A question about unsaved people of the day

[Embassy]

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.

 

 

India is the scene of much persecution on Christians. It doesn't rank with some countries persecution-wise, but is it certainly not anywhere close to being free from persecution.

 

All people in India are not of the same culture and language. Some people/ethnic groups in India may have had lots of exposure to Christianity and others may know nothing about it.

[Mejane]

I disagree strongly. The Gospel is highly offensive. Shoving it and doing anything with it which is not sanctioned by Christ is also offensive.

 

 

 

I guess I should clarify. The Gospel is not offensive to me because, as a non-believer, I don't care enough about it to be offended. Having it foisted upon me is offensive.

 

I find it interesting that so many believers find it offensive. I don't know that I'd promote something I found so offensive.

[pqr]

 

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.

 

Absolutely correct....BUT....would you now like to describe just how they are being treated. Shall we look to the assaults on Christians in Iraq, the desecration of Christian shrines and churches in areas controlled by the Palestinian Authority, the legal system that allows punishment for apostacy. Simply because they exist does not mean that they have anything close to religious freedom.

 

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/Special/2011/01/07/Christians-arrested-in-Iran/UPI-72361294417421/

Edited May 1, 2011 by pqr

[Embassy]

Is people group a term coined by Evangelical Christians, (or Christians in general)? I keep seeing this term used.

 

I have no idea of the coinage:tongue_smilie: But it is pretty much a synonym for an ethnic group.

[nmoira]

What about all the adoption agencies that that have pics of children who don't belong to a forever family, yet? Is that offensive?

I'm not sure this is where you want to go. Some agencies have very questionable practices.

 

Like the Samaritan on the road, seeing often leads to doing.

Doing something, or doing a good thing? And from whose point of view?

 

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.

National Geographic isn't one for slapping labels on people implying they are somehow defective or ignorant, or for advertising that there are groups in need of your money to help save them from their ignorance.

[Marylou]

I find it interesting that so many believers find it offensive. I don't know that I'd promote something I found so offensive.

 

I think you would if you believed it leads to life.

 

Medicine--hate it, tastes bad, gives me a headache, rather would live without it. BUT, it keeps me alive. I take it. I tell others about it who seem to need it. I don't shove it down their throats. I will even stop talking about it (to them) if they aske me to stop.

 

That kind of "offensive".

 

Acts 4:12 extremely offensive to most people in the world

[T'smom]

I guess I should clarify. The Gospel is not offensive to me because, as a non-believer, I don't care enough about it to be offended. Having it foisted upon me is offensive.

 

I find it interesting that so many believers find it offensive. I don't know that I'd promote something I found so offensive.

 

 

Believers don't find it offensive, we just see how others might. The gospel says "You (general you) need to be saved. Jesus can save you." I don't find that offensive because I KNOW I need to be saved. But many find that offensive......they don't believe they need to be saved.

[Marylou]

I'm not sure this is where you want to go. Some agencies have very questionable practices. Right, of course. That wasn't the point,

 

Doing something, or doing a good thing? And from whose point of view? I don't see how praying for others and giving money so that Bibles can be printed in their own language can be labeled "bad".

 

National Geographic isn't one for slapping labels on people implying they are somehow defective or ignorant, or for advertising that there are groups in need of your money to help save them from their ignorance. This is unfair. No one is calling anyone else ignorant and/or defective. Just because a Bible is made available, doesn't mean others are forced to read it or believe it.

 

.

[nmoira]

Me: National Geographic isn't one for slapping labels on people implying they are somehow defective or ignorant, or for advertising that there are groups in need of your money to help save them from their ignorance.

 

This is unfair. No one is calling anyone else ignorant and/or defective. Just because a Bible is made availble, doesn't mean others are forced to read it or believe it.

 

It's entirely fair, given the nature of what we're talking about: Pictures, marketing, advertising, labels.

[Crispa]

I'm trying to imagine running across a picture of my face on a Hindu or Muslim or Christian website with the words "unreached" attached to it.

 

I'm trying to imagine running across a picture of my child's baby picture on a website (perhaps many years after it was taken!) with the words "please give -- many children need you! -- click here to make your $35 donation" as the caption.

[helena]

Absolutely correct....BUT....would you now like to describe just how they are being treated. Shall we look to the assaults on Christians in Iraq, the desecration of Christian shrines and churches in areas controlled by the Palestinian Authority, the legal system that allows punishment for apostacy. Simply because they exist does not mean that they have anything close to religious freedom.

 

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/Special/2011/01/07/Christians-arrested-in-Iran/UPI-72361294417421/

 

No I wouldn't.

 

The only reason I responded to the poster was because I felt that the information was too off, to not respond.

 

I don't want to discuss the above here. I had a pretty specific question, and folks have been kind enough to answer. If you want to tell yourself that I'm avoiding an ugly side, that's fine.

 

What do you think about using peoples photos under these circumstances? Do you think it's justified? Do you think it's rotten?

Edited May 1, 2011 by helena

[katilac]

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.

 

Actually, yes, I do find the adoption pictures in the newspaper to be offensive. They're human children, not freakin' pets of the week. And they are asked - at least American children up for adoption are, I certainly hope the agencies dealing with foreign adoption offer those children the same courtesy.

 

Your last paragraph misses the point a bit, I think. No is offended at the photograph itself; people are offended because the photograph is printed along with the word "unreached." Few people are offended at NG photos (although I promise you, some are) because NG is not making commentary on the status of their souls.

[Mejane]

Actually, yes, I do find the adoption pictures in the newspaper to be offensive. They're human children, not freakin' pets of the week.

 

:iagree:

[alpidarkomama]

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.

 

If that's the case, then why are Jews on the list? Half of the Christian bible is our torah. Access is not a problem. But Jews have rejected utterly that the messiah arrived already. We are still faithfully waiting...

[kalanamak]

I hate being offended, so I find, when I see one of these, I hear the old KenL Ration commercial in my head:

 

 

 

Same product, without the song, but with the sermon. (Imagine touting "hossmeat" on TV today.) Love the "Picking the right puppy to belong to is a mighty important decision" (!!).

 

[Lovedtodeath]

I guess I should clarify. The Gospel is not offensive to me because, as a non-believer, I don't care enough about it to be offended. Having it foisted upon me is offensive.

 

I find it interesting that so many believers find it offensive. I don't know that I'd promote something I found so offensive.

I would assume that many people find this offensive: Matthew 16:15 “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?” 16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”

 

 

 

And this one: John 4:22 You don't know what you're worshiping. We Jews know what we're worshiping, because salvation comes from the Jews.

 

 

The gospel includes commandments to "proselytize". Members of this board have said that they find proselytizing offensive.

 

Matthew 24:14; 28:19, 20; Luke 4:18; 8:1; 9:1-6; 10:1-9

 

This good news of the kingdom will be preached...

 

Go therefore and make disciples, teaching them...

 

“Jehovah’s spirit is upon me, because he anointed me to declare good news to the poor, he sent me forth to preach a release to the captives and a recovery of sight to the blind, to send the crushed ones away with a release, 19 to preach Jehovah’s acceptable year.”

Edited May 2, 2011 by Lovedtodeath

[Lovedtodeath]

people are offended because the photograph is printed along with the word "unreached." Few people are offended at NG photos (although I promise you, some are) because NG is not making commentary on the status of their souls.

"unreached" is not the same as "unsaved". "Unreached" is not a commentary on the status of their souls. It is a commentary on the status of the preaching work as done by those evangelical religions that are posting the photo.

[specialmama]

If that's the case, then why are Jews on the list? Half of the Christian bible is our torah. Access is not a problem. But Jews have rejected utterly that the messiah arrived already. We are still faithfully waiting...

 

:grouphug: First of all, not all Jews reject Christ. It may not be spoken of in your circles, but many, many Jews believe that Christ is the Messiah. The New Testament (the bible Christians use apart from the Torah) is written predominantly by Jews. Secondly, I think there's a lot of confusion in Christian circles about this. Some believe that even Jews must be "reached", and in your case (and most I presume) have indeed been reached because you've heard about Jesus. Other Christians believe that because Jews are the Chosen people, they will recognize Christ as their messiah at His second coming... this is the camp I am in. I was reading the other day in Romans 11, about how part of Israel has it's eyes veiled, that God Himself did this in order to help the gentiles, so that they may be saved too. It is part of His grand plan to show mercy to all. I've read Romans 11 many times, but wow, the other day it's like it was all new to me. I can see how God, from the time of Eden and fall of man, set a plan in action to provide a Redeemer. He veiled part of Israel's eyes so they could not see His Saviour, but revealed Him to the gentiles instead, all along knowing that His Chosen people will one day see Him, when He chooses to unveil their eyes and come again. It will be the "Second Coming" of Christ for Christians, and the glorious arrival of the Jew's Messiah, all at once.

I believe Jews will be saved because of the promise God made to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Jehovah-Jireh does provide and does not change. But for people who are not part of that heritage, we needed to be adopted as His children, grafted into the family, if you will. He made that way possible through Christ. Christ died as the perfect lamb, the sacrifice to take all sins away. If a gentile turns to Christ and accepts that, then they are now redeemed as well. It's really the act of a wonderful, merciful, righteous God.

I truly do not mean any of this to upset you. I believe most Christians see Jews as our brothers and sisters and love them dearly. Not because they are lost and "unreached" but because it is through the Jews that God has reached down and shown mercy to wretched souls like me. :grouphug:

[joysworld]

I don't know about the site you posted, but unreached people groups in my church refers to people groups who have yet to have any contact with the Gospel.

[joysworld]

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.

 

I don't believe so, at least not my church. But to us, salvation is much more than fire insurance, it's about a super natural relationship with Yeshua that brings peace and comfort in the life here and now.

[Hunter's Moon]

These "people groups" may be "unreached" but who is to say they aren't happy with their beliefs?

 

Even if it is the job of Christians to preach to them, what if they don't accept it? Is it still fair to call them unreached?

 

The "unreached people groups" apps (whatever they are called on the internet) seem condescending. They have their own beliefs. Obviously, they are happy with their beliefs or else they would have changed over time.

 

ETA: What if there was the same kind of app (what the heck are they called? Widgets?) for Muslims or another such religion and Christians were listed on there? Obviously, lots of offense would be taken. They could argue that while the Christians know about the Quran, they've never approached it as a holy book or what have you. In that way, they could use the word "unreached"

 

Disclaimer: NOT picking on Muslims, it was just the first religious group to come to mind. Plus, I know the name of your Holy Book without googling it :D

Edited May 2, 2011 by BeatleMania

[joysworld]

I'm not sure this is where you want to go. Some agencies have very questionable practices.

 

Doing something, or doing a good thing? And from whose point of view?

 

National Geographic isn't one for slapping labels on people implying they are somehow defective or ignorant, or for advertising that there are groups in need of your money to help save them from their ignorance.

 

Our church sends missionaries to unreached people groups. They don't just go there to preach and expose them to the Gospel. They also go there with food, and medical care. AND no one has to come to church or accept the Gospel to receive medical care and clean food and water. They also go to build buildings whether those building be orphanages, food center, medical center, homes, or even a church. They genuinely go to help the people.

 

 

 

As to the poster who asked about other countries sending missionaries of a different religion to 'save' us: It wouldn't bother me in the least. I wouldn't even care if a picture was snapped of me in a people group and posted the need of my salvation. Why would it? I don't prescribe to their beliefs, and their beliefs do not affect me in the least bit, and neither would their thoughts that I need to be saved

[joysworld]

These "people groups" may be "unreached" but who is to say they aren't happy with their beliefs?

 

Even if it is the job of Christians to preach to them, what if they don't accept it? Is it still fair to call them unreached?

 

The "unreached people groups" apps (whatever they are called on the internet) seem condescending. They have their own beliefs. Obviously, they are happy with their beliefs or else they would have changed over time.

 

ETA: What if there was the same kind of app (what the heck are they called? Widgets?) for Muslims or another such religion and Christians were listed on there? Obviously, lots of offense would be taken. They could argue that while the Christians know about the Quran, they've never approached it as a holy book or what have you. In that way, they could use the word "unreached"

 

Disclaimer: NOT picking on Muslims, it was just the first religious group to come to mind. Plus, I know the name of your Holy Book without googling it :D

 

 

No, I would not be offended, as I said in pp.

 

Also, if some one whose heard of Christ and been preached to, then they are not unreached. Unreached solely refers to those who have no access to the Gospel, usually because they are in remote places that don't have no way to get in touch with the outside world.

[Embassy]

Even if it is the job of Christians to preach to them, what if they don't accept it? Is it still fair to call them unreached?

 

If they have a choice to accept it or reject it then they are reached. Unreached refers to those who have not heard.

[Hunter's Moon]

No, I would not be offended, as I said in pp.

 

Also, if some one whose heard of Christ and been preached to, then they are not unreached. Unreached solely refers to those who have no access to the Gospel, usually because they are in remote places that don't have no way to get in touch with the outside world.

 

If they have a choice to accept it or reject it then they are reached. Unreached refers to those who have not heard.

 

On their site, they specifically say "From this overall ethnic people group list, a subset of unreached / least-reached peoples has been identified based on the criteria of less than 2% Evangelical and less than 5% Christian Adherent."

 

So the project doesn't just focus on unreached groups. When I think unreached, I think groups living in jungles and huts. I don't think of countries with technology matching or surpassing American society. But, on their list of unreached people groups they listed Afghani, Muslim, Hindu, Japanese, etc. While I'm sure there may be some subcultures within each that have never heard the Gospel, they are not generally unreached people.

[Embassy]

On their site, they specifically say "From this overall ethnic people group list, a subset of unreached / least-reached peoples has been identified based on the criteria of less than 2% Evangelical and less than 5% Christian Adherent."

 

I think it would be impossible to keep data on what percentage of people have heard and accepted or rejected the Gospel.

[katilac]

"unreached" is not the same as "unsaved". "Unreached" is not a commentary on the status of their souls. It is a commentary on the status of the preaching work as done by those evangelical religions that are posting the photo.

 

Unreached is not the same as unsaved, but it's also not the same as 'saved.' Unreached people will not be going to heaven, so yes, I see that as a commentary on the status of their souls.

[joysworld]

On their site, they specifically say "From this overall ethnic people group list, a subset of unreached / least-reached peoples has been identified based on the criteria of less than 2% Evangelical and less than 5% Christian Adherent."

 

So the project doesn't just focus on unreached groups. When I think unreached, I think groups living in jungles and huts. I don't think of countries with technology matching or surpassing American society. But, on their list of unreached people groups they listed Afghani, Muslim, Hindu, Japanese, etc. While I'm sure there may be some subcultures within each that have never heard the Gospel, they are not generally unreached people.

 

 

I haven't looked at the site, but if they are a people group that have modern technology and such, then they aren't an unreached people group. I'm thinking this site is not referring to unreached people groups the same way other Christians think of unreached people groups.

[Hunter's Moon]

I think it would be impossible to keep data on what percentage of people have heard and accepted or rejected the Gospel.

 

But that is what they are stating themselves. They say they keep an accurate and up-to-date count.

 

Whatever they claim to do, I still see it as condescending. I suppose I can see how some wouldn't, but I do.

[joysworld]

Unreached is not the same as unsaved, but it's also not the same as 'saved.' Unreached people will not be going to heaven, so yes, I see that as a commentary on the status of their souls.

 

 

You really think that people who have never had access to the Bible or never even heard about Jesus and therefore never rejected him, do not have access to eternal life?

[secular_mom]

As to the poster who asked about other countries sending missionaries of a different religion to 'save' us: It wouldn't bother me in the least. I wouldn't even care if a picture was snapped of me in a people group and posted the need of my salvation. Why would it? I don't prescribe to their beliefs, and their beliefs do not affect me in the least bit, and neither would their thoughts that I need to be saved

Here's a question for ya. If a very evangelical religious group from a religion that you have never heard of came to your home town and offered you money with no strings attached, would you want to accept it? They are there to spread their religion, to spread their message, and truly do hope to convert people to their religion. You don't 'have' to listen to their sermon, read their book or convert in order to receive the money, the money is free. And they also build a building for homeschoolers to utilize for any class needs- it has a playground, a pool, a science lab, an extensive lending library, a nursery that is staffed by licensed child care providers, it has everything you could possibly need for homeschooling- all there for you to use for free. The building is dedicated to their supreme being, has been blessed by their priests/equivalent, they offer prayers to their supreme being before/during all activities, the class rooms have prayers on plaques displayed on the walls, as well as pictures representing their religious history. Would you want to accept their money? Would you want to use their building and resources? Would you be happy about them coming to your town and doing all of this? Would you be happy for the people who take their money and use their building? Would you be happy for the people who convert to the new religion?

 

Just wondering.

[nmoira]

 

You really think that people who have never had access to the Bible or never even heard about Jesus and therefore never rejected him, do not have access to eternal life?

Yes, but then again, I am atheist.

[Sophia]

Here's a question for ya. If a very evangelical religious group from a religion that you have never heard of came to your home town and offered you money with no strings attached, would you want to accept it? They are there to spread their religion, to spread their message, and truly do hope to convert people to their religion. You don't 'have' to listen to their sermon, read their book or convert in order to receive the money, the money is free. And they also build a building for homeschoolers to utilize for any class needs- it has a playground, a pool, a science lab, an extensive lending library, a nursery that is staffed by licensed child care providers, it has everything you could possibly need for homeschooling- all there for you to use for free. The building is dedicated to their supreme being, has been blessed by their priests/equivalent, they offer prayers to their supreme being before/during all activities, the class rooms have prayers on plaques displayed on the walls, as well as pictures representing their religious history. Would you want to accept their money? Would you want to use their building and resources? Would you be happy about them coming to your town and doing all of this? Would you be happy for the people who take their money and use their building? Would you be happy for the people who convert to the new religion?

 

Just wondering.

That group sounds like the government, the building they've built is the school and education is the god.

No, I want no part of it. Other people are all for it and it does not offend me, it's their choice.

[secular_mom]

That group sounds like the government, the building they've built is the school and education is the Ggd.

No, I want no part of it. Other people are all for it and it does not offend me, it's their choice.

I am absolutely NOT talking about the government here, I'm talking about a hypothetical religious group who actually actively WORSHIP a god that is not the Christian god. Children who attend public schools are not encouraged to convert to a new religion. Would you please answer based on the situation that I have actually written, and not based on your thoughts that it 'sounds like public school'.

[Hunter's Moon]

That group sounds like the government, the building they've built is the school and education is the god.

No, I want no part of it. Other people are all for it and it does not offend me, it's their choice.

 

But with some of these unreached people, they may not see another choice. Their children may be dying of hunger or disease. They may have no way to care for their children or may be dying themselves and want better for their children. They could probably care less if there is a picture of some bearded man on the wall of the orphanage or soup kitchen or hospital, just as long as they/their children get help.

 

In this way, these people are being taken advantage of.

 

Why can't we help them without trying to convert them? Why can't we just care about them because they are part of the human race and not some unreached "heathens" who need to be converted..... and oh yeah, helped?

[joysworld]

Here's a question for ya. If a very evangelical religious group from a religion that you have never heard of came to your home town and offered you money with no strings attached, would you want to accept it? They are there to spread their religion, to spread their message, and truly do hope to convert people to their religion. You don't 'have' to listen to their sermon, read their book or convert in order to receive the money, the money is free. And they also build a building for homeschoolers to utilize for any class needs- it has a playground, a pool, a science lab, an extensive lending library, a nursery that is staffed by licensed child care providers, it has everything you could possibly need for homeschooling- all there for you to use for free. The building is dedicated to their supreme being, has been blessed by their priests/equivalent, they offer prayers to their supreme being before/during all activities, the class rooms have prayers on plaques displayed on the walls, as well as pictures representing their religious history. Would you want to accept their money? Would you want to use their building and resources? Would you be happy about them coming to your town and doing all of this? Would you be happy for the people who take their money and use their building? Would you be happy for the people who convert to the new religion?

 

Just wondering.

 

Since I don't believe their religion is truth, then no, I couldn't be happy for the people who were converted, but I would begrudge them. As to utilizing what was offered, it really depends on where I am in life. If I have nothing, then I would be thrilled to be able to have the facilities, and wouldn't be upset at their building it nor their resources. But if I have no need for them, I wouldn't be offended at it, but I wouldn't be an active, regular user of the facility. If friends invited me to activities, I would go. But that would be the extent.

[joysworld]

But with some of these unreached people, they may not see another choice. Their children may be dying of hunger or disease. They may have no way to care for their children or may be dying themselves and want better for their children. They could probably care less if there is a picture of some bearded man on the wall of the orphanage or soup kitchen or hospital, just as long as they/their children get help.

 

In this way, these people are being taken advantage of.

 

Why can't we help them without trying to convert them? Why can't we just care about them because they are part of the human race and not some unreached "heathens" who need to be converted..... and oh yeah, helped?

 

And where are the groups who go to help these disadvantage people groups with no religious ties? There are some, but not really that many.

 

I do understand how people can have the view that you and others do. But really, the people that I know that care about unreached people groups do not view those people as heathens. Really, they don't. People such as I, believe that a relationship with Yeshau is life's greatest blessing, and just want others to have that blessing in their life. There are extremists in every group. Are there Christians who believe these people are heathens? Sure, but the vast majority don't.

[Embassy]

Why can't we help them without trying to convert them? Why can't we just care about them because they are part of the human race and not some unreached "heathens" who need to be converted..... and oh yeah, helped?

 

I think it works both ways. Some Christians help those in desperate poverty and preach the Gospel while they are assisting. Some go to areas that are unreached to preach and bring help to those in poverty. Most of the unreached areas of the world are in desperate poverty. Some Christians go and help the poor and don't preach at all too. But I think many Christians believe that what they have to share goes beyond food, clothes, safety, health, education, and shelter.

[Hunter's Moon]

And where are the groups who go to help these disadvantage people groups with no religious ties? There are some, but not really that many.

 

I do understand how people can have the view that you and others do. But really, the people that I know that care about unreached people groups do not view those people as heathens. Really, they don't. People such as I, believe that a relationship with Yeshau is life's greatest blessing, and just want others to have that blessing in their life. There are extremists in every group. Are there Christians who believe these people are heathens? Sure, but the vast majority don't.

 

And I understand that.

 

But why must there be a widget and a group of people tracking it?

 

As seen earlier on this thread, some Christians find the project disturbing as well.

 

I see it as a list of people being check marked when there are finally enough believers for them to share the message themselves. That is what I find deeply disturbing. They are people and have made choices such as ones Christians have made. Sure, some believe what they believe because they were brought up that way and don't know another way, but so do many Christians.

 

I see no problem with sharing your beliefs with people, I just think the way this project is going about it is disturbing and to have a widget that shows "hey, look, we'll help these people and show them the way" is even more disturbing.

[Sophia]

Would you want to accept their money? Would you want to use their building and resources? Would you be happy about them coming to your town and doing all of this? Would you be happy for the people who take their money and use their building? Would you be happy for the people who convert to the new religion?

 

Just wondering.

 

Ok, I'm going to try and answer your hypothetical situation even though I stand by my previous response.

I am a Christian now, but was not one until my early 30's.

Even as a non Christian, I did not get offended by their evangelistic efforts.

My bff in college was a Christian (still is) and it did not bother me one iota when she invited me to her Campus Crusade events.

I just said no and skipped the offended act.

I'm sure the reason I was not offended is because I could recognize that despite our differences, they were and are among the nicest people I have ever met.

As you know, Christian missionaries are willing to die for the unreached.

I can't imagine getting offended over that. They would die so my hypothetical self could learn about Jesus?

I really don't know of another religion so sacrificial, but if your hypothetical religion was like Christianity, well, by God's grace I'd be all for it. Wait, I see your hypothetical religion is clearly not Christianity. Well then, by God's grace, he'd protect me from lies and I would reject it.

 

Good grief. I'm all twisted up, lol!

I hate dealing with hypotheticals...

Edited May 2, 2011 by Sophia

[Marylou]

I think it works both ways. Some Christians help those in desperate poverty and preach the Gospel while they are assisting. Some go to areas that are unreached to preach and bring help to those in poverty. Most of the unreached areas of the world are in desperate poverty. Some Christians go and help the poor and don't preach at all too. But I think many Christians believe that what they have to share goes beyond food, clothes, safety, health, education, and shelter.

 

 

 

Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.

 

ETA: from the same Bible that says, "go into the world and preach the Good News".

Edited May 2, 2011 by dmmosher

[katilac]

You really think that people who have never had access to the Bible or never even heard about Jesus and therefore never rejected him, do not have access to eternal life?

 

No, I am not talking about my beliefs, I was referring to the group in question. And I didn't say that they believed unreached people would have no access to eternal life, but that they wouldn't get to heaven. Two different things. Many Christian denominations believe that people who have not heard the gospel will not be punished by going to hell, but neither will they be allowed into the presence of God. The presence of God is generally what defines heaven, although it would have been more precise to word it that way in the first place: unreached people will not be allowed into the presence of God.

 

I don't know anything about this group, but if they think that unreached people will look upon the face of God, I'd be very surprised.

[Rivka]

:grouphug: First of all, not all Jews reject Christ. It may not be spoken of in your circles, but many, many Jews believe that Christ is the Messiah.

 

Not so. Some people who used to be Jews believe that Christ is the Messiah, and many people who, sorry, pretend to be Jews or would like to be Jews believe that Christ is the Messiah.

 

People who believe that Christ is the Messiah are called Christians.

[Hunter's Moon]

Not so. Some people who used to be Jews believe that Christ is the Messiah, and many people who, sorry, pretend to be Jews or would like to be Jews believe that Christ is the Messiah.

 

People who believe that Christ is the Messiah are called Christians.

 

I agree.

 

Jews generally don't consider those who believe Christ is the Messiah as Jewish.

 

They call themselves Messianic Jews, but most Jews see them as Christians who hold onto Jewish customs and practices.

[joysworld]

And I understand that.

 

But why must there be a widget and a group of people tracking it?

 

As seen earlier on this thread, some Christians find the project disturbing as well.

 

I see it as a list of people being check marked when there are finally enough believers for them to share the message themselves. That is what I find deeply disturbing. They are people and have made choices such as ones Christians have made. Sure, some believe what they believe because they were brought up that way and don't know another way, but so do many Christians.

 

I see no problem with sharing your beliefs with people, I just think the way this project is going about it is disturbing and to have a widget that shows "hey, look, we'll help these people and show them the way" is even more disturbing.

 

I looked at their site, and I really don't understand how to read it, so I can't explain what or why they are posting what they are.

 

I know in our church, we show pictures of unreached people groups, and the reason is to move people to compassion. Telling people about the needs of others doesn't really move people, because it's not tangible. But showing people the needs makes it tangible and real, therefore people become involved in helping them.

[alpidarkomama]

Not so. Some people who used to be Jews believe that Christ is the Messiah, and many people who, sorry, pretend to be Jews or would like to be Jews believe that Christ is the Messiah.

 

People who believe that Christ is the Messiah are called Christians.

 

:iagree::iagree::iagree::iagree::iagree::iagree::iagree::iagree:

 

:tongue_smilie:

[joysworld]

Not so. Some people who used to be Jews believe that Christ is the Messiah, and many people who, sorry, pretend to be Jews or would like to be Jews believe that Christ is the Messiah.

 

People who believe that Christ is the Messiah are called Christians.

 

Well, people can be Jews religiously, or racially. Note to split hairs here:)

[joysworld]

No, I am not talking about my beliefs, I was referring to the group in question. And I didn't say that they believed unreached people would have no access to eternal life, but that they wouldn't get to heaven. Two different things. Many Christian denominations believe that people who have not heard the gospel will not be punished by going to hell, but neither will they be allowed into the presence of God. The presence of God is generally what defines heaven, although it would have been more precise to word it that way in the first place: unreached people will not be allowed into the presence of God.

 

I don't know anything about this group, but if they think that unreached people will look upon the face of God, I'd be very surprised.

 

IMO, eternal life and Heaven are one in the same:)

[Lady Florida.]

As you know, Christian missionaries are willing to die for the unreached.

I can't imagine getting offended over that. They would die so my hypothetical self could learn about Jesus?

 

While I'm not offended by it, I don't see the willingness to die for the unreached as being in any way noble or special. It doesn't impress me at all.

 

 

Wait, I see your hypothetical religion is clearly not Christianity. Well then, by God's grace, he'd protect me from lies and I would reject it.

 

 

This is exactly the type of thinking that many non-Christians find to be so offensive.

[Sophia]

 

This is exactly the type of thinking that many non-Christians find to be so offensive.

 

Well it's all a choice, isn't it?

As I said, I was a non Christian until my early 30's and I made the choice to not get offended by my friend who I know was always praying for me.

Now, as a Christian, I make the choice to ignore the anti Christian garbage in the news, in particular some of the garbage that came out of San Francisco this past Easter.

I just put the mouse on a different part of the screen and...moved on ;)