07-30-2006, 08:59 PM
Hi all,
It is often said missionaries provide food, clothes etc. to poor people, only because they want to actively convert. In other words, it's just bribing them to convert. While I agree wholeheartedly with this, I'd like to know how many of us have worked for one day, yes, ONE SINGLE DAY, without a motive? See what I am driving at? It's human nature to work for, or toward, something, and NOT just work aimlessly.
So I am finding it hard to understand the argument of most Hindus, when they say: missionaries are feeding the poor, only because they want to convert. Of course, they do. You don't expect them to come all the way to India, face the heat and dust, spend a lot of money on schools and hospitals, JUST TO HELP, any person, even a saint will expect something in return for all that hard labor of going to another country, investing money etc. So how can we expect missionaries to work, work and work, and not have any motive? Aren't we asking too much?
Mind you, I am not defending missionaries, rather, just pointing out that it's impossible to find people working without motives, without aims and objectives. 95%, if not all, work with motives and desires, so isn't it hypocritical to blame missionaries for expecting something in return, in this case, conversion to their religion? You honestly don't expect them to invest millions and not even seek one good return on their investment, do you?
Again, I am not at all justifying their actions, but this line of argument from hindus-that missionaries have motives and all-is hardly convincing to the average guy, who also has motives. So he sees nothing wrong with missionaries doing the same, hence rejects the hindu viewpoint at once. This is something to think about.
It is often said missionaries provide food, clothes etc. to poor people, only because they want to actively convert. In other words, it's just bribing them to convert. While I agree wholeheartedly with this, I'd like to know how many of us have worked for one day, yes, ONE SINGLE DAY, without a motive? See what I am driving at? It's human nature to work for, or toward, something, and NOT just work aimlessly.
So I am finding it hard to understand the argument of most Hindus, when they say: missionaries are feeding the poor, only because they want to convert. Of course, they do. You don't expect them to come all the way to India, face the heat and dust, spend a lot of money on schools and hospitals, JUST TO HELP, any person, even a saint will expect something in return for all that hard labor of going to another country, investing money etc. So how can we expect missionaries to work, work and work, and not have any motive? Aren't we asking too much?
Mind you, I am not defending missionaries, rather, just pointing out that it's impossible to find people working without motives, without aims and objectives. 95%, if not all, work with motives and desires, so isn't it hypocritical to blame missionaries for expecting something in return, in this case, conversion to their religion? You honestly don't expect them to invest millions and not even seek one good return on their investment, do you?
Again, I am not at all justifying their actions, but this line of argument from hindus-that missionaries have motives and all-is hardly convincing to the average guy, who also has motives. So he sees nothing wrong with missionaries doing the same, hence rejects the hindu viewpoint at once. This is something to think about.