a very thought provoking piece.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/08/03/asia/03korea.php?page=1
honestly, is it right that churches are still sending missionaries, aid workers etc. to these places despite the very obvious dangers that the governments had already made clear? the intentions could be good, but frankly, maybe a bit more common sense should be exercised.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Baseball
6 comments:
I dont know if I can be totally impartial but I think its a problem when churches have become the main thrust of charitable initiatives. Iraq and Afghanistan needs aid workers, but they should be properly trained, properly paid and fully protected. That region is not a place for amateurs to muck around in.
but should churches even have such missions? can you comment on that? like to hear your views.
i don't know the exact percentages of charities which are church-related compared to those which aren't, but if it is indeed true that churches are the main thrust of charitable initiatives, i think the reason is very simple - if one does not have that kind of mindset that arises from frequent church attendance one is not going to be very motivated to do something as altrustic as going to a dangerous country to offer help. i think of course in general all human beings care about others and will do some good but this concern might be generally restricted to more a more normal range of behaviour like just being a good person in society. i want to ask a question which i do not know the answer to but which is interesting to think about: its true that many people who do not go to church regularly are still able to be good citizens and considerate to others in general, but without that kind of incentive that arises from a strong belief system like Christianity (which i believe to be true), who is going to actually engage is altruistic behaviour which places themselves in such a dangerous position? if one does not believe in the existence of a non-material world then of course one's life is pretty much the most valuable possession and so one's altruism is ultimately limited by the need to protect one's own life, but if of course if one believes in spiritual things (the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God - 1 Corinthians) then of course it is a whole new world and allows you to do things beyond what you would be able to do if one's set of beliefs were only a set of beliefs about the material world. i don't know if i should make these comparisons but having beliefs about the non-material world is a bit like having tools from complex analysis to prove theorems in elementary number theory (as opposed to just using elementary techniques to prove things in elementary number theory). - Timothy (tfoo)
I would think that believing in an after-life and the incentive of getting into the good books of god would temper the mortal fear that non-religious people would have about Iraq and Afghanistan.
However, its for the same reason that I feel that they may be being unfairly exploited. Rational people would demand a lot of money and a lot of protection to do what they are doing, considering that foreigners are prime targets.
Should churches have such missions? I guess the question is, who else is going to do it. Regardless of their religiousity and motivations, it is a good thing that they are doing. In a perfect world, the UN would mobilize professionals to do this sort of thing, but the churches fill the void.
this is jie by the way.
callous of me to say that, but my knee-jerk reaction on seeing that in the news was "let them die"
Do these do gooders who go on their own accord realise that they put whole governments and diplomacy processes in jeopardy?
They plead and cry and beg on TV for help. Did it cross their minds ever before embarking on the mission that the reality of what they are experiencing was highly likely?
To me, that's just organised religious thinking at work. All sheep there.
Post a Comment