helena Posted April 30, 2011 Share Posted April 30, 2011 (edited) I've noticed that some people have rotating photos and descriptions of non-Christians " on their blogs. It got me curious as to how they get the photos? Are they people who have or are in the process of converting? Did they consent to having their photo put on people's blogs and websites? I poked around the website, and couldn't find my answer. I figured someone here would know? Here's the website: http://www.joshuaproject.net/ Thanks ETA: I put the wrong word in my title. The word the website uses is unreached, not unsaved. Sorry about that! Edited May 1, 2011 by helena Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
specialmama Posted May 1, 2011 Share Posted May 1, 2011 The gist of pics is that they represent a people group; the town/village is listed with the country and the population. The pics are representative, it does not mean that that particular person is unreached. I cannot speak for this website, but a waiver or release form is pretty standard for other charities/missions, and the individuals would understand that their pic may appear in media. My dh worked with another mission and it was standard for the photographer to inform them and get their permission. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jen500 Posted May 1, 2011 Share Posted May 1, 2011 Wow, I had no clue. I learn a lot on these boards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcconnellboys Posted May 1, 2011 Share Posted May 1, 2011 Operation World shows a representative picture for many of the unreached peoples they profile.... It's just a representative pic.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcconnellboys Posted May 1, 2011 Share Posted May 1, 2011 Operation World shows a representative picture for many of the unreached peoples they profile.... It's just a representative pic.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helena Posted May 1, 2011 Author Share Posted May 1, 2011 (edited) Do you think they were told "We're going to put a picture of your face up on the internet under the title unreached." Why would someone with their own faith sign up for that? Maybe this is old news? But I'm looking at this site, and my face feels flush. These are nice photo's of people who look like their doing just fine. It feels like a mean joke, making a mockery of these peoples lives. It's not just photo's of representatives. It's someones face. What in the world am I missing here? Edited May 1, 2011 by helena correcting word unsaved to unreached Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daisy Posted May 1, 2011 Share Posted May 1, 2011 Do you think they were told "We're going to put a picture of your face up on the internet under the title unsaved." Why would someone with their own faith sign up for that? Maybe this is old news? But I'm looking at this site, and my face feels flush. These are nice photo's of people who look like their doing just fine. It feels like a mean joke, making a mockery of these peoples lives. It's not just photo's of representatives. It's someones face. What in the world am I missing here? Maybe the understanding that we feel compassion for those people and want to share the gospel with them? That we long to see them understand that Jesus is the only way of salvation? It is a reminder for Christians to pray for people all over the world who need Jesus. It is a reminder for Christians to share their faith with others. It is a reminder to pray for missionaries who are reaching out to those people groups. It really is that simple. We are not trying to exploit anyone. We just hope and pray they put their faith in Jesus Christ. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crispa Posted May 1, 2011 Share Posted May 1, 2011 (edited) [[NOTE: Edited to delete the word "white" because it caused offense in this context.]] Helena, I agree with you completely. I consider it offensive in the extreme to show a photo of "random Indian-looking person" or "random Asian person" or "random anybody" and call that person "unsaved." I can't imagine giving permission for such a thing. "Can I put your picture on the Internet and call you 'unsaved'? Here's $5 for your trouble." "OK, tourist!" Or, "Can I put your picture on the Internet in an advertisement about sexually transmitted diseases? Here's $5 for your trouble." "OK, tourist!" Ick. Edited May 1, 2011 by Crispa to delete the word "white" bc it caused offense, which was not my intent, and with thanks to the person who pointed that out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sleepymommy Posted May 1, 2011 Share Posted May 1, 2011 Do you think they were told "We're going to put a picture of your face up on the internet under the title unsaved." Why would someone with their own faith sign up for that? Maybe this is old news? But I'm looking at this site, and my face feels flush. These are nice photo's of people who look like their doing just fine. It feels like a mean joke, making a mockery of these peoples lives. It's not just photo's of representatives. It's someones face. What in the world am I missing here? :iagree: with you completely, especially the bolded part. There are many photos taken of people in other countries without their knowledge of where those pics are going to end up. Yes, some may have them sign some sort of a waiver, but I think most likely people just say, "May I take a photo?" and leave it at that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mandymom Posted May 1, 2011 Share Posted May 1, 2011 Actually, I think the term that is being used is "unreached" (at least on the link you provided as well as some other sites I've seen). "Unreached" usually carries with it the meaning that it is a people group who have not had the Gospel presented to them. If there is any "stigma" attached to the word (which I'm not saying there is), I think it has more stigma for Christians and the fact that they have not shared the Gospel with parts of the world than it does for the people group with whom it hasn't been shared. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helena Posted May 1, 2011 Author Share Posted May 1, 2011 Can Christian Americans also be unreached? Is this a specific type of Christianity? FWIW, I asked here because it's the only place I've seen this (when I check out poster's blogs). Thanks for answering these questions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helena Posted May 1, 2011 Author Share Posted May 1, 2011 Actually, I think the term that is being used is "unreached" (at least on the link you provided as well as some other sites I've seen). "Unreached" usually carries with it the meaning that it is a people group who have not had the Gospel presented to them. If there is any "stigma" attached to the word (which I'm not saying there is), I think it has more stigma for Christians and the fact that they have not shared the Gospel with parts of the world than it does for the people group with whom it hasn't been shared. Ah! Your right, I put in the wrong word. Thanks for bringing that to my attention, I'll try to edit it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenny in Florida Posted May 1, 2011 Share Posted May 1, 2011 It feels like a mean joke, making a mockery of these peoples lives. Helena, I agree with you completely. I consider it offensive in the extreme to show a photo of "random Indian-looking person" or "random Asian person" or "random anybody (but especially if they don't look white or middle class)" and call that person "unsaved." I can't imagine giving permission for such a thing. "Can I put your picture on the Internet and call you 'unsaved'? Here's $5 for your trouble." "OK, white tourist!" Or, "Can I put your picture on the Internet in an advertisement about sexually transmitted diseases? Here's $5 for your trouble." "OK, white tourist!" Ick. I'd go with "ick," too. I had no idea this sort of thing was still being done. Ewww. Here's the thing: I'm not a Christian, but it doesn't mean I'm "unreached." I've been reached. I'm just not interested. And the idea that my life is somehow lacking or incomplete because I don't share someone else's religious views is pretty offensive. I can't imagine this feeling would be any different if I happened to live in a different country or have skin of a different shade. It's patronizing. It's insulting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mandymom Posted May 1, 2011 Share Posted May 1, 2011 (edited) Here's the thing: I'm not a Christian, but it doesn't mean I'm "unreached." Generally, the term "unreached" is speaking of people groups with whom there has been no/minimal exposure to the Gospel by mission organizations or individual missionaries. This is many times due to remote location or lack of understanding (by missionaries) of the local language/dialect. Edited May 1, 2011 by mandymom Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kitten18 Posted May 1, 2011 Share Posted May 1, 2011 Do you think they were told "We're going to put a picture of your face up on the internet under the title unsaved." Why would someone with their own faith sign up for that? Maybe this is old news? But I'm looking at this site, and my face feels flush. These are nice photo's of people who look like their doing just fine. It feels like a mean joke, making a mockery of these peoples lives. It's not just photo's of representatives. It's someones face. What in the world am I missing here? :iagree: It makes me feel icky! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sophia Posted May 1, 2011 Share Posted May 1, 2011 Can Christian Americans also be unreached? If they are already Christians, then they have been reached. Are you asking if there are some Americans who are unreached? Yes. One of my favorite pastors shares a story of a college football teammate who had to explain the Bible and its contents to him. It was not ick to him and he gave his life to Christ shortly thereafter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daisy Posted May 1, 2011 Share Posted May 1, 2011 (edited) As Christians, in obedience to Christ's command in Matthew 28, we have a obligation to share the Gospel to the ends of the earth. With everyone. Let's say I'm standing 100 feet away from a cliff and I'm watching people run as fast as they can towards the cliff. Do I say nothing? Maybe I say, "They don't believe in the cliff, so I shouldn't say anything." Or maybe I think I'll offend them if I say something. They've chosen their own path towards the cliff. Or do I yell, "Stop! I know a safe path! Don't go that way! That way leads to death! There's danger ahead." If you've never heard that, you deserve at least the warning. If you don't believe that message there is nothing we can do, but at least we said something. It seems a whole lot more offensive to say nothing than to shout out a warning and an offer of a different path. And for those who don't believe that Jesus is the only way of salvation, then yeah, the person yelling about the cliff looks like a freak at best and an offensive intolerant bigot at worst. I understand that it is offensive to be told you are running straight for a cliff, especially if the path is part of your heritage or your culture or a path you've created just for yourself. Your opinion of us and your offense doesn't really change the fact that we feel strongly enough about the danger ahead that we want you to hear that Jesus Christ provided a way for you. Those pictures are nothing more than attempts by Christians to shout out to other Christians, "Hey, tell people about the cliff! Don't stand there and watch people run over the cliff just because it makes you uncomfortable to say something." Edited May 1, 2011 by Daisy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helena Posted May 1, 2011 Author Share Posted May 1, 2011 If they are already Christians, then they have been reached.Are you asking if there are some Americans who are unreached? Yes. One of my favorite pastors shares a story of a college football teammate who had to explain the Bible and its contents to him. It was not ick to him and he gave his life to Christ shortly thereafter. (My bolding) No, I'm asking if the Christian groups who use this practice feel that certain Christians are unsaved as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milovany Posted May 1, 2011 Share Posted May 1, 2011 I'm pretty sure those pictures are probably stock pictures purchased from a stock photo company as "royalty-free" photos (i.e., free to use -- they have no copyright -- if you purchase them). This is very common way to get photos for websites, for everyone not just Christian missions organizations. I'm going to imagine that the people in the photos were paid a small amount for letting their photos be taken. The photographers make money by having their photos purchased. It's not secretive or sneaky or icky. Unless, as some above have, you have a problem with a photo of one person being representative of a group of people in some particular way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sophia Posted May 1, 2011 Share Posted May 1, 2011 (My bolding)No, I'm asking if the Christian groups who use this practice feel that certain Christians are unsaved as well. Oh, ok, I misunderstood you. It sounds like you're addressing denominational differences and I'll opt out of that discussion. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sevilla Posted May 1, 2011 Share Posted May 1, 2011 (My bolding)No, I'm asking if the Christian groups who use this practice feel that certain Christians are unsaved as well. I can only speak to what I saw on their website, but considering that they listed the unreached percentage next to the 'evangelical' percentage of the population I will guess that they would not consider Catholics to be 'evangelical Christians' and the same goes for Orthodox. There is very specific criteria to be considered evangelical and the rites/traditions/declarations of faith don't overlap evenly with the other Christian branches, hence the classification as 'not truly saved' that you run into. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helena Posted May 1, 2011 Author Share Posted May 1, 2011 Oh, ok, I misunderstood you. It sounds like you're addressing denominational differences and I'll opt out of that discussion. :) Hmm. that's not good, I don't want a fight. I'll opt out too. :001_smile: I'm just trying to understand something new to me. I'll be honest, what I've read so far upsets me. I'm not Christian, so... you know. But I'm willing to listen and have a better understanding. I'm glad there are women here who will take the time. Like I said, I only brought it up because this is the only place I've seen it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
staceyobu Posted May 1, 2011 Share Posted May 1, 2011 Unreached is not referring to people who have access to the Bible and don't believe it. It is referring to groups who do not have access to the Bible. Typically people have absolutely no way of finding out about the Bible even if they want to learn more about it. Countries in the Middle East and Northern Africa have the most unreached groups. They do not have the Bible in their language and it is illegal for anyone to be a Christian there or for Christians to share their faith with others. I believe people in America may be unsaved or unevangelized, but not unreached. If you live in the States, you have access to the gospel. There are a million churches here. Iran, however, is a much different story. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
specialmama Posted May 1, 2011 Share Posted May 1, 2011 As Christians, in obedience to Christ's command in Matthew 28, we have a obligation to share the Gospel to the ends of the earth. With everyone. Let's say I'm standing 100 feet away from a cliff and I'm watching people run as fast as they can towards the cliff. Do I say nothing? Maybe I say, "They don't believe in the cliff, so I shouldn't say anything." Or maybe I think I'll offend them if I say something. They've chosen their own path towards the cliff. Or do I yell, "Stop! I know a safe path! Don't go that way! That way leads to death! There's danger ahead." If you've never heard that, you deserve at least the warning. If you don't believe that message there is nothing we can do, but at least we said something. It seems a whole lot more offensive to say nothing than to shout out a warning and an offer of a different path. And for those who don't believe that Jesus is the only way of salvation, then yeah, the person yelling about the cliff looks like a freak at best and an offensive intolerant bigot at worst. I understand that it is offensive to be told you are running straight for a cliff, especially if the path is part of your heritage or your culture or a path you've created just for yourself. Your opinion of us and your offense doesn't really change the fact that we feel strongly enough about the danger ahead that we want you to hear that Jesus Christ provided a way for you. Those pictures are nothing more than attempts by Christians to shout out to other Christians, "Hey, tell people about the cliff! Don't stand there and watch people run over the cliff just because it makes you uncomfortable to say something." Bang on, Daisy! :001_smile: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
My3Monkeys Posted May 1, 2011 Share Posted May 1, 2011 Unreached is not referring to people who have access to the Bible and don't believe it. It is referring to groups who do not have access to the Bible. Typically people have absolutely no way of finding out about the Bible even if they want to learn more about it. Countries in the Middle East and Northern Africa have the most unreached groups. They do not have the Bible in their language and it is illegal for anyone to be a Christian there or for Christians to share their faith with others. I believe people in America may be unsaved or unevangelized, but not unreached. If you live in the States, you have access to the gospel. There are a million churches here. Iran, however, is a much different story. The website has Jewish people in the US on their list though - I doubt they have never heard of the Christian bible. Also, I may be interpreting their red, yellow, green system, but there are several groups on there they they list as Christian that they are listing as works in progress - are they just not the right types of Christians? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpidarkomama Posted May 1, 2011 Share Posted May 1, 2011 The website has Jewish people in the US on their list though - I doubt they have never heard of the Christian bible. Also, I may be interpreting their red, yellow, green system, but there are several groups on there they they list as Christian that they are listing as works in progress - are they just not the right types of Christians? Yep. I got a total stomachache when I saw a Jew pictured on someone else's blog from that same website. I just erased the rest of what I might say about it. It's been said before, and I can't tell you how completely offensive it is to a Jew. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nmoira Posted May 1, 2011 Share Posted May 1, 2011 Maybe this is old news? But I'm looking at this site, and my face feels flush. These are nice photo's of people who look like their doing just fine. It feels like a mean joke, making a mockery of these peoples lives.:iagree: If I see the "unreached" banner/badge on a blog I don't return. It makes me feel ill. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NanceXToo Posted May 1, 2011 Share Posted May 1, 2011 I'd go with "ick," too. I had no idea this sort of thing was still being done. Ewww. Here's the thing: I'm not a Christian, but it doesn't mean I'm "unreached." I've been reached. I'm just not interested. And the idea that my life is somehow lacking or incomplete because I don't share someone else's religious views is pretty offensive. I can't imagine this feeling would be any different if I happened to live in a different country or have skin of a different shade. It's patronizing. It's insulting. Ugh. Yes. :iagree: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JessieC Posted May 1, 2011 Share Posted May 1, 2011 Do most Christians really believe that indigenous people who have never heard of the Bible or the Christian God will go to Hell for eternity when they die? This just seems so bizarre to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crispa Posted May 1, 2011 Share Posted May 1, 2011 Do most Christians really believe that indigenous people who have never heard of the Bible or the Christian God will go to Hell for eternity when they die? This just seems so bizarre to me. Some do, but not most, I don't think. Certainly not most of the Christians I know. (My bolding)No, I'm asking if the Christian groups who use this practice feel that certain Christians are unsaved as well. I am a Christian and I consider this practice extremely gross and insulting. I'd maybe be considered "reached but hopeless." ;) Off to commune with Jesus anyway ... happy Sunday, everybody! :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wabi Sabi Posted May 1, 2011 Share Posted May 1, 2011 :iagree: If I see the "unreached" banner/badge on a blog I don't return. Exactly. It's just plain gross and distasteful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stripe Posted May 1, 2011 Share Posted May 1, 2011 I agree with you, Helena, that something is unsettling about this. Even on the news, when they show "random obese person walking down the street" in a report about the problems of obesity, they always show their midsection and not their face. Not everyone on this board is an evangelical Christian, so to assume that everyone reading this thread or bothered by this, also wants to share in the gospel, is a false assumption. I just wanted to point that out. I am with NMoira on my comfort level with this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trish Posted May 1, 2011 Share Posted May 1, 2011 Maybe it's like the Sneetches. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pqr Posted May 1, 2011 Share Posted May 1, 2011 Helena, I agree with you completely. I consider it offensive in the extreme to show a photo of "random Indian-looking person" or "random Asian person" or "random anybody (but especially if they don't look white or middle class)" and call that person "unsaved." I can't imagine giving permission for such a thing. "Can I put your picture on the Internet and call you 'unsaved'? Here's $5 for your trouble." "OK, white tourist!" Or, "Can I put your picture on the Internet in an advertisement about sexually transmitted diseases? Here's $5 for your trouble." "OK, white tourist!" Ick. Being someone who has lived overseas for decades, it may interest you to know that NOT all tourists are white. Further NOT all missionaries are white. Additionally NOT all those who believe that non-Christians are "unreached" are white. Of those who visit traditional cultures and snap photos while making rather disparaging comments (in the sometimes mistaken belief that the locals do not speak English or German or Japanese or Chinese or Hindi) wait for it......yes Virginia NOT all of them are white! Comments such as yours do nothing to support discussion they are simply inflammatory and demonstrate a lack of understanding. I have no interest in the site being discussed nor am I going to express an opinion on their behavior, but your comments are as egregious as anything that you are complaining about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mom-ninja. Posted May 1, 2011 Share Posted May 1, 2011 I really have nothing nice to say. Off to reread Richard Dawkins. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcconnellboys Posted May 1, 2011 Share Posted May 1, 2011 Well, I've seen that they do this, but I've also seen that they give thanks in countries that have strong Catholic or Orthodox faiths, etc., too.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allearia Posted May 1, 2011 Share Posted May 1, 2011 I'd go with "ick," too. I had no idea this sort of thing was still being done. Ewww. Here's the thing: I'm not a Christian, but it doesn't mean I'm "unreached." I've been reached. I'm just not interested. And the idea that my life is somehow lacking or incomplete because I don't share someone else's religious views is pretty offensive. I can't imagine this feeling would be any different if I happened to live in a different country or have skin of a different shade. It's patronizing. It's insulting. :iagree: :iagree: I can't even express how revolting this is so I'll leave it at that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gracily Posted May 1, 2011 Share Posted May 1, 2011 Some do, but not most, I don't think. Certainly not most of the Christians I know. I am a Christian and I consider this practice extremely gross and insulting. I'd maybe be considered "reached but hopeless." ;) Off to commune with Jesus anyway ... happy Sunday, everybody! :) :iagree::iagree::iagree: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helena Posted May 1, 2011 Author Share Posted May 1, 2011 Unreached is not referring to people who have access to the Bible and don't believe it. It is referring to groups who do not have access to the Bible. Typically people have absolutely no way of finding out about the Bible even if they want to learn more about it. Countries in the Middle East and Northern Africa have the most unreached groups. They do not have the Bible in their language and it is illegal for anyone to be a Christian there or for Christians to share their faith with others. I believe people in America may be unsaved or unevangelized, but not unreached. If you live in the States, you have access to the gospel. There are a million churches here. Iran, however, is a much different story. (My bolding) I don't want to get side tracked here, but this simply isn't true. There are many Christians in the Middle East and North Africa. To name a few: Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Jordan, and Palestine, who have some of the oldest Christian communities in the world, and who's bibles are in Arabic. In addition, Iran has large amounts of Armenian Christians. There are hundreds of churches in Iran. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sleepymommy Posted May 1, 2011 Share Posted May 1, 2011 (My bolding) I don't want to get side tracked here, but this simply isn't true. There are many Christians in the Middle East and North Africa. To name a few: Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Jordan, and Palestine, who have some of the oldest Christian communities in the world, and who's bibles are in Arabic. In addition, Iran has large amounts of Armenian Christians. There are hundreds of churches in Iran. :iagree: Also in India, there are churches everywhere. It's not likely that a country that was ruled by the British along with their missionaries for 100 years and that is currently as secular democracy with plenty of Christian leaders does not have access to a Bible. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_India Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GinaPagnato Posted May 1, 2011 Share Posted May 1, 2011 Are you aware, though, how heavily persecuted the Christian church is in those areas? I don't mean the state-sanctioned church, I mean the evangelical, Bible-teaching churches. Did you know that in Algeria the punishment for "swaying a Muslim from their faith" is up to 5 years in jail? This just means that you share about Jesus with them, give them a Bible, invite them to a Bible study, etc. Don't kid yourself, it's pretty grisly. Voice of the Martyrs is an organization which documents this sort of thing. The missions organizations we support are native organizations, which means that they are Christian Indians reaching non-Christian Indians, Christian Nepalese reaching non-Christian Nepalese. They use their photos all the time to represent people and people groups who are unreached, or for whom we are asked to pray. Considering that the ones taking the pics and sharing the prayer requests in their newletters, etc. are the same ethnicity, I don't see anything offensive about it. But, of course, the Gospel offends. Jesus said this Himself, as did the Apostles. So it's no wonder that it's offensive for those of you who don't believe. For those of us who do, "it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Embassy Posted May 1, 2011 Share Posted May 1, 2011 (My bolding) I don't want to get side tracked here, but this simply isn't true. There are many Christians in the Middle East and North Africa. To name a few: Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Jordan, and Palestine, who have some of the oldest Christian communities in the world, and who's bibles are in Arabic. In addition, Iran has large amounts of Armenian Christians. There are hundreds of churches in Iran. People groups are not the same thing as countries. A country can have many different people groups. Take Iran for example. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Embassy Posted May 1, 2011 Share Posted May 1, 2011 As Christians, in obedience to Christ's command in Matthew 28, we have a obligation to share the Gospel to the ends of the earth. With everyone. Let's say I'm standing 100 feet away from a cliff and I'm watching people run as fast as they can towards the cliff. Do I say nothing? Maybe I say, "They don't believe in the cliff, so I shouldn't say anything." Or maybe I think I'll offend them if I say something. They've chosen their own path towards the cliff. Or do I yell, "Stop! I know a safe path! Don't go that way! That way leads to death! There's danger ahead." If you've never heard that, you deserve at least the warning. If you don't believe that message there is nothing we can do, but at least we said something. It seems a whole lot more offensive to say nothing than to shout out a warning and an offer of a different path. And for those who don't believe that Jesus is the only way of salvation, then yeah, the person yelling about the cliff looks like a freak at best and an offensive intolerant bigot at worst. I understand that it is offensive to be told you are running straight for a cliff, especially if the path is part of your heritage or your culture or a path you've created just for yourself. Your opinion of us and your offense doesn't really change the fact that we feel strongly enough about the danger ahead that we want you to hear that Jesus Christ provided a way for you. Those pictures are nothing more than attempts by Christians to shout out to other Christians, "Hey, tell people about the cliff! Don't stand there and watch people run over the cliff just because it makes you uncomfortable to say something." :iagree: Very well said Daisy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mejane Posted May 1, 2011 Share Posted May 1, 2011 But, of course, the Gospel offends. Not to be snarky, but the Gospel doesn't offend. Having it shoved down one's throat offends. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mommymilkies Posted May 1, 2011 Share Posted May 1, 2011 Not to be snarky, but the Gospel doesn't offend. Having it shoved down one's throat offends. Actually, I disagree. There are some parts that are very offensive to some people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sleepymommy Posted May 1, 2011 Share Posted May 1, 2011 (edited) Are you aware, though, how heavily persecuted the Christian church is in those areas? I don't mean the state-sanctioned church, I mean the evangelical, Bible-teaching churches. Did you know that in Algeria the punishment for "swaying a Muslim from their faith" is up to 5 years in jail? This just means that you share about Jesus with them, give them a Bible, invite them to a Bible study, etc. Don't kid yourself, it's pretty grisly. Voice of the Martyrs is an organization which documents this sort of thing. The missions organizations we support are native organizations, which means that they are Christian Indians reaching non-Christian Indians, Christian Nepalese reaching non-Christian Nepalese. They use their photos all the time to represent people and people groups who are unreached, or for whom we are asked to pray. Considering that the ones taking the pics and sharing the prayer requests in their newletters, etc. are the same ethnicity, I don't see anything offensive about it. But, of course, the Gospel offends. Jesus said this Himself, as did the Apostles. So it's no wonder that it's offensive for those of you who don't believe. For those of us who do, "it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes." Perhaps in some of the countries, but certainly not in India where the largest number of missionaries have settled in recent years. There are plenty of Indians on the "Unreached" site. I just wonder how "offended" people in our country would be if large amount of missionaries from another religion decided to swoop down upon America (on business or tourist visas) with the intent to 'save all of our poor souls'. Take pics of us or our children and post them on the internet to be prayed for and then say well our scripture says some will be offended.. Edited May 1, 2011 by sleepymommy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helena Posted May 1, 2011 Author Share Posted May 1, 2011 People groups are not the same thing as countries. A country can have many different people groups. Take Iran for example. Is people group a term coined by Evangelical Christians, (or Christians in general)? I keep seeing this term used. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lovedtodeath Posted May 1, 2011 Share Posted May 1, 2011 I can only speak to what I saw on their website, but considering that they listed the unreached percentage next to the 'evangelical' percentage of the population I will guess that they would not consider Catholics to be 'evangelical Christians' and the same goes for Orthodox. There is very specific criteria to be considered evangelical and the rites/traditions/declarations of faith don't overlap evenly with the other Christian branches, hence the classification as 'not truly saved' that you run into.Ah, thanks for that. It helped answer my question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marylou Posted May 1, 2011 Share Posted May 1, 2011 (edited) Not to be snarky, but the Gospel doesn't offend. Having it shoved down one's throat offends. I disagree strongly. The Gospel is highly offensive. Shoving it and doing anything with it which is not sanctioned by Christ is also offensive. What about all the adoption agencies that that have pics of children who don't belong to a forever family, yet? Is that offensive? Those children don't even get asked or paid to have their faces published! Thousands of children are shown compassion each year because someone saw them (on paper) and then went and filled out many papers (and jumped through lots of hoops) to make them their own. Like the Samaritan on the road, seeing often leads to doing. I enjoy seeing pictures of people from other lands. They are beautiful creations of God and made in His image. No one has a fuss when National Geographic prints them. Edited May 1, 2011 by dmmosher Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marylou Posted May 1, 2011 Share Posted May 1, 2011 http://www.peoplegroups.org/MapSearch.aspx?country=Mexico about people groups in Mexico Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.