- Joined
- Oct 16, 2004
- Messages
- 6,894
- Reaction score
- 2,397
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?
mercaptovizadeh said: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?
MoosePilot said:I've definitely thought about it.
mercaptovizadeh said: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?
mercaptovizadeh said: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?
mercaptovizadeh said: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.
RunnerMD said:Definitely! Also, most medical schools have a chapter of the Christian Medical Association, and they typically go on an annual missions trip.
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.TheMightyAngus said:There's no need to interject western religious beliefs into developing countries.
anon-y-mouse said: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.
TheMightyAngus said: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.
medhacker said: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.
Praetorian said: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.
Sorry....didn't mean to get off topic.mercaptovizadeh said: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.
Praetorian said: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.
mercaptovizadeh said: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.
medhacker said: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.
Praetorian said:Actually one can be a Christian and realize that professional actions and religious recruiting can be seperate.
anon-y-mouse said: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.
Praetorian said:"You all are going to burn in hell" approach.
anon-y-mouse said: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.
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.anon-y-mouse said: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.
anon-y-mouse said: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.
mercaptovizadeh said: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.
Praetorian said: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.
Heretic! How dare you suggest that we listen to non-Christian heathens!lexy10 said: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 tribes 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.
Praetorian said:Heretic! How dare you suggest that we listen to non-Christian heathens!
TheMightyAngus said: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.
mercaptovizadeh said: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.....mercaptovizadeh said:Whatever. Obviously you take yourself for a genius and them for idiots.
Praetorian said: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.....