said I should check them out - they do a lot of good work.

To answer the initial question posted, yes, I would do a Christian medical mission.

My duty as a Christian is to love my neighbor and to serve them in order to show them the love that I have come to know through my savior, Jesus Christ. It is not my duty to "convert" anyone to become a Christian because that can only be done between that individual and God; it is out of my hands. As a *healer* (one who has the knowledge and abilities to decrease the incidence of disease and sickness), I am called to reach out to the ones who need help. That includes people here in the U.S. without health insurance as well as individuals in third world countries that do not have access to modern medicine and practices. I do good deeds in order to shine my "light before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven" (Mat 3:16). I, personally, have a reason to reach out to others in the name of God. I will openly tell them why I am there and what my constitutes my reasons for helping them and, hopefully, through those actions, one would be interested in learning more about the love of God and his son. My job is not to convert them. That is too narcissistic of any human to believe that they could be the negating link between another human and God.


Very well articulated. May God bless you always.

See, all christianity does is start message board fights and large scale wars.

If you are not christian you do not see the need, the same is not true for a christian.

By the way christianity is an eastern religion. The fact it is highly practiced in the west does not make it a western religion.

Actually it is a Western religious tradition in that it stems from Judaism/is monothestic. There are three, Judaism , Christianity, and Islam. If you disagree, take a basic academic religous studies class.

Anyone else here think they might want to do part time (or maybe not so part time) Christian medical missions either in the US or abroad?

I have, but I'm a Catholic, not just a generic Christian... so it makes it harder to find an opportunity (without becoming a Priest)

Yes, I've done Christ-centered medical missions in Kenya and Tanzania the past three summers and hope to go again next summer. Our group runs free medical and dental clinics in partnership with local churches. We always treat first and make it clear that there are no strings attached. Our time, meds, supplies, etc. are all given freely and without prejudice-- it doesn't matter if the patient is muslim, Christian, or animist, we treat them all the same. Once we have treated a person, we ask if they'll sit with a counselor who will then offer to share their faith. This is all voluntary, and nobody is forced to listen. Most people will sit and talk with our counselors, and the majority will agree to hear the gospel presented. Some will say outright, "No, I don't want to hear that because I am a Muslim", and our counselors respect their wishes. Some will just ask for prayer for their illness, their family, their job, etc., and our counselors will simply pray with them.

So far as forcing conversions, it is not possible if you look carefully at what the Bible says about salvation. Romans 10:9 says, "If you confess with your mouth, 'Jesus is Lord,' and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." Salvation through Jesus doesn't come to a person without a genuine belief in his divinity and resurrection. Clearly there have been those who have tried to forcibly convert others in the past, but they were wrong in what they did.

I'd be happy to talk or share pictures with anyone interested in medical missions, so feel free to PM me.

That's not true. Most of Mother Theresa's patients died without converting and she still cared for them. I don't know where you're getting your info from...

I officially disgnose you with "diarrhea of the mouth" It just keeps spilling out.