Christian Medical Missionary

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Thank you.....I try.
Members don't see this ad.
 
mercaptovizadeh said:
Whatever. Obviously you take yourself for a genius and them for idiots.
Click to expand...


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: :smuggrin: :laugh:
 
Members don't see this ad :)
TheMightyAngus said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
MoosePilot said:
Why is influencing someone so evil?
Click to expand...

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).
 
Praetorian said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Praetorian said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Praetorian said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
MoosePilot said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
mercaptovizadeh said:
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.
Click to expand...
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 ****** 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?
 
Members don't see this ad :)
mercaptovizadeh said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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?
 
mercaptovizadeh said:
Whatever. Obviously you take yourself for a genius and them for idiots.
Click to expand...
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?
 
TheProwler said:
Besides, like other posters have said, I'm not sure how you figure Christianity to be a western religious belief. :p
Click to expand...

Read Page 2 of this thread.
 
QofQuimica said:
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?
Click to expand...

"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.
 
MoosePilot said:
"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.
Click to expand...
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?
 
QofQuimica said:
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?
Click to expand...


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

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."
 
MrBurns10 said:
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."
Click to expand...

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:
 
MoosePilot said:
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.
Click to expand...
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."
 
ctwickman said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
MrBurns10 said:
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."
Click to expand...

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.
 
MrBurns10 said:
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."
Click to expand...

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.
 
QofQuimica said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
^

Simple question anon-y-mouse: Are you interested in doing Christian Medical Missionary?
 
anon-y-mouse said:
someone help me out, what's the definition of irony!! QUICK!
Click to expand...

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?
 
MoosePilot said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
MrBurns10 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
MrBurns10 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Praetorian said:
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.
Click to expand...

Why? In what sense did the thread invite your off topic diversion?
 
MoosePilot said:
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...
Click to expand...
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.
 
MrBurns10 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
MoosePilot said:
Why? In what sense did the thread invite your off topic diversion?
Click to expand...

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.
 
MoosePilot said:
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.
Click to expand...

Chill out, it was perfectly clear what burns had to say (whether you agree with it is another issue).
 
anon-y-mouse said:
Chill out, it was perfectly clear what burns had to say (whether you agree with it is another issue).
Click to expand...

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.
 
MoosePilot said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Next unread thread

Similar threads

JimmyT
Christian country
Replies
6
Views
1K
physasst
P
Top