Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Anything good about religion at all?
Options
Comments
-
Are they the same religious people that deny family planning options to the starving masses because it is against gods law? Better, perhaps, to give people some degree of control over their lives so that they're not caught in a terrible poverty cycle? Which is better, more souls for the glory of god, or smaller families and lower infant mortality rates?
No Pauldla these are priests and nuns that have given their lives to god to help the poor people of the third world.
Isnt it amazing that you do not want to discuss anything good the church has done just anything you dont believe in???
I'm sure you believe in helping the starving in the third world don't you?
By the way what do you think all the work these priests and nuns are doing for the people of the third world? while we sit here supping tea...0 -
Well, I don't believe these people who gave up their lives needed religion to be good. You and I might be "good" - but clearly not that good. Such people without religion would never be ordinary people - clearly they have more to offer in terms of compassion and courage.Yes of course I believe they could be good people without religion.
I just don't think the majority would have given up their lives to god and gone and spent their lives helping the poor people of the third world if it not for the learnings of love and the helping of others they learned from religion.
I'm sure you and I are good people but we wouldn't give up our lives to help poorer people would we?
Dades what is your opinion of the priests and nuns that have spent most of their lives helping the poor in the third world??
Don't get me wrong, of course there's good to be found in religion, I just believe people deserve credit as people, rather than as the outcome of an ideology. If religion was that influential then huge corners of the planet wouldn't be killing and maiming each other while claiming to be Christian or Muslim or Jewish or whatever.
In short, it's not religion that's good, it's the person that's good.0 -
while you and me sit hear discussing the good and bad of religion there are thousands of religious people all over the world namely catholic priests and nuns that not only have given their lives to do gods work but also have given up their lives to help poor people in the third world who are less fortunate than us.
Meanwhile there are people all over the word who are plucking chickens for a living and they are doing so while being devoutly religious too. It would be foolish however to make the "Correlation does not imply causation" error with them and suggest that their religion led them to pluck chickens.
The point being that saying "X is religious. X is doing great things." in no way allows us to declare that "X is doing great things because of religion".
Many people do good without religion so that tells us instantly that religion is not a requirement in any way for this. That is a starting point for any discussion on the matter that one must concede before making any sense discussing it. The number of secular charities and atheist philanthropists torpedoes entirely any notion that religion is a requirement here.
From that starting point we realize that many religions have the charity market sown up. If I am genuinely moved to do great work then I will go where the resources are to allow me to do that. As such I will likely sign up to a religious organisation in order to do it. I might also have to pretend I am myself religious in order to qualify. Or I might even become religious as I might observe that the religions morals and agendas are in line with my own and therefore make the erroneous leap many people make to thinking that this means the religion in question must be true.
From that point we must then also look at the harm said religion causes. Louis Farrakhan does great things getting black kids off drugs. Hamas do great social services work. This in no way means we want those to continue in existence as they are racist crackpot antisemitic nut jobs with terrorist agendas and worse.
Also, since you mentioned the catholics, we have to discuss the great harms members of that organisation have caused. The obvious being, but not limited to, things like preaching the sinful use of condoms in aids ridden areas and nto just performing, but facilitating and protecting child pederasts and rapists, and engaging in victim blaming and silencing.
In short there is a lot more to the discussion that simply saying "There are religious people doing great things" which is at best opportunistic cherry picking of the facts. We must look at this alleged "good stuff", ask what price we are paying for it, and also observe whether the same can be achieved without religion.
To data no one, much less on this thread, has shown me a single good action performed in this way that is anyway predicated on religion. Religion seems _at best_ to be entirely superfluous to requirements and at _worst_ appears to be getting away with no small number of atrocities due to it's associations with the "good stuff" that it actually is not needed for and in fact only it benefits from.
I by all means agree with you that we need to acknowledge the great people doing great things. But let us acknowledge the people themselves and not be so quick to give false credit to whatever church they pin themselves to just because they have the resources required. We risk falsely elevating dangerous and damaging organisations for false reasons where in fact those organisations add nothing to the altruistic process outside the contents of their coffers. Contents they clearly skim more than a small margin off before redistributing to places they are actually required.0 -
Well, I don't believe these people who gave up their lives needed religion to be good. You and I might be "good" - but clearly not that good. Such people without religion would never be ordinary people - clearly they have more to offer in terms of compassion and courage.
Don't get me wrong, of course there's good to be found in religion, I just believe people deserve credit as people, rather than as the outcome of an ideology. If religion was that influential then huge corners of the planet wouldn't be killing and maiming each other while claiming to be Christian or Muslim or Jewish or whatever.
In short, it's not religion that's good, it's the person that's good.
Dades what is your opinion of the priests and nuns that have spent most of their lives helping the poor in the third world????
Dades although you make a strong argument where you say these people didn't need religion to do good.. It's what you believe to be true.
I have discussed missionary work with priests and nuns who have spent 30 years of their lives living in the third world. They claim because of the teachings of the church and the fact that they are priests and nuns allows them the resources and believe to do these great things.
I'm not saying you need the churches teachings to do missionary work or believe in missionary work from the primary research I gained from speaking with the priests and nuns they claimed the majority of missionaries are in fact priest and nuns but they said there is a considerable amount of non-religious people working with them too.
When I speak about the majority of missionaries from the information I gathered I do believe from what I was told that yes religious had the biggest impact in why they are doing what they do but not for all.
As the teachings of the church is about love one another as you love yourself I find it an easy option to blame the foundation of the church other than man.
So I have to disagree with you...
In short, it's religion that's good, it's the person that's bad..
Let man try to take responsibility for his actions... Men run religion and the foundation of religion is love one another...0 -
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Meanwhile there are people all over the word who are plucking chickens for a living and they are doing so while being devoutly religious too. It would be foolish however to make the "Correlation does not imply causation" error with them and suggest that their religion led them to pluck chickens.
The point being that saying "X is religious. X is doing great things." in no way allows us to declare that "X is doing great things because of religion".
From speaking with priests and nuns who have worked as missionaries in the third world for over 30 years personally for them they are doing great things because of religion.0 -
Advertisement
-
From speaking with priests and nuns who have worked as missionaries in the third world for over 30 years personally for them they are doing great things because of religion.
So you ignored the vast majority of my entire post and replied simply to a tiny part of it with nothing more than a personal and entirely unverifiable and likely made up anecdote? Nice.0 -
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
From that starting point we realize that many religions have the charity market sown up. If I am genuinely moved to do great work then I will go where the resources are to allow me to do that. As such I will likely sign up to a religious organisation in order to do it. I might also have to pretend I am myself religious in order to qualify. Or I might even become religious as I might observe that the religions morals and agendas are in line with my own and therefore make the erroneous leap many people make to thinking that this means the religion in question must be true.
Sown up!! you make it sound like because religions have so many charities out there its impossible for very wealthy people to start off missionary work!!
Unfortunately people like you will discuss evil and bad religious matters without ever discussing the good that religion does within that argument. But when it comes to someone discussing the good that that religion does you quickly need to change the discussion into the evil bad matters because you feel its better to highlight the bad then the good because whatever reasons unfortunately have a biased agenda against it.
Although religion has had and has evil people within it like every organisation in the world and I feel these evils should be brought to light and gotten rid off
But I will always try to show people the good things along with the bad things of religion and always highlight the missionary work of the church for hundreds of years but as I posted earlier people just dont wanna know about these good people they dont care because it doesnt go along with darkening the churches name.
I for one will never let an evil nun, priest, man or women stand in my way to learning the foundation of the church "love one another as you love yourself" personally I think that's a great line to instil into a person.0 -
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »So you ignored the vast majority of my entire post and replied simply to a tiny part of it with nothing more than a personal and entirely unverifiable and likely made up anecdote? Nice.
Entirely unverifiable anecdote!!! You claimed you need to be religious to work with religious missionaries! A completely made up statement!! which is false but I guess with your biased agenda it's ok to make stuff up to darken the churches name.
And on top of that when a person talks about the information they gathered from talking to missionary priest and nuns that doesn't go with your biased beliefs you claim that I must of just made up and anecdote!!
I wonder would you be so questionable to my claims if it darkened the churches name? if I was to guess I would suggest no!0 -
Sown up!!
It is a turn of phrase and you are being wantonly and purposefully disingenuous here by pretending you do not know that already. The turn of phrase indicates nothing more than they have a vast majority in the market. I am sure you will agree that if you add up all the resources available to religious organisations it is likely a much higher number than their secular counter parts.Unfortunately people like you will discuss evil and bad religious matters without ever discussing the good that religion does within that argument.
I do not care what "people like me" say. I only care what I say. And if you actually bothered to read what I said then you would see that you are entirely wrong here. But do not let that stop you packing your straw man with straw.
I actually very much said we need to discuss the good. I simply added the fact that while doing so we also need to discuss:
1) The price we pay for that good from that source.
2) Whether that good actually has anything to do with that source or are you just associating the two in your head for no reason.
3) Whether that good is predicated on, or requires, said source at all or is it just as attainable without said source.
And I do not think the answers to those 3 questions favor your position. At all. Especially if the best counter argument you are capable of mustering is unverifiable and most likely made up personal anecdotes about conversations you allegedly had but probably didn't.
But as I said do not let that stop you making straw men and talking past me and around me, rather than dealing with what I actually said.0 -
No Pauldla these are priests and nuns that have given their lives to god to help the poor people of the third world.
Isnt it amazing that you do not want to discuss anything good the church has done just anything you dont believe in???
I'm sure you believe in helping the starving in the third world don't you?
By the way what do you think all the work these priests and nuns are doing for the people of the third world? while we sit here supping tea...
I personally know men and women who have given up the best years of their lives to track over mountains and through jungles to teach and give medical aid to some of the poorest people in the world, in some of the remotest parts of the planet. They have done so without thought of themselves, dedicated to the belief in helping their fellow man.
I'm sure you agree, a noble act. Actions that are beyond me, and, if I may be so bold, perhaps beyond you too (not wishing to presume, of course).
So perhaps you will join me in praising these fine volunteers of the Chinese Communist Party.
But tell me: are they doing this because they are Communists, or because they are good people?
And does the fact that the CCP facilitates, trains, and supports them mean that the CCP is good?
Can you please rephrase this, as I don't understand what you mean.Isnt it amazing that you do not want to discuss anything good the church has done just anything you dont believe in???
Up the garden with you with that kind of argument, sir.I'm sure you believe in helping the starving in the third world don't you?0 -
Advertisement
-
Oh boy. Another one of the "LEAVE THE CHURCH ALONE" types.0
-
PopePalpatine wrote: »Oh boy. Another one of the "LEAVE THE CHURCH ALONE" types.
We must remember the mystery of faith.0 -
I personally know men and women who have given up the best years of their lives to track over mountains and through jungles to teach and give medical aid to some of the poorest people in the world, in some of the remotest parts of the planet. They have done so without thought of themselves, dedicated to the belief in helping their fellow man.
I'm sure you agree, a noble act. Actions that are beyond me, and, if I may be so bold, perhaps beyond you too (not wishing to presume, of course).
So perhaps you will join me in praising these fine volunteers of the Chinese Communist Party.
Can we also praise Médecins Sans Frontières who act according to the principles of universal medical ethics and the right to humanitarian assistance
From their Charter:
http://www.msf.org/msf/articles/2011/03/the-medecins-sans-frontieres-charter.cfmMédecins Sans Frontières observes neutrality and impartiality in the name of universal medical ethics and the right to humanitarian assistance and claims full and unhindered freedom in the exercise of its functions.
May we also discuss the activities of Missionaries in Australia and their role in the destruction of Aboriginal culture and enforced removal of children from their families?
Well know joke in Oz - what would you get for dinner in an aboriginal house? Irish Stew.
I met a lovely man in his 60s who was one of the Disappeared (children removed from their families and raised in missionary orphanages) - he could recite all the main streets in Dublin radiating out from the GPO but did not know his mother's name or what tribe he was from.0 -
PopePalpatine wrote: »Oh boy. Another one of the "LEAVE THE CHURCH ALONE" types.
You mean LEAVE MY CHURCH ALONE - Cos after all, his church is the only one that knows and tells the truth, all those other churches are wrong.0 -
Why are you asking me the same question I already answered - and in bold? Anyone who commits their life to helping others is "good" insofar as that word can be defined. We just disagree as to why they're good.Dades what is your opinion of the priests and nuns that have spent most of their lives helping the poor in the third world????
So religion is only to thank when someone is good, but never blame when someone is bad?So I have to disagree with you...
In short, it's religion that's good, it's the person that's bad..
Let man try to take responsibility for his actions... Men run religion and the foundation of religion is love one another...
What do you thank when someone without religion does something selfless or courageous?0 -
PopePalpatine wrote: »Oh boy. Another one of the "LEAVE THE CHURCH ALONE" types.
Oh boy. Another one of the "THE CHURCH IS EVIL" types. :rolleyes:
Like I said in previous post nobody wants to know anything about the priests and nuns that gave up their lives to do gods work and help less fortunate people in the third world.
Nobody wants to discuss them nobody wants to mention them in their rebuttals....
PopePalpatine whats your opinion of the priests and nuns who have given up their lives to try their best to help the poor in the third world?0 -
PopePalpatine whats your opinion of the priests and nuns who have given up their lives to try their best to help the poor in the third world?
They're good people - but as has been pointed out before, that doesn't exactly mean all priests/nuns/monks are good, and that religions are 100% good.0 -
Why are you asking me the same question I already answered - and in bold? Anyone who commits their life to helping others is "good" insofar as that word can be defined. We just disagree as to why they're good.
So religion is only to thank when someone is good, but never blame when someone is bad?
What do you thank when someone without religion does something selfless or courageous?
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA your saying religion is only to blame when someone is bad, but never good when someone is good?
Anyone who commits their life to helping others is "good" insofar as that word can be defined. We just disagree as to why they're good.
Well then if a priest or nun tell me they did good because of the teachings of the church then I respect that and accept it..
and if a person tells me they did good because that's just them as a person I respect that and accept it...
I'm not biased one way or the other that's why I ask people what's their opinion of the priest's and nun's that are missionary's because they are biased they will just ignore me and continue to talk about only the bad and evil men and women that were and still are within the church.
In fairness you did answer but your opinion is different to mine as into why they're good.. Which is good because we are all entitled to belief what we want...0 -
-
PopePalpatine wrote: »They're good people - but as has been pointed out before, that doesn't exactly mean all priests/nuns/monks are good, and that religions are 100% good.
Thanks you and it doesn't mean that because their are evil men and women within the church that it is evil. Just bad people like everywhere in life.0 -
Advertisement
-
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA your saying religion is only to blame when someone is bad, but never good when someone is good?
Anyone who commits their life to helping others is "good" insofar as that word can be defined. We just disagree as to why they're good.
Well then if a priest or nun tell me they did good because of the teachings of the church then I respect that and accept it..
and if a person tells me they did good because that's just them as a person I respect that and accept it...
I'm not biased one way or the other that's why I ask people what's their opinion of the priest's and nun's that are missionary's because they are biased they will just ignore me and continue to talk about only the bad and evil men and women that were and still are within the church.
In fairness you did answer but your opinion is different to mine as into why they're good.. Which is good because we are all entitled to belief what we want...
I'm a bit confused - are you saying that good people are good because of their religion rather than just being good people? No other reason. If they weren't religious would they be heartless, uncaring, selfish, greedy or still simply good people?
By the same token are bad people also bad because of their religion or are they just bad people?0 -
Join Date:Posts: 8279
Like I said in previous post nobody wants to know anything about the priests and nuns that gave up their lives to do gods work and help less fortunate people in the third world.
I find the suggestion that all these people would have stayed at home had religion not been a part of their lives more worrying but of course from the examples given to you above it's apparent a lot of these priests and nuns may well have given up their lives without it simply to do good work rather than to do an arbitrary gods work.0 -
Bannasidhe wrote: »I'm a bit confused - are you saying that good people are good because of their religion rather than just being good people? No other reason. If they weren't religious would they be heartless, uncaring, selfish, greedy or still simply good people?
By the same token are bad people also bad because of their religion or are they just bad people?
OK what reason do you think there is for the fact that for the past hundred years that the majority of charity workers in the third world have been priests and nuns working to help the less fortunate?
The majority of people are good honest people but in my opinion because of religion teachings these priests and nuns go that extra bit.
And of course there non-religious people who go that extra bit but why re there more priests and nuns?0 -
OK what reason do you think there is for the fact that for the past hundred years that the majority of charity workers in the third world have been priests and nuns working to help the less fortunate?
The majority of people are good honest people but in my opinion because of religion teachings these priests and nuns go that extra bit.
And of course there non-religious people who go that extra bit but why re there more priests and nuns?
Firstly - only the religious orders had the resources (remember 'pennies for the Black babies'?) and the international scope and influence to do such things.
Secondly - you are conveniently ignoring the Evangelist aspect of this missionary work - make no mistake - this was 'souperism' at it's worst. Food in exchange for conversion.
Thirdly - Religious doctrine very much impacted on the level of care. Did any of these priests and nuns distribute contraception? If they did the Vatican would have pretty quickly put a stop to that.
Fourthly - what about the damage these missionaries did to indigenous populations by bringing the western world among them with it's imperialism, slave trading, asset stripping, diseases etc?
Imperialism 101 - First you send the explorer. Then you send the missionary. Then you send the surveyor. Then you send the 'company'. Lastly, put in place a civil administration which will be 'forced' to assume complete control over the region to protect the natives from exploitation by the 'company'.0 -
The religious orders, not least the Irish ones, have a long and distinguished tradition of providing welfare and education to the poorest of the poor in the absence of other organisations to all corners of the globe. To deny this is to deny historical fact.
Theories about a nefarious scheme of souperism just don't stand up to me i'm afraid. Sure there was that element of conversion, but it's overly cynical to imply that this was the underlying reason for the missions. Then as now, they exist for primarily humanitarian reasons.
The same balance is needed for the conspiracy theory that they were implicit in Imperialism101, unless there is some evidence of this global plot that i'm not aware of. For the most part at least, the people that went there and that still thankfully go in large numbers were not cackling with glee at the prospect of being involved in asset stripping or state sponsored agendas.
On the contrary, the church has historically filled the gap where the state has failed them.
That goes for at home as well as in the third world, as the historical records of welfare and education show. Last time i looked.0 -
The Bishop! wrote: »The religious orders, not least the Irish ones, have a long and distinguished tradition of providing welfare and education to the poorest of the poor in the absence of other organisations to all corners of the globe. To deny this is to deny historical fact.
Theories about a nefarious scheme of souperism just don't stand up to me i'm afraid. Sure there was that element of conversion, but it's overly cynical to imply that this was the underlying reason for the missions. Then as now, they exist for primarily humanitarian reasons.
The same balance is needed for the conspiracy theory that they were implicit in Imperialism101, unless there is some evidence of this global plot that i'm not aware of. For the most part at least, the people that went there and that still thankfully go in large numbers were not cackling with glee at the prospect of being involved in asset stripping or state sponsored agendas.
On the contrary, the church has historically filled the gap where the state has failed them.
That goes for at home as well as in the third world, as the historical records of welfare and education show. Last time i looked.
To say that the religious orders did not attach conditions to be met by those they helped is also deny historical fact.
To say that evangelism was not a major concern of missionaries is to miss the purpose of missionary work - according to these missionaries anyway
http://catholicworldmission.org/evangelizationWe consider Evangelization as the heart and soul of Catholic World Mission. Our DONORS are the eyes, hands, and feet of Christ to others in need of Christ's saving power around the world. By preaching the Gospel, building churches, ministering to the sick and poor, and bringing the Love of Christ to worlds beyond our own, we at Catholic World Mission, together with our donors aim to cultivate the growth of the Lord's Kingdom.
Since the RCC is an international highly centralised organisation it is hardly in the realms of CT to say they do have global concerns and interests. One of which is the dissemination of their message and acquisition of members.
The missionaries needed the civil structure just as much as the State needed the missionaries.
The missionaries took on the role of education- but what were people being educated to believe? That White Europeans were supreme bringers of civilisation and failure to believe in their God would result in everlasting torment.
The Cross and the Sword have been successfully employed since the Spanish landed in the Americas - the British perfected the tactic when it was scrambling with France to carve up Africa.0 -
Like I said in previous post nobody wants to know anything about the priests and nuns that gave up their lives to do gods work and help less fortunate people in the third world.
Sure, lets talk about them. Lets talk about them using their teaching of English and maths to further the reach of Christianity, at the expense of these people's ancestral beliefs, and their spread of lies like the 'uselessness' of contraception.
http://onfaith.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/ramdas_lamb/2010/03/missionaries_the_good_the_bad_and_the_ugly.htmlIn India, missionaries tell their supporters in the U.S. that they provide free or inexpensive services to the needy. However, once initial assistance is given, then conditions are often added for subsequent help. If free education is provided, conversion may then be a requirement for its continuance past a certain point. If aid is in the form of health care, then the quality of care or type of medicine and treatment available may be determined by one's willingness to convert. This becomes a serious and difficult issue for parents who bring a sick or injured child to a missionary hospital. They may be told that the necessary care is only given to Christians, or that the required medicines "will only work" on Christians. For those who do convert in order to receive needed care, they may well be pressured to then convert other family members or else lose whatever aid they are receiving. I have seen families torn apart by such missionary activities in Central India where I conduct research. Again, this is not what all missionaries do, but these are fairly common occurrences.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7947460.stmThe Pope wrote:HIV/Aids is a tragedy that cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which can even increase the problem
Or Mother Teresa, who selflessly used the money donated to her to build more and more convents, rather to build hospitals, or even take proper care of the people the money had been donated to help. Around $50 million dollars were donated over the years, yet in her 'home for the dying' (a telling name) there is only a communal toilet and people are not allowed to leave their tiny hammocks. How many vaccinations and antibiotics could those millions of dollars have bought?
Shaming Mother Teresa:Mother Teresa wrote:"The suffering of the poor is something very beautiful and the world is being very much helped by the nobility of this example of misery and suffering,"
And Penn & Tellers rather more blunt opinion of her
[/url]0 -
anything good about religion....
Father TED was gas crack, very funny0 -
I see you have run away from and ignored my reply to the first of your two posts. I will respond to the second however regardless.Entirely unverifiable anecdote!
Yes. Exactly. Claiming you had conversations with people who just happen to support your position is unverifiable by me and most likely made up. I have no idea that such conversations ever took place. You could be just making them up. Anecdote does not tend to wash as evidence in most places and certainly not in the section of the forum dedicated to skeptics.You claimed you need to be religious to work with religious missionaries!
No I did not. Ever. You are simply making up things and putting them in my mouth now. Please retract this outright lie thanks.you claim that I must of just made up and anecdote!!
No I did not. I said it is likely that you did. Not that you "must" have. I also said it is entirely unverifiable by me. Which it is.
Do you want to respond to anything I actually wrote now, or will you be sticking with the tactic of pretending I said something else and replying to that instead?0 -
Advertisement
-
Bannasidhe wrote: »To say that the religious orders did not attach conditions to be met by those they helped is also deny historical fact.
To say that evangelism was not a major concern of missionaries is to miss the purpose of missionary work - according to these missionaries anyway
http://catholicworldmission.org/evangelization
Since the RCC is an international highly centralised organisation it is hardly in the realms of CT to say they do have global concerns and interests. One of which is the dissemination of their message and acquisition of members.
The missionaries needed the civil structure just as much as the State needed the missionaries.
The missionaries took on the role of education- but what were people being educated to believe? That White Europeans were supreme bringers of civilisation and failure to believe in their God would result in everlasting torment.
The Cross and the Sword have been successfully employed since the Spanish landed in the Americas - the British perfected the tactic when it was scrambling with France to carve up Africa.
One of the direct causes of the Boxer Rebellion in China was the actions of foreign missionaries.
In particular, French nuns were paying families for their children.
Alas, what often happened was that impoverished families would sell their kids to the nuns, but often these kids were in a severe state of malnutrition or illness, and there were high mortality rates at the nuns orphanages.
But what the Chinese saw were nuns buying kids at the front door, and then burying kids out the back. You can probably guess what they made of all that.
Missionaries were resented to begin with because the beliefs they were promulgating were anathema to traditional Confucian beliefs and values, especially reverence for dead ancestors, etc.
Chinese Christians were reviled by their countrymen as 'Rice Christians' who had neglected their traditional beliefs and responsibilities for material gain, and who used the resources available to them from the Church to settle old scores, increase their power in the community, and so on. In any local dispute, Chinese Christians could use the power of the local Church for support.
The first aim of missionaries in China was to spread the Kingdom of God, without any regard to local conditions or traditional beliefs. Why should there have been any regard? The Word of God trumps all other considerations, after all.
Further reading: http://www.amazon.com/Boxer-Rebellion-Dramatic-Chinas-Foreigners/dp/0425180840
And it's a right bloody good read too!0
Advertisement