RE: [POLITICS] White Missionaries' Contact with Inuit

[Guest guest]

>Why don't native societies deserve the same protection as endangered

>animals? Why should they be forced into a way of life they did not ask for

>and most likely do not want?

>

>Judith Alta

[HJ] Price and Stefansson both really impress me in that they worked

very hard to ignore their own biases and see life from the point

of view of the people they were studying, to observe and not

influence. That kind of attitude is very rare to encounter. Both

did pass judgement on the societies, but it was more of a logical

" cause and effect " kind of judgement ( " the folks who have x kind of

diet get y kinds of diseases " ).

At the time they were working, most of the West was EXTREMELY biased and

moralistic. It wasn't just the missionaries who felt it was their

" duty " to civilize the rest of the world ... many elements of

the more secular society were totally in agreement. And the

religious sector and the governmental sectors worked hand

in hand " for security reasons " and for monetary reasons. When I was in a

spinning group, one of the spinners was in contact with some folks

in Africa. She was teaching them to dye yarn, using local plants.

Seems the Africans used to have a thriving spinning/weaving

industry within the villages, but when the colonialists came,

they were forced to buy cloth imported from India, and their

local industry died out. Now they want to revive the old practices,

but do not know how. The " hobbyists " in the US have kept many

of these practices alive (kind of like we are doing with fermenting etc.).

Another example is the desire to wipe out the old languages.

There is no good " religious " reason for this, at least not in

any religion I've seen, but the governments wanted to assimilate

the natives. And the missionaries wanted to teach the natives

religion, so the two combined forces. Which of course NEVER

happens today :--(

Anyway, topics like this, and the Bill Moyer's speech, so totally

interleave the topics of " traditional food " and " environment " and

" politics " and " religion " that they are really hard to separate!

Much of the reason we are here on a list discussing how to

process foods is that the traditional ways were encouraged

to die out by the actions of governments and missionaries

and even scientists (all with the best of intentions, I'm sure).

Still, I added the POLITICS tag for those who would rather not

read ...

Heidi [HJ] [HTG]

[Guest guest]

[HJ] Another example is the desire to wipe out the old languages.

There is no good " religious " reason for this, at least not in

any religion I've seen, but the governments wanted to assimilate

the natives. And the missionaries wanted to teach the natives

religion, so the two combined forces. Which of course NEVER

happens today :--(

[Deanna] Here is an article on Hawaiian language coming back from the brink of

destruction.

http://chronicle.com/temp/email.php?id=qsrn6yo7x079i27hbn3pvc6q2edc0c0p

State law actually prohibited teachers from using Hawaiian as the

classroom language in elementary and secondary school -- a holdover

from the colonial rules imposed by Americans after they wrested control

of the islands from the original Polynesian inhabitants in 1893. That

law and the cultural dominance of the United States nearly succeeded in

killing off the native language.

Deanna

[Guest guest]

On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 10:23:16 -0600, Deanna <hl@...> wrote:

> [HJ] Another example is the desire to wipe out the old languages.

> There is no good " religious " reason for this, at least not in

> any religion I've seen, but the governments wanted to assimilate

> the natives. And the missionaries wanted to teach the natives

> religion, so the two combined forces. Which of course NEVER

> happens today :--(

And then there are the groups such as Wycliffe Bible Translators, who

go and live among remote people groups, learning their languages and

for the first time ever making them a written language. They then

translate the Bible and other literature into their language, and

teach the people to read and write. Most of the missionaries who do

this translation work are committed to the job until it is completed,

often taking 20 or more years to do so. They could probably, in a much

shorter amount of time, just teach them English. But they see the

value of these groups retaining their own language and culture while

providing a means of learning and communicating that they never had

before.

Fern

[Guest guest]

And they do it in an attempt to get these people to become " Christian. "

Judith Alta

-----Original Message-----

On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 10:23:16 -0600, Deanna <hl@...> wrote:

> [HJ] Another example is the desire to wipe out the old languages.

> There is no good " religious " reason for this, at least not in

> any religion I've seen, but the governments wanted to assimilate

> the natives. And the missionaries wanted to teach the natives

> religion, so the two combined forces. Which of course NEVER

> happens today :--(

And then there are the groups such as Wycliffe Bible Translators, who

go and live among remote people groups, learning their languages and

for the first time ever making them a written language. They then

translate the Bible and other literature into their language, and

teach the people to read and write. Most of the missionaries who do

this translation work are committed to the job until it is completed,

often taking 20 or more years to do so. They could probably, in a much

shorter amount of time, just teach them English. But they see the

value of these groups retaining their own language and culture while

providing a means of learning and communicating that they never had

before.

Fern

[Guest guest]

On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 12:05:51 -0500, Judith Alta <jaltak@...> wrote:

> And they do it in an attempt to get these people to become " Christian. "

>

> Judith Alta

What's wrong with that? There's no hidden agenda here, and Wycliffe

will tell you that is their purpose on the frong page of their

website. The point is, while Heidi mentioned some missionary efforts

in the past to wipe out languages, there are definite efforts today by

Christian missionaries to retain and preserve languages.

Fern

[Guest guest]

I will repeat. The only reason that missionaries want to preserve language

is that it makes it easier for them to push their way into the lives of the

people they are converting.

I know of no other religion that goes to the lengths that Christianity does

to force their beliefs on others.

Judith Alta

-----Original Message-----

On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 12:05:51 -0500, Judith Alta <jaltak@...> wrote:

> And they do it in an attempt to get these people to become " Christian. "

>

> Judith Alta

What's wrong with that? There's no hidden agenda here, and Wycliffe

will tell you that is their purpose on the frong page of their

website. The point is, while Heidi mentioned some missionary efforts

in the past to wipe out languages, there are definite efforts today by

Christian missionaries to retain and preserve languages.

Fern

<HTML>

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC " -//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN "

" http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd " >

<BODY>

<FONT FACE= " monospace " SIZE= " 3 " >

Important <B>Native Nutrition</B> Addresses

<UL>

<LI>Native Nutrition on the <A

HREF= " / " >WEB</A>

<LI>Change your group <A

HREF= " /join " >SETTINGS</

A></LI>

<LI><A HREF= " mailto: " >POST</A> a

message</LI>

<LI><A

HREF= " mailto: -subscribe " >SUBSCRIBE</A> to

the list</LI>

<LI><A

HREF= " mailto: -unsubscribe " >UNSUBSCRIBE</A>

from the list</LI>

<LI>Send an <A

HREF= " mailto: -owner " >EMAIL</A> to the List

Owner & Moderators</LI>

</UL></FONT>

<PRE><FONT FACE= " monospace " SIZE= " 3 " >List Owner: Idol

Moderators: Heidi Schuppenhauer

Wanita Sears

</FONT></PRE>

</BODY>

</HTML>

[Guest guest]

At 01:55 PM 12/13/04 -0500, you wrote:

>

>I will repeat. The only reason that missionaries want to preserve language

>is that it makes it easier for them to push their way into the lives of the

>people they are converting.

>

>I know of no other religion that goes to the lengths that Christianity does

>to force their beliefs on others.

>

>Judith Alta

My prior post notwithstanding, I feel it's necessary here to point out

that, in fact, it is a major tenet of Christianity to convert others.

They're SUPPOSED to, according to their beliefs. So whether you agree or

not, it IS a major part of the religion.

However, the *force* issue is what I have a problem with. I believe

they're supposed to gently " teach " in order to win people over, not go

trying to change the bloody Constitution, among other things. They're

supposed to have the sense to back off when it's not working - lead a horse

to water and all that. But that seems to make too sense for an awful

lot of people these days, they can't quite wrap their minds around the

concept of *back off*.

Of course, if Christianity hadn't turned into a *religion* and instead

remained a way of life ... life would be a lot better.

MFJ

Putting it in our hands gives us so much hope. ~C. Masterjohn

[Guest guest]

On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 14:25:40 -0500, F. Jewett <mfjewett@...> wrote:

> Of course, if Christianity hadn't turned into a *religion* and instead

> remained a way of life ... life would be a lot better.

, I certainly agree with you here. In fact, Christianity is a

relationship, which a lot of people don't understand.

Fern

[Guest guest]

On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 13:55:28 -0500, Judith Alta K <jaltak@...> wrote:

> I will repeat. The only reason that missionaries want to preserve language

> is that it makes it easier for them to push their way into the lives of the

> people they are converting.

It's all in one's perspective I guess. From my perspective (personally

knowing some of these individuals) they are there giving their entire

lives for the good of the people they are serving, certainly not for

their own benefit. They want to share what is the most important thing

to them, not " push their way " onto these people. But again, I

acknowledge it's a matter of one's perspective.

> I know of no other religion that goes to the lengths that Christianity does

> to force their beliefs on others.

Again, your choice of word ( " force " ) implies your perspective,

certainly not the motives of most Christian missionaries.

Fern

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/13/04 11:25:14 AM Eastern Standard Time,

hl@... writes:

> [HJ] Another example is the desire to wipe out the old languages.

> There is no good " religious " reason for this, at least not in

> any religion I've seen, but the governments wanted to assimilate

> the natives. And the missionaries wanted to teach the natives

> religion, so the two combined forces. Which of course NEVER

> happens today :--(

____

~~~> When Sts. Cyril and Methodius were converting Russia, they created the

Cyrilic alphabet to give the spoken-only Slavonic language a way to be written,

so that the Bible and prayers could be translated into the same language.

Some Western Christians called them heretics for allowing worship to be engaged

in in a heathen language. Cyril and Methodius, in turn, accused them of the

" three-language heresy, " which was that only three languages are fit for use in

worshipping God: Hebrew, Greek, and Latin. This was during the time where

the Papacy was being overtaken by invading s who subsequently

revolutionized theology and ecclesiology, the latter because it was

politically/militaristically useful, and the former because they were familiar

only with St.

Augustine, who differed from the rest of the Church Fathers on many issues, both

of

which led from the Split between Rome and the East. The overtaken papacy

adopted this idea and eventually banned the use of any language other than Latin

in

worship. This existed up until Vatican II.

Chris

[Guest guest]

At 04:12 PM 12/13/04 -0500, you wrote:

>

>No argument there.

>

>I was too strong there. Sorry. I do get carried away.

So do I, at times. And it's always embarrassing to have to back off.

>I will gladly listen to anyone tell me what their religion has done for

>them. I will NOT listen to them tell me that I am doomed to hell and

>damnation if I don't follow the same path.

>

>I wonder why the most judgmental and least tolerant people I know all call

>themselves " good Christians " ?

Agreed. That's my problem, also. See post I made just before this.

Of all the self-professed Christians that I know, I can count on one hand

the *true* ones. The ones that truly make a life's work out of living

Jesus' teachings, and letting the clutter of " dogma " fall by the wayside.

THOSE are the people I respect, and will listen to, and want more of in

this cwazy world.

BTW, I'm not meaning to pick on Christianity only here, it's just what I

have the most experience with. No Muslim or Buddhist or other religious

practitioner has ever come to my door or accosted me on the street trying

to " give me the word " and telling me I'll burn when I tell them I'm not

interested in their " message " or " truth " . I am fully aware that there

are other religions that have their extremists who distort EVERYTHING their

founders tried to teach. But in this country, it's Christianity that's

prevalent. I would have the same beef and voice the same complaints were

it another religion.

I just think that if you're going to profess a religion, you REALLY should

get back to its roots, the basis of everything it is, there are a LOT of

good ones out there. Don't use it as an excuse to berate and damn and

rail against anyone who doesn't *quite* believe as you do. There's

enough hellfire for all of us, thanks, Bruce's appropriation of my personal

space notwithstanding. (Bruce, SHOVE OVER, WOULD you???!!!)

Oh bloody h e double hockey sticks, I can't believe I just sucked myself

into a religious discussion. Must be too many paint fumes. I'd

better back off before I get too embarrassing.

MFJ

Putting it in our hands gives us so much hope. ~C. Masterjohn

[Guest guest]

On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 16:12:19 -0500, Judith Alta K <jaltak@...> wrote:

> No argument there.

>

> I was too strong there. Sorry. I do get carried away.

>

> I will gladly listen to anyone tell me what their religion has done for

> them. I will NOT listen to them tell me that I am doomed to hell and

> damnation if I don't follow the same path.

Did you ever think of *why* they tell you that? It's something that we

as Christians believe deeply, and out of compassion for others we

don't want *anyone* to be doomed to hell.

It's like this: if you see someone looking out the window of a burning

house, oblivious to the inferno approaching them, wouldn't you tell

them so that their life could be saved? That's not forcing your belief

on them out of a sense that they need to believe what you believe, but

you are urging them to realize that there is a fire, for their own

good.

Some Christians will back off sooner than others when they realize the

other person doesn't want to hear what they're saying. But I can't

imagine that any Christian would keep on " pushing " for any other

reason than a deep concern and compassion for the person they are

speaking to.

> I wonder why the most judgmental and least tolerant people I know all call

> themselves " good Christians " ?

Perhaps because you don't understand where they're coming from? When

they tell you that they believe you are wrong (as I did today and

offended you, for which I am sorry), it's not because they want to

judge you or be intolerant of you. They aren't judging that you are a

" bad " person any more than they are a bad person and in need of

salvation. But they've found something wonderful and they want you to

have it also.

Please don't think I'm trying to push anything on you. I'm just trying

to explain *why* Christians try to proselytize others.

I have many friends that aren't Christians, and I accept them as they

are and always will. I also have friends who don't eat very healthy

and who reject alternative treatment, and I also accept them. But I

believe that they are missing out on something very good, and will

look for ways to encourage them to adopt what I've come to believe is

the best, if they have any openness to it. If not, that's their

choice.

Fern

[Guest guest]

The notion that I am going to literally burn in hell because I don't follow your

beliefs is ludicrous. Believe it all you want to, and believe that it is out of

compassion for me that you want to convert me, but, to me, it is like trying to

'convert' any group that you feel superior to, and who you feel are morally

deficient in some ways. It is arrogant, and based on a quite childish conception

of religion as far as I'm concerned.

Sorry, but I don't think that believing that non-Christians will suffer eternal

damnation is essential to any deep understanding of Christianity, and I simply

do not tolerate anyone telling me this garbage.

>

> On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 16:12:19 -0500, Judith Alta K <jaltak@...> wrote:

> > No argument there.

> >

> > I was too strong there. Sorry. I do get carried away.

> >

> > I will gladly listen to anyone tell me what their religion has done for

> > them. I will NOT listen to them tell me that I am doomed to hell and

> > damnation if I don't follow the same path.

>

> Did you ever think of *why* they tell you that? It's something that we

> as Christians believe deeply, and out of compassion for others we

> don't want *anyone* to be doomed to hell.

>

> It's like this: if you see someone looking out the window of a burning

> house, oblivious to the inferno approaching them, wouldn't you tell

> them so that their life could be saved? That's not forcing your belief

> on them out of a sense that they need to believe what you believe, but

> you are urging them to realize that there is a fire, for their own

> good.

>

> Some Christians will back off sooner than others when they realize the

> other person doesn't want to hear what they're saying. But I can't

> imagine that any Christian would keep on " pushing " for any other

> reason than a deep concern and compassion for the person they are

> speaking to.

>

> > I wonder why the most judgmental and least tolerant people I know all call

> > themselves " good Christians " ?

>

> Perhaps because you don't understand where they're coming from? When

> they tell you that they believe you are wrong (as I did today and

> offended you, for which I am sorry), it's not because they want to

> judge you or be intolerant of you. They aren't judging that you are a

> " bad " person any more than they are a bad person and in need of

> salvation. But they've found something wonderful and they want you to

> have it also.

>

> Please don't think I'm trying to push anything on you. I'm just trying

> to explain *why* Christians try to proselytize others.

>

> I have many friends that aren't Christians, and I accept them as they

> are and always will. I also have friends who don't eat very healthy

> and who reject alternative treatment, and I also accept them. But I

> believe that they are missing out on something very good, and will

> look for ways to encourage them to adopt what I've come to believe is

> the best, if they have any openness to it. If not, that's their

> choice.

>

> Fern

>

>

>

> <HTML>

> <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC " -//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN "

> " http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd " >

> <BODY>

> <FONT FACE= " monospace " SIZE= " 3 " >

> Important <B>Native Nutrition</B> Addresses

> <UL>

> <LI>Native Nutrition on the <A

> HREF= " / " >WEB</A>

> <LI>Search the message <A HREF= " http://onibasu.dyndns.org/ " >ARCHIVE</A>

> & mdash; <B>NEW FEATURE!</B></LI>

> <LI>Change your group <A

>

HREF= " /join " >SETTINGS</A></

> LI>

> <LI><A HREF= " mailto: " >POST</A> a

message</LI>

> <LI><A

HREF= " mailto: -subscribe " >SUBSCRIBE</A>

> to the list</LI>

> <LI><A

> HREF= " mailto: -unsubscribe " >UNSUBSCRIBE</A>

from

> the list</LI>

> <LI>Send an <A

HREF= " mailto: -owner " >EMAIL</A>

> to the List Owner & Moderators</LI>

> </UL></FONT>

> <PRE><FONT FACE= " monospace " SIZE= " 3 " >List Owner: Idol

> Moderators: Heidi Schuppenhauer

> Wanita Sears

> </FONT></PRE>

> </BODY>

> </HTML>

>

[Guest guest]

>[Chris's concrete example]It's like this: if you see someone looking out the

window of a burning house, oblivious to the inferno approaching them, wouldn't

you tell

>them so that their life could be saved? That's not forcing your belief

>on them out of a sense that they need to believe what you believe, but

>you are urging them to realize that there is a fire, for their own

>good.

>

>Some Christians will back off sooner than others when they realize the

>other person doesn't want to hear what they're saying. But I can't

>imagine that any Christian would keep on " pushing " for any other

>reason than a deep concern and compassion for the person they are

>speaking to.

>

[Deanna] No, this is not always the case and besides, it goes against

Lord Jesus's teachings. Jesus said something the the effect: If they

will not listen, wipe off your feet and leave. So I do not think this

idealism is Christian. Pushing, like punching, is not the way. You

brought up Crusades earlier. Pushing can go too long and too far.

Deanna

[Guest guest]

-----Original Message-----

On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 16:12:19 -0500, Judith Alta K <jaltak@...>

wrote:

> No argument there.

>

> I was too strong there. Sorry. I do get carried away.

>

> I will gladly listen to anyone tell me what their religion has done for

> them. I will NOT listen to them tell me that I am doomed to hell and

> damnation if I don't follow the same path.

(Fern) Did you ever think of *why* they tell you that? It's something that

we

as Christians believe deeply, and out of compassion for others we

don't want *anyone* to be doomed to hell.

[-J-Alta-K-] Yes, Christians believe in hell and damnation. And they live in

fear of it every day.

(Speaking from a Christian viewpoint) I can't quote chapter and verse,

perhaps someone can help me. The Bible makes it very plain that no one knows

who will or will not go to heaven. Some you are sure will go won't. And some

you are sure won't will. If one does, thinks and says everything right,

without ever thinking that such doing, thinking and saying will get them

into heaven they are guaranteed that MIGHT get there.

It's like this: if you see someone looking out the window of a burning

house, oblivious to the inferno approaching them, wouldn't you tell

them so that their life could be saved? That's not forcing your belief

on them out of a sense that they need to believe what you believe, but

you are urging them to realize that there is a fire, for their own

good.

[-J-Alta-K-] I see what you are saying. But I do not believe that such a

fire exists. That fire is a construct of Christianity, and only the

believers need fear it.

Some Christians will back off sooner than others when they realize the

other person doesn't want to hear what they're saying. But I can't

imagine that any Christian would keep on " pushing " for any other

reason than a deep concern and compassion for the person they are

speaking to.

[-J-Alta-K-] So you do condone the attempt at forcing others to believe your

way.

> I wonder why the most judgmental and least tolerant people I know all call

> themselves " good Christians " ?

Perhaps because you don't understand where they're coming from? When

they tell you that they believe you are wrong (as I did today and

offended you, for which I am sorry), it's not because they want to

judge you or be intolerant of you. They aren't judging that you are a

" bad " person any more than they are a bad person and in need of

salvation. But they've found something wonderful and they want you to

have it also.

[-J-Alta-K-] I was not speaking for myself here. These people judge

everyone.

Please don't think I'm trying to push anything on you. I'm just trying

to explain *why* Christians try to proselytize others.

[-J-Alta-K-] I know why they do it.

I have many friends that aren't Christians, and I accept them as they

are and always will. I also have friends who don't eat very healthy

and who reject alternative treatment, and I also accept them. But I

believe that they are missing out on something very good, and will

look for ways to encourage them to adopt what I've come to believe is

the best, if they have any openness to it. If not, that's their

choice.

Fern

[-J-Alta-K-] I congratulate you.

Judith Alta

[Guest guest]

> It's like this: if you see someone looking out the window of a burning

> house, oblivious to the inferno approaching them, wouldn't you tell

> them so that their life could be saved? That's not forcing your belief

> on them out of a sense that they need to believe what you believe, but

> you are urging them to realize that there is a fire, for their own

> good.

I had a friend like that. She was really afraid for me, and it was

very sad. I asked her if she really believed that her loving,

merciful God would take a good, kind, truth-seeking person and

torture him or her to eternity - and YES, she did believe that!

I could no more believe in such a god than believe the earth

is flat. And now my daughter, who's only 7, is getting the same

thing from a friend. Gack.

Why can't we throw out *all* the religions and just teach our

children to be kind and considerate?

Aven

[Guest guest]

Fern-

>But I can't

>imagine that any Christian would keep on " pushing " for any other

>reason than a deep concern and compassion for the person they are

>speaking to.

I'm afraid that says more about your imagination than about the world and

the people in it.

-

[Guest guest]

I will second that one.

And you bring up points that I totally agree with.

If the Biblical God is kind and loving why does he have to torture his

people to prove they are faithful?

If the Biblical God is all powerful why does he let the " Devil " torment his

(the God's) followers? If he cannot stop the Devil then he is not all

powerful.

Judith Alta

-----Original Message-----

> It's like this: if you see someone looking out the window of a burning

> house, oblivious to the inferno approaching them, wouldn't you tell

> them so that their life could be saved? That's not forcing your belief

> on them out of a sense that they need to believe what you believe, but

> you are urging them to realize that there is a fire, for their own

> good.

I had a friend like that. She was really afraid for me, and it was

very sad. I asked her if she really believed that her loving,

merciful God would take a good, kind, truth-seeking person and

torture him or her to eternity - and YES, she did believe that!

I could no more believe in such a god than believe the earth

is flat. And now my daughter, who's only 7, is getting the same

thing from a friend. Gack.

Why can't we throw out *all* the religions and just teach our

children to be kind and considerate?

Aven

[Guest guest]

On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 21:34:38 -0500, Judith Alta <jaltak@...> wrote:

> [-J-Alta-K-] I see what you are saying. But I do not believe that such a

> fire exists. That fire is a construct of Christianity, and only the

> believers need fear it.

Fine, I won't try to convince you otherwise then.

> Some Christians will back off sooner than others when they realize the

> other person doesn't want to hear what they're saying. But I can't

> imagine that any Christian would keep on " pushing " for any other

> reason than a deep concern and compassion for the person they are

> speaking to.

>

> [-J-Alta-K-] So you do condone the attempt at forcing others to believe your

> way.

No, I don't condone it at all. But you assumed earlier today that I

was attempting to force you, and I wasn't, I was only stating what I

believe. I'm only trying to say that *some* of what may seem like

forcing isn't intended that way by the person doing it. I obviously

can't and won't speak for everyone who calls themselves Christian, and

I absolutely don't agree with everything done in the name of

Christianity.

Fern

[Guest guest]

J.A.

If the Biblical God is kind and loving why does he have to torture his

people to prove they are faithful?

Rebekah

I'd like to know what you're basing this statement on. Have you read this in

anyone's statement of faith for their religion, or do you believe you have

experienced this yourself?

J.A.

If the Biblical God is all powerful why does he let the " Devil " torment his

(the God's) followers? If he cannot stop the Devil then he is not all

powerful.

Rebekah

Again, I'd like to know what you're basing this on. What causes you to arrive

at the assumption that God cannot stop the Devil if He so chooses? Is there a

religious statement, from a major faith, that makes this claim in their beliefs?

[Guest guest]

Ever read about Job?

I have heard many, many Christians make this statement when disasters befell

them.

" I know God loves me because He is testing my faith with this (whatever).

It only makes sense. If God chooses not to stop the devil then he is not a

" kind and loving " God, and/or he is not all powerful.

Judith Alta

-----Original Message-----

J.A.

If the Biblical God is kind and loving why does he have to torture his

people to prove they are faithful?

Rebekah

I'd like to know what you're basing this statement on. Have you read this

in anyone's statement of faith for their religion, or do you believe you

have experienced this yourself?

J.A.

If the Biblical God is all powerful why does he let the " Devil " torment

his

(the God's) followers? If he cannot stop the Devil then he is not all

powerful.

Rebekah

Again, I'd like to know what you're basing this on. What causes you to

arrive at the assumption that God cannot stop the Devil if He so chooses?

Is there a religious statement, from a major faith, that makes this claim in

their beliefs?

[Guest guest]

[Judith] I will repeat. The only reason that missionaries want to

preserve language is that it makes it easier for them to push their

way into the lives of the people they are converting.

Hi Judith,

Speaking as a former member of said-group (Wycliffe Bible

Translators), I can tell you that is not the only reason that

Wycliffe missionaries often give 20+ years of their lives to language

and literacy work in minority languages. Yes, it is a primary

motivating factor -- and perhaps for some it is the sole factor, but

not for all.

I was with Wycliffe, working with a minority ethnic group in Africa

for 2 years (and might still be there if I hadn't gotten sick). I

was helping develop an alphabet and mother-tongue literacy materials

in that language. There were already several churches established in

the area (they used an English Bible) and the little education that

was offered (govt sponsored education) was in English.

The tribespeople themselves (note: in using the word " tribe " I'm not

trying to be demeaning as it might sound to some; it was the

preferred word when I was there) approached us, asking -- more like

begging -- for our help. They wanted education in their language.

They wanted a Bible in their language. I worked as a linguistic

consultant to a self-formed language committee whose 2 goals were

education in the mother tongue and a mother-tongue Bible. They were

worried about the young children only being educated in English.

They told me, " Without our language, our culture will die. "

Although a young, single female wouldn't have much status in their

culture, I was treated with enormous respect. At one meeting of the

language committee, one man made a speech about " why should

leave her country to come here and help us with our language? " He

and the others always treated me with deep gratitude for my help.

One man once referred to me as a member of the tribe.

I don't think that those of us who speak English and have millions of

books in English available to us can imagine what dignity it gives to

a minority ethnic group to have their own language written. To be

able to begin education of their children in their language instead

of the foreign English language. The group I worked with felt that

their language was somehow inadequate and that it couldn't be

written -- it wasn't as " good " as English. I saw a look of

indescribable dignity and soul-satisfaction (I really don't know how

to describe it) when some of these people realized for the first time

that they could read their language -- that their language was " as

good as " English. We know the power of the written word. What if

written words were in other languages, but not your own?

Like I said, churches were already established there and a fair

number of people were already Christians, so if I (or Wycliffe) was

solely interested in conversions, there was no need for me to be

there. My work was done out of a deep, deep respect and admiration

for indigenous cultures. My work was done because I am pained by the

loss of languages and cultures. I believe that the whole world

suffers a loss when a language/culture dies. I chose that work

because I believe in the God-given dignity and value of every human

being and I have those beliefs because of my Christian faith. (I'm

not saying that those of other faiths would not share that same

belief; just saying where I get mine from.)

I've always understood the conflict around missionary work and have

had to wrestle with those issues. And I completely agree that

damaging things have been done by missionaries. Things that make me

cringe and make me hate to say in public that I was a missionary!

But, those things are not all missionaries at all times.

I was *so impressed* seeing the work of Wycliffe first-hand over 2

years. I believe that much of the work that is done by them wouldn't

be found objectionable by most people (even those antagonistic to

Christianity). The value of the linguistic work in helping to

preserve language and culture is *immeasurable.* There is no money

to be made in this. If it weren't those who had religious

motivation, I don't think you'd see anyone spending 20-30 years of

their lives working in these difficult situations. And, if it

weren't for those people, more languages would be disappearing than

already are.

We had many seminars in anthropology helping us to see our own

cultural and spiritual blinders and there were discussions about " are

we harming cultures or helping? " There are many, many missionaries

who care deeply about such things. There are also those who don't.

There are missionaries I would give financial support to today and

those that I feel are doing harm -- it's particularly sad because

it's done " in the name of God. "

Judith, I think I understand your views about Christians and

missionaries. I've seen what you've seen and dislike and I dislike

it as well (perhaps even more than you!). I think I would agree that

many Christians seem to be the most judgemental people I know as

well. I feel weary by many things I see Christians say and do. But

I wanted you to know that what you've described is not the whole

picture.

When people are ugly and obnoxious, those are the people who get

noticed. Those you don't notice may also be Christians, but you'd

never know it because they aren't drawing attention to themselves.

(One note to anyone who may not understand why it is a loss to the

world when a language dies. The true loss/tragedy, of course, is to

that culture, but I wanted to speak to how it affects the rest of

us. If you've ever had exposure to another language, you know that

there are some things that just don't translate from one language to

another. People say, " Oh there's this great phrase in French which

describes such-and-such so well, but there's no real equivalent in

English. " Well, languages convey world views, they convey ways of

seeing. For example, time is " cut up " differently from language to

language. How we view time is constrained by the language we speak!

The richness and diversity in perspectives that are contained in

language are a gift to everyone. When a language/culture dies, that

view dies, that way of seeing that might provide new insight or just

add richness to understanding is now gone.)

Best to you,

[Guest guest]

,

Thank you for your comments.

I do realize that not all missionaries are the same. It sounds as if

Wycliffe has done a good job.

Enjoy! ;-)

Judith Alta

Re: [POLITICS] White Missionaries' Contact with Inuit

[Judith] I will repeat. The only reason that missionaries want to

preserve language is that it makes it easier for them to push their

way into the lives of the people they are converting.

Hi Judith,

Speaking as a former member of said-group (Wycliffe Bible

Translators), I can tell you that is not the only reason that

Wycliffe missionaries often give 20+ years of their lives to language

and literacy work in minority languages. Yes, it is a primary

motivating factor -- and perhaps for some it is the sole factor, but

not for all.

I was with Wycliffe, working with a minority ethnic group in Africa

for 2 years (and might still be there if I hadn't gotten sick). I

was helping develop an alphabet and mother-tongue literacy materials

in that language. There were already several churches established in

the area (they used an English Bible) and the little education that

was offered (govt sponsored education) was in English.

The tribespeople themselves (note: in using the word " tribe " I'm not

trying to be demeaning as it might sound to some; it was the

preferred word when I was there) approached us, asking -- more like

begging -- for our help. They wanted education in their language.

They wanted a Bible in their language. I worked as a linguistic

consultant to a self-formed language committee whose 2 goals were

education in the mother tongue and a mother-tongue Bible. They were

worried about the young children only being educated in English.

They told me, " Without our language, our culture will die. "

Although a young, single female wouldn't have much status in their

culture, I was treated with enormous respect. At one meeting of the

language committee, one man made a speech about " why should

leave her country to come here and help us with our language? " He

and the others always treated me with deep gratitude for my help.

One man once referred to me as a member of the tribe.

I don't think that those of us who speak English and have millions of

books in English available to us can imagine what dignity it gives to

a minority ethnic group to have their own language written. To be

able to begin education of their children in their language instead

of the foreign English language. The group I worked with felt that

their language was somehow inadequate and that it couldn't be

written -- it wasn't as " good " as English. I saw a look of

indescribable dignity and soul-satisfaction (I really don't know how

to describe it) when some of these people realized for the first time

that they could read their language -- that their language was " as

good as " English. We know the power of the written word. What if

written words were in other languages, but not your own?

Like I said, churches were already established there and a fair

number of people were already Christians, so if I (or Wycliffe) was

solely interested in conversions, there was no need for me to be

there. My work was done out of a deep, deep respect and admiration

for indigenous cultures. My work was done because I am pained by the

loss of languages and cultures. I believe that the whole world

suffers a loss when a language/culture dies. I chose that work

because I believe in the God-given dignity and value of every human

being and I have those beliefs because of my Christian faith. (I'm

not saying that those of other faiths would not share that same

belief; just saying where I get mine from.)

I've always understood the conflict around missionary work and have

had to wrestle with those issues. And I completely agree that

damaging things have been done by missionaries. Things that make me

cringe and make me hate to say in public that I was a missionary!

But, those things are not all missionaries at all times.

I was *so impressed* seeing the work of Wycliffe first-hand over 2

years. I believe that much of the work that is done by them wouldn't

be found objectionable by most people (even those antagonistic to

Christianity). The value of the linguistic work in helping to

preserve language and culture is *immeasurable.* There is no money

to be made in this. If it weren't those who had religious

motivation, I don't think you'd see anyone spending 20-30 years of

their lives working in these difficult situations. And, if it

weren't for those people, more languages would be disappearing than

already are.

We had many seminars in anthropology helping us to see our own

cultural and spiritual blinders and there were discussions about " are

we harming cultures or helping? " There are many, many missionaries

who care deeply about such things. There are also those who don't.

There are missionaries I would give financial support to today and

those that I feel are doing harm -- it's particularly sad because

it's done " in the name of God. "

Judith, I think I understand your views about Christians and

missionaries. I've seen what you've seen and dislike and I dislike

it as well (perhaps even more than you!). I think I would agree that

many Christians seem to be the most judgemental people I know as

well. I feel weary by many things I see Christians say and do. But

I wanted you to know that what you've described is not the whole

picture.

When people are ugly and obnoxious, those are the people who get

noticed. Those you don't notice may also be Christians, but you'd

never know it because they aren't drawing attention to themselves.

(One note to anyone who may not understand why it is a loss to the

world when a language dies. The true loss/tragedy, of course, is to

that culture, but I wanted to speak to how it affects the rest of

us. If you've ever had exposure to another language, you know that

there are some things that just don't translate from one language to

another. People say, " Oh there's this great phrase in French which

describes such-and-such so well, but there's no real equivalent in

English. " Well, languages convey world views, they convey ways of

seeing. For example, time is " cut up " differently from language to

language. How we view time is constrained by the language we speak!

The richness and diversity in perspectives that are contained in

language are a gift to everyone. When a language/culture dies, that

view dies, that way of seeing that might provide new insight or just

add richness to understanding is now gone.)

Best to you,

<HTML>

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC " -//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN "

" http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd " >

<BODY>

<FONT FACE= " monospace " SIZE= " 3 " >

Important <B>Native Nutrition</B> Addresses

<UL>

<LI>Native Nutrition on the <A

HREF= " / " >WEB</A>

<LI>Search the message <A HREF= " http://onibasu.dyndns.org/ " >ARCHIVE</A>

& mdash; <B>NEW FEATURE!</B></LI>

<LI>Change your group <A

HREF= " /join " >SETTINGS</

A></LI>

<LI><A HREF= " mailto: " >POST</A> a

message</LI>

<LI><A

HREF= " mailto: -subscribe " >SUBSCRIBE</A> to

the list</LI>

<LI><A

HREF= " mailto: -unsubscribe " >UNSUBSCRIBE</A>

from the list</LI>

<LI>Send an <A

HREF= " mailto: -owner " >EMAIL</A> to the List

Owner & Moderators</LI>

</UL></FONT>

<PRE><FONT FACE= " monospace " SIZE= " 3 " >List Owner: Idol

Moderators: Heidi Schuppenhauer

Wanita Sears

</FONT></PRE>

</BODY>

</HTML>

[Guest guest]

If you had ever read the book of Job , you would have read the passage in

chapter 1, which states that God already knew the status of Job's spirituality.

Most Christians believe God is omniscient/all-knowing. Therefore, He doesn't

need to test someone to check the limits of their faith. The Biblical God sees

people with love, regardless of how they behave in situations. Otherwise, why

would He give up His life, to die for people that didn't know Him, love Him, or

would ever accept Him as their God?

Some Christians may see difficult circumstances as testing, some don't. That

being said, bad things happend to people. I know a man, a former Buddhist, now

a Christian for 20 years, who had several bad things happen to him last year.

He lost his job, and shortly thereafter his wife was diagnosed with breast

cancer. Needless to say this was a very difficult time for his family. Yet he

made the statement over and over that he felt God's love throughout their entire

experience. How ? Not BECAUSE of the hardships , which happen to all people in

life, regardless of their faith/no faith. But he felt God's love through the

aid to his family with groceries, clothes, odd jobs offered, etc. His wife's

cancer was diagnosed early, treated (with many conventional and natural

remedies) and is now in remission. He now has another job, and their lives have

moved on. People go through challenges, whether they believe in God, or not.

And, hopefully, they glean something positive in their experience. For Him, it

was an increase in his faith in God, and in his fellowman. And I have to say,

that I never saw this man have a moment expressing his doubt in God's love for

Him, despite the situation. This man had an amazing sense of peace, as did his

wife, throughout their ordeal. A peace that they said they never experienced

when they were practicing Buddhists. For them, their belief in a Christian God

was a very beneficial thing.

Why would it make sense that God could be all-powerful, and loving, and yet

still not stop Satan, if He chose not to? God allows good to happen to all

people, whether they believe in Him or not. Why wouldn't He allow bad to happen

to all people, too ? Is He supposed to only allow good to happen, and stop all

evil ? Remember, Christians Biblical view of God sees Him as sovereign. He

created people with free will. WE make our choices, and that effects us and

others around us. Historically and Biblically, the only time He changed this

pattern, was to take on human form as Jesus Christ, and die sacrificially for

mankind's sin.

By the way, at the end of Job's experience, like my friend, he still held his

faith in God. And God did call an end to what He allowed Satan to do to Job,

and Satan quickly complied. Then God reversed Job's fortunes to the extent that

he ended up with double of what he had to begin with. Why did God allow this to

happen to Job, or my friend ? Who knows ? That is where those, who have chosen

faith in God, also choose to trust and to love Him, regardless of what life

brings. And this choice defies human logic for many.

Rebekah

(JA)

Ever read about Job?

I have heard many, many Christians make this statement when disasters befell

them.

" I know God loves me because He is testing my faith with this (whatever).

It only makes sense. If God chooses not to stop the devil then he is not a

" kind and loving " God, and/or he is not all powerful.

Judith Alta

J.A.

If the Biblical God is kind and loving why does he have to torture his

people to prove they are faithful?

Rebekah

I'd like to know what you're basing this statement on. Have you read this

in anyone's statement of faith for their religion, or do you believe you

have experienced this yourself?

J.A.

If the Biblical God is all powerful why does he let the " Devil " torment

his

(the God's) followers? If he cannot stop the Devil then he is not all

powerful.

Rebekah

Again, I'd like to know what you're basing this on. What causes you to

arrive at the assumption that God cannot stop the Devil if He so chooses?

Is there a religious statement, from a major faith, that makes this claim in

their beliefs?

<HTML>

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC " -//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN "

" http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd " >

<BODY>

<FONT FACE= " monospace " SIZE= " 3 " >

Important <B>Native Nutrition</B> Addresses

<UL>

<LI>Native Nutrition on the <A

HREF= " / " >WEB</A>

<LI>Search the message <A HREF= " http://onibasu.dyndns.org/ " >ARCHIVE</A>

& mdash; <B>NEW FEATURE!</B></LI>

<LI>Change your group <A

HREF= " /join " >SETTINGS</A></\

LI>

<LI><A HREF= " mailto: " >POST</A> a

message</LI>

<LI><A

HREF= " mailto: -subscribe " >SUBSCRIBE</A> to the

list</LI>

<LI><A

HREF= " mailto: -unsubscribe " >UNSUBSCRIBE</A> from

the list</LI>

<LI>Send an <A

HREF= " mailto: -owner " >EMAIL</A> to the List Owner

& Moderators</LI>

</UL></FONT>

<PRE><FONT FACE= " monospace " SIZE= " 3 " >List Owner: Idol

Moderators: Heidi Schuppenhauer

Wanita Sears

</FONT></PRE>

</BODY>

</HTML>

[Guest guest]

It still makes no sense to me. But as it works for you go for it!

Enjoy! ;-)

Judith Alta

-----Original Message-----

If you had ever read the book of Job , you would have read the passage in

chapter 1, which states that God already knew the status of Job's

spirituality. Most Christians believe God is omniscient/all-knowing.

Therefore, He doesn't need to test someone to check the limits of their

faith. The Biblical God sees people with love, regardless of how they

behave in situations. Otherwise, why would He give up His life, to die for

people that didn't know Him, love Him, or would ever accept Him as their

God?

Some Christians may see difficult circumstances as testing, some don't.

That being said, bad things happend to people. I know a man, a former

Buddhist, now a Christian for 20 years, who had several bad things happen to

him last year. He lost his job, and shortly thereafter his wife was

diagnosed with breast cancer. Needless to say this was a very difficult

time for his family. Yet he made the statement over and over that he felt

God's love throughout their entire experience. How ? Not BECAUSE of the

hardships , which happen to all people in life, regardless of their faith/no

faith. But he felt God's love through the aid to his family with groceries,

clothes, odd jobs offered, etc. His wife's cancer was diagnosed early,

treated (with many conventional and natural remedies) and is now in

remission. He now has another job, and their lives have moved on. People

go through challenges, whether they believe in God, or not. And, hopefully,

they glean something positive i!

n their experience. For Him, it was an increase in his faith in God, and

in his fellowman. And I have to say, that I never saw this man have a

moment expressing his doubt in God's love for Him, despite the situation.

This man had an amazing sense of peace, as did his wife, throughout their

ordeal. A peace that they said they never experienced when they were

practicing Buddhists. For them, their belief in a Christian God was a very

beneficial thing.

Why would it make sense that God could be all-powerful, and loving, and yet

still not stop Satan, if He chose not to? God allows good to happen to all

people, whether they believe in Him or not. Why wouldn't He allow bad to

happen to all people, too ? Is He supposed to only allow good to happen,

and stop all evil ? Remember, Christians Biblical view of God sees Him as

sovereign. He created people with free will. WE make our choices, and that

effects us and others around us. Historically and Biblically, the only time

He changed this pattern, was to take on human form as Jesus Christ, and die

sacrificially for mankind's sin.

By the way, at the end of Job's experience, like my friend, he still held

his faith in God. And God did call an end to what He allowed Satan to do to

Job, and Satan quickly complied. Then God reversed Job's fortunes to the

extent that he ended up with double of what he had to begin with. Why did

God allow this to happen to Job, or my friend ? Who knows ? That is where

those, who have chosen faith in God, also choose to trust and to love Him,

regardless of what life brings. And this choice defies human logic for

many.

Rebekah