Arguing hard against Christianity = Not wanting to believe?

[OnceConvinced]

In another thread, these comments were made to another member:

The reason I can't understand that you are struggling TO believe is because you argue so strongly against the idea. I mean, you don't just raise questions or throw up a mental block now & then - you really argue hard, opposing any possibility, from what I can see on this forum.

The person this was said to said that they were struggling to believe in God, where is Justifyothers believes he is trying not to believe.

So, if a skeptic argues very hard against religion, seeming not to back down, does that mean they don't want to believe? Does it mean they don't want to believe in God?

[onefaith]

Gotcha. But why do you think they would have used the threat of God's punishment if the new testament is all about how Jesus died to get rid of all sins, and therefore to get rid of God's punishment on whoever is saved? There is no need to be afraid of a threat if there is a way to not be punished.

[Goat]

Gotcha. But why do you think they would have used the threat of God's punishment if the new testament is all about how Jesus died to get rid of all sins, and therefore to get rid of God's punishment on whoever is saved? There is no need to be afraid of a threat if there is a way to not be punished.

It is a way to keep people from wandering away. "If you refuse Jesus, you will burn in hell".

[JoeyKnothead]

Gotcha. But why do you think they would have used the threat of God's punishment if the new testament is all about how Jesus died to get rid of all sins, and therefore to get rid of God's punishment on whoever is saved? There is no need to be afraid of a threat if there is a way to not be punished.

The church risks losing adherents if it punishes too severely for the commission of sins. When these do occur, the church has created the notion that as long as you repent, and thus come back to the church, then all can be forgiven. But if you sin and you don't repent, the church has lost a follower, and this person is a potential threat to the power of the church. Thus, since it can't punish too severely, or it be seen as a monster, the church promises eternal damnation after death. Where there is no way to prove or disprove the church's claim.

[onefaith]

Gotcha. But why do you think they would have used the threat of God's punishment if the new testament is all about how Jesus died to get rid of all sins, and therefore to get rid of God's punishment on whoever is saved? There is no need to be afraid of a threat if there is a way to not be punished.

The church risks losing adherents if it punishes too severely for the commission of sins. When these do occur, the church has created the notion that as long as you repent, and thus come back to the church, then all can be forgiven. But if you sin and you don't repent, the church has lost a follower, and this person is a potential threat to the power of the church. Thus, since it can't punish too severely, or it be seen as a monster, the church promises eternal damnation after death. Where there is no way to prove or disprove the church's claim.

I don't really get why you think the church is some business that is afraid of losing a follower. Are you talking about the church of Christ in its entirety, or each individual Christian church? Neither of those are like businesses. I disagree that the story of Jesus was made up to keep people in the church. People are free to come and go as they want, and they're not forced to make offerings or tithes. The church also can't "punish" people for not giving offerings or not coming. Individual churches might threaten people with God, but the church as a whole doesn't do that. My church doesn't do that, and none of the other churches I have been to do that.

People have come and gone from my church so many times. Nobody considers them a threat because they left. I have thought of leaving my church to go to another church, that doesn't make me a threat. Of course, if I were to tell my small group that I wanted to go to a new church, they would want me to stay, but because I'm friends with them.

Every single Christian pastor in the world would have to think the same thing about some false "eternal death" and threatening people if that were really true about churches telling the story of Jesus just so they stay in the church. They would have had to learn that from whoever they learned of Jesus from, and so on. So when you say that church is a gimmick to make people come and stay, this is assuming that every pastor knows that he is doing that, and they all are doing exactly the same thing. Would every single pastor really do that, or would it make more sense that they actually believe in eternal death v. eternal life, Jesus, God, and so on? If they actually believe it, is it more likely that it is true, instead of a lie that all pastors believe and tell the people of the church? If it were all a lie, it wouldn't be true, but then explain my grandpa's disappearing tumor story and all the lives that have been completely turned around for the better, and explain why missionaries go around the world to feed and doctor children in Jesus's name, and why people have been touched by the love of God.

I hope what I'm saying is making sense - it all seems kind of disorganized to me.

[JoeyKnothead]

I don't really get why you think the church is some business that is afraid of losing a follower. Are you talking about the church of Christ in its entirety, or each individual Christian church? Neither of those are like businesses. I disagree that the story of Jesus was made up to keep people in the church. People are free to come and go as they want, and they're not forced to make offerings or tithes. The church also can't "punish" people for not giving offerings or not coming. Individual churches might threaten people with God, but the church as a whole doesn't do that. My church doesn't do that, and none of the other churches I have been to do that.

Most of my claims about how religion work are based on my understanding of humans, and 'social evolution' for lack of a better phrase. I admit I am unable to cite references, and the reader is left to their own devices as to the accuracy of my position. With that in mind...
Originally religious ideas were used as a way to explain things that mystified humans, and for which scientific study had yet to provide answers. Usually the most important, or most intelligent among these early communities were the ones everyone looked for to provide these answers. One of these early elders comes up with the idea that if folks would sacrifice something to the given god, then that god would be happy, and the community could prosper.
As humans were evolving, it was evolutionarilly good they would recognize cause and effect situations. An example is as they were moving through grasslands, they would see the grass moving, and would have to come to a decision. Is this grass moving because of a predator, or because of the wind? If they thought predator, they would run for cover, and better avoid the predator. But if it was the wind, they would have no need to run, right? But what if they were wrong? If they were wrong, then the predator would be able to capture them. So as human's fight or flight reactions were being developed, they became more apt to see the grass moving as a predator than wind. This is the basis for understanding cause and effect.
So now the early religious elders would have this cause and effect sense, and it's no stretch to think they would apply this knowledge to their God. So if there became drought, then the god must be angry, and so the god must be appeased. So some sacrifice is offered, and lo and behold it eventually begins to rain. Where humans are so adept now at seeing these cause and effects, they think their sacrifice to the god has caused it to rain.
When these things happen, the religious elder is seen as having provided a great solution to the problem. This sacrificing then becomes a basis for religion. Where things are bad, make a sacrifice, and the bad turns good. As society becomes more complex this increases the respect, and thus the power, of the religious elder.
As we move farther along in societal development, the religious elder naturally would need more and more assistants, and would need to provide sustenance for these assistants. The community, placing great respect in this elder would then need to provide more and more goods for these assistants, as they are busy with the work of the emerging religious beaurocracy.
During this time, humans have become more and more sophisticated, more intelligent, and more liable to come to their own conclusions based on what they know. Some then become increasingly at odds with the teachings of the elders, so much so they become hostile, and want nothing to do with the teachings they disagree with. So they refuse to pay their previous 'tithes' to support those they disagree with. As these conflicts become more of a threat to the elders, they 'cause and effect' these dissenters to be at odds with their God (let's capitalize it now to show how important he's become). This is where the demonizing of dissenters comes in.
This introduces a problem though. If these dissenters are forced out, then their tithes are lost, and this elder still has all this religious work that needs funding. So these dissenters are given a way to come back into the flock. Repent of their sins (crimes) and they can find favor with the gods again. But what of those who refuse to? As this society developed, they knew death, they knew they didn't like it, and they asked the early elder about it. The best way to solve this fear is to 'realize' that by following the early proto-god, they would live forever. Remember, cause and effect. If we do what we think this god wants, then it will rain again, so it's no great leap to think if we do what this god wants then we don't die, we live forever. So repent, come back to the flock, and you can live forever. Refuse, and you don't.
This is how the notions of living forever, and eternal reward and punishment come in, and why the church has become a 'business'.
Continued next post...

[JoeyKnothead]

How does Jesus come into the picture?
Some possible ways:
1- As early religious elders gain more respect, and more power they are seen more and more as godlike, up to and including being a god themselves.
2- As early rulers see a need to be seen as more and more powerful, they too are seen as, or make claims to their own godliness.
3- The early dissenters mentioned previously become increasingly frustrated with more and more laws (as an emergent society needs). They are increasingly disgruntled with the idea that their failure to obey each and every law is putting their 'eternal life' at risk. The elders then devise a god on Earth, in human form, that is indeed able to live up to these ever increasing demands of law/religion.
4- Still, these folks find they themselves can't live up to the standard this 'god on Earth' has been able to live up too. So you make this god on Earth such that he has atoned for everyone's sins/crimes, and if you believe that (read continue to support the church) then you too can be excused, even absolved of your sins/crimes. So if you believe, and you come back to the church, where your funds will help provide support, then you get that 'everlasting life' you 'deserve'.

All this could come about with good intent, bad intent, or more likely both. Humans are humans, some will take from religion, and become better people. Some will take from religion and use it to further their own aims, their own agenda.

[realthinker]

Gotcha. But why do you think they would have used the threat of God's punishment if the new testament is all about how Jesus died to get rid of all sins, and therefore to get rid of God's punishment on whoever is saved? There is no need to be afraid of a threat if there is a way to not be punished.

The church risks losing adherents if it punishes too severely for the commission of sins. When these do occur, the church has created the notion that as long as you repent, and thus come back to the church, then all can be forgiven. But if you sin and you don't repent, the church has lost a follower, and this person is a potential threat to the power of the church. Thus, since it can't punish too severely, or it be seen as a monster, the church promises eternal damnation after death. Where there is no way to prove or disprove the church's claim.

I don't really get why you think the church is some business that is afraid of losing a follower. Are you talking about the church of Christ in its entirety, or each individual Christian church? Neither of those are like businesses. I disagree that the story of Jesus was made up to keep people in the church. People are free to come and go as they want, and they're not forced to make offerings or tithes. The church also can't "punish" people for not giving offerings or not coming. Individual churches might threaten people with God, but the church as a whole doesn't do that. My church doesn't do that, and none of the other churches I have been to do that.

Every Christian church threatens its members with eternal damnation if they don't measure up to the Church's expectations. It likewise promises eternal "salvation" for those who do, and it uses the uncertainty of that measuring to compel people's association to that church. Those two ideas are arbitrary, unconfirmable consequences of religious belief. It's one of the devices that religion uses.

People have come and gone from my church so many times. Nobody considers them a threat because they left. I have thought of leaving my church to go to another church, that doesn't make me a threat. Of course, if I were to tell my small group that I wanted to go to a new church, they would want me to stay, but because I'm friends with them.

How long would that friendship last after you left the church? Do you have other reasons to associate with those people? They are likely friends with you because you, as part of that congregation, are people like them. They know you believe like them. They trust that you think like them. They trust that you share good will with them. When you are no longer part of that congregation you cease to be like them. They can't trust that you think like them any longer. They know there is a difference. So you are no longer part of their community. At least not in the same close fashion. You will not share the same degree of good will.

Very likely, religion is the foundation of your community with those people. That's why religion has been a big factor in social evolution. It's a reason, based on arbitrary ideas, for people to associate that has served to hold people together and promote their cooperation. It was far more effective in earlier times when social units were smaller and one religion dominated a locality, but it's still a force today.

Every single Christian pastor in the world would have to think the same thing about some false "eternal death" and threatening people if that were really true about churches telling the story of Jesus just so they stay in the church. They would have had to learn that from whoever they learned of Jesus from, and so on. So when you say that church is a gimmick to make people come and stay, this is assuming that every pastor knows that he is doing that, and they all are doing exactly the same thing. Would every single pastor really do that, or would it make more sense that they actually believe in eternal death v. eternal life, Jesus, God, and so on?

Consider all of the common knowledge that was once widely held that is now laughed at as silly or superstition. Were each of those a conspiracy? Was there a conspiracy to make us believe that Earth is flat? Only by the church, probably. Most often there was no real consequence to the belief, or real consequence to the belief was other than that suggested by the facts of the statement of belief. Believing the earth was flat has no consequence for people who never travel far or have no need to understand the motion of heavenly bodies. And it was supported by the church.

Religion happens to have a number of suggested consequences that serve to promote real consequences that have helped build our communities. Those suggested, unconfirmable consequences don't need to be real if their real consequences -- stronger community built on trust and cooperation -- are helping people survive.

If they actually believe it, is it more likely that it is true, instead of a lie that all pastors believe and tell the people of the church? If it were all a lie, it wouldn't be true, but then explain my grandpa's disappearing tumor story and all the lives that have been completely turned around for the better, and explain why missionaries go around the world to feed and doctor children in Jesus's name, and why people have been touched by the love of God.

I hope what I'm saying is making sense - it all seems kind of disorganized to me.

I can't explain a disappearing tumor, but then for most of human history we couldn't explain why there was a tumor there in the first place. Lack of understanding doesn't support any conclusion.

Regarding the lives turned around, religion likely brought those people support of their community. Good will from those around them likely made them want to change their situation. If you're going to use religion to explain the turnaround for some people, what is your explanation for people who turn around their lives without religion?

Missionaries are going around the world because the authorities of their community, the religious leaders, are telling them to do so. Those doing it believe that doing what their leaders tell them will have some positive consequence for themselves and those of their community. That's not hard to understand at all. The same thing explains terrorism, Green Peace, and any number of other organizations. It explains multi-level marketing. It explains franchises. It's common human behavior. Religion has just been doing it longer and has more arbitrary consequences that compel people to keep it up. With sales, if you don't get anything from it you'll do something else. With conservation, if you don't see real, measurable improvements people give up. With religion and missionary activity, or terrorism for that matter, your success or failure is generally assessed after death.

[Vanguard]

Gotcha. But why do you think they would have used the threat of God's punishment if the new testament is all about how Jesus died to get rid of all sins, and therefore to get rid of God's punishment on whoever is saved? There is no need to be afraid of a threat if there is a way to not be punished.

The church risks losing adherents if it punishes too severely for the commission of sins. When these do occur, the church has created the notion that as long as you repent, and thus come back to the church, then all can be forgiven. But if you sin and you don't repent, the church has lost a follower, and this person is a potential threat to the power of the church. Thus, since it can't punish too severely, or it be seen as a monster, the church promises eternal damnation after death. Where there is no way to prove or disprove the church's claim.

I don't really get why you think the church is some business that is afraid of losing a follower. Are you talking about the church of Christ in its entirety, or each individual Christian church? Neither of those are like businesses. I disagree that the story of Jesus was made up to keep people in the church. People are free to come and go as they want, and they're not forced to make offerings or tithes. The church also can't "punish" people for not giving offerings or not coming. Individual churches might threaten people with God, but the church as a whole doesn't do that. My church doesn't do that, and none of the other churches I have been to do that.

Every Christian church threatens its members with eternal damnation if they don't measure up to the Church's expectations. It likewise promises eternal "salvation" for those who do, and it uses the uncertainty of that measuring to compel people's association to that church. Those two ideas are arbitrary, unconfirmable consequences of religious belief. It's one of the devices that religion uses.

People have come and gone from my church so many times. Nobody considers them a threat because they left. I have thought of leaving my church to go to another church, that doesn't make me a threat. Of course, if I were to tell my small group that I wanted to go to a new church, they would want me to stay, but because I'm friends with them.

How long would that friendship last after you left the church? Do you have other reasons to associate with those people? They are likely friends with you because you, as part of that congregation, are people like them. They know you believe like them. They trust that you think like them. They trust that you share good will with them. When you are no longer part of that congregation you cease to be like them. They can't trust that you think like them any longer. They know there is a difference. So you are no longer part of their community. At least not in the same close fashion. You will not share the same degree of good will.

Very likely, religion is the foundation of your community with those people. That's why religion has been a big factor in social evolution. It's a reason, based on arbitrary ideas, for people to associate that has served to hold people together and promote their cooperation. It was far more effective in earlier times when social units were smaller and one religion dominated a locality, but it's still a force today.

Every single Christian pastor in the world would have to think the same thing about some false "eternal death" and threatening people if that were really true about churches telling the story of Jesus just so they stay in the church. They would have had to learn that from whoever they learned of Jesus from, and so on. So when you say that church is a gimmick to make people come and stay, this is assuming that every pastor knows that he is doing that, and they all are doing exactly the same thing. Would every single pastor really do that, or would it make more sense that they actually believe in eternal death v. eternal life, Jesus, God, and so on?

Consider all of the common knowledge that was once widely held that is now laughed at as silly or superstition. Were each of those a conspiracy? Was there a conspiracy to make us believe that Earth is flat? Only by the church, probably. Most often there was no real consequence to the belief, or real consequence to the belief was other than that suggested by the facts of the statement of belief. Believing the earth was flat has no consequence for people who never travel far or have no need to understand the motion of heavenly bodies. And it was supported by the church.

Religion happens to have a number of suggested consequences that serve to promote real consequences that have helped build our communities. Those suggested, unconfirmable consequences don't need to be real if their real consequences -- stronger community built on trust and cooperation -- are helping people survive.

If they actually believe it, is it more likely that it is true, instead of a lie that all pastors believe and tell the people of the church? If it were all a lie, it wouldn't be true, but then explain my grandpa's disappearing tumor story and all the lives that have been completely turned around for the better, and explain why missionaries go around the world to feed and doctor children in Jesus's name, and why people have been touched by the love of God.

I hope what I'm saying is making sense - it all seems kind of disorganized to me.

I can't explain a disappearing tumor, but then for most of human history we couldn't explain why there was a tumor there in the first place. Lack of understanding doesn't support any conclusion.

Regarding the lives turned around, religion likely brought those people support of their community. Good will from those around them likely made them want to change their situation. If you're going to use religion to explain the turnaround for some people, what is your explanation for people who turn around their lives without religion?

Missionaries are going around the world because the authorities of their community, the religious leaders, are telling them to do so. Those doing it believe that doing what their leaders tell them will have some positive consequence for themselves and those of their community. That's not hard to understand at all. The same thing explains terrorism, Green Peace, and any number of other organizations. It explains multi-level marketing. It explains franchises. It's common human behavior. Religion has just been doing it longer and has more arbitrary consequences that compel people to keep it up. With sales, if you don't get anything from it you'll do something else. With conservation, if you don't see real, measurable improvements people give up. With religion and missionary activity, or terrorism for that matter, your success or failure is generally assessed after death.

I have to agree with realthinker for the most part. Though I believe his perceptions of organized religion are a bit monochromatic for my taste, he is correct contending that many people within religious communities behave as they do so as not to avoid the consequences of "apostate" behavior. Show me a man who can follow his conscience in and out of whatever community he desires and I'll show you a man the world needs more of. realthinker should consider the possibility however that there are many Christian "organized religionists" who stay because they sincerely believe it is the best course of action regardless of a reward or not in the afterlife.

I flatter myself into thinking I am somewhere on that continuum.

[onefaith]

Every Christian church threatens its members with eternal damnation if they don't measure up to the Church's expectations. It likewise promises eternal "salvation" for those who do, and it uses the uncertainty of that measuring to compel people's association to that church. Those two ideas are arbitrary, unconfirmable consequences of religious belief. It's one of the devices that religion uses.

There's no "church expectation". The church knows that Christians sin. Any church that threatens the church members because they sin is dumb. Churches don't use Jesus to make people stay. People choose if they stay or not, the church doesn't. Churches tell of Jesus because we believe/know its true. It's not a scam for money.

How long would that friendship last after you left the church? Do you have other reasons to associate with those people? They are likely friends with you because you, as part of that congregation, are people like them. They know you believe like them. They trust that you think like them. They trust that you share good will with them. When you are no longer part of that congregation you cease to be like them. They can't trust that you think like them any longer. They know there is a difference. So you are no longer part of their community. At least not in the same close fashion. You will not share the same degree of good will.

Very likely, religion is the foundation of your community with those people. That's why religion has been a big factor in social evolution. It's a reason, based on arbitrary ideas, for people to associate that has served to hold people together and promote their cooperation. It was far more effective in earlier times when social units were smaller and one religion dominated a locality, but it's still a force today.

How can you say that when you don't know me or my relationship with my friends? All the good friendships that I have with friends who go to my church I would still have if I left the church. They aren't friends with me because of what I believe. We're friends because we have stuff in common (I'm not talking about our religion). I met these friends at school and I got to know them more at church. Me leaving the church wouldn't make our friendship fall apart.

I can't explain a disappearing tumor, but then for most of human history we couldn't explain why there was a tumor there in the first place. Lack of understanding doesn't support any conclusion.

My grandpa and his translator were in some country with a man who had a brain tumor. The doctor who diagnosed the brain tumor was absolutely sure that it was there - there was no doubt about it whatsoever. My grandpa and his translator were praying for this man right before he was going to go back to the doctor either to see how he was doing or for one last checkup before he died (I don't remember exactly what) but they were laying hands on him and praying for him. While my grandpa was praying for this man to be healed he, the translator, and the man with the tumor all got the same "picture" in their head of a walnut. It started out the normal size and then it started shrinking and shrinking until it just disappeared. After they were done praying the man went to see the doctor. The doctor scanned his brain or did whatever they do and the tumor was gone. There was no trace of it, no sign that it was ever there. Apparently the doctor had forgotten that he was the one who diagnosed the tumor but afterwards he was like "whoever said there was a tumor is an idiot". My grandpa told the doctor that it had been him.

There's the tumor story, make what you want out of it, but I thought you should know it before assumptions were made.

Missionaries are going around the world because the authorities of their community, the religious leaders, are telling them to do so. Those doing it believe that doing what their leaders tell them will have some positive consequence for themselves and those of their community. That's not hard to understand at all. The same thing explains terrorism, Green Peace, and any number of other organizations. It explains multi-level marketing. It explains franchises. It's common human behavior. Religion has just been doing it longer and has more arbitrary consequences that compel people to keep it up. With sales, if you don't get anything from it you'll do something else. With conservation, if you don't see real, measurable improvements people give up. With religion and missionary activity, or terrorism for that matter, your success or failure is generally assessed after death.

Im a missionary. Or at least, I have done missionary work. Many of my friends have done missionary work. Don't assume we do that because we are told to. Personally, I have gone on mission trips because I WANTED to. If I felt obligated to, I wouldn't have done it. I can almost guaruntee you the same goes for everyone else I have served with. We all want to serve God. My grandpa is/was a missionary. He did what I want to do in the future - go to different countries to serve as a doctor/nurse. Would he do that if he didn't want to? He did that for many years of his life. I don't see anybody doing that for a big chunk of their life if they were just obligated to.

[realthinker]

Every Christian church threatens its members with eternal damnation if they don't measure up to the Church's expectations. It likewise promises eternal "salvation" for those who do, and it uses the uncertainty of that measuring to compel people's association to that church. Those two ideas are arbitrary, unconfirmable consequences of religious belief. It's one of the devices that religion uses.

There's no "church expectation".

The expectation is that church members will act in a fashion that the church says is right. Don't try to play that down. It's there. You will not be a welcome member of a church if you do not act like they want you to. Believing is not enough. They may not frog march you out, but you won't be part of the gang.

The church knows that Christians sin. Any church that threatens the church members because they sin is dumb. Churches don't use Jesus to make people stay. People choose if they stay or not, the church doesn't. Churches tell of Jesus because we believe/know its true. It's not a scam for money.

I'm not suggesting that church leaders get in your face and make verbal threats. The threats are in the beliefs themselves and in the preaching, the routine social coercion that goes on. Good church members are supposed to feel the threat of eternal damnation at all times. If you don't you're risking straying from the path of righteousness, right? I'm not saying they're bad or mean. I'm talking about the substance of what churches teach and how they do it.

How long would that friendship last after you left the church? Do you have other reasons to associate with those people? They are likely friends with you because you, as part of that congregation, are people like them. They know you believe like them. They trust that you think like them. They trust that you share good will with them. When you are no longer part of that congregation you cease to be like them. They can't trust that you think like them any longer. They know there is a difference. So you are no longer part of their community. At least not in the same close fashion. You will not share the same degree of good will.

Very likely, religion is the foundation of your community with those people. That's why religion has been a big factor in social evolution. It's a reason, based on arbitrary ideas, for people to associate that has served to hold people together and promote their cooperation. It was far more effective in earlier times when social units were smaller and one religion dominated a locality, but it's still a force today.

How can you say that when you don't know me or my relationship with my friends? All the good friendships that I have with friends who go to my church I would still have if I left the church. They aren't friends with me because of what I believe. We're friends because we have stuff in common (I'm not talking about our religion). I met these friends at school and I got to know them more at church. Me leaving the church wouldn't make our friendship fall apart.

I can say that because you're human and so are they. Best friends for all their lives rarely carry on the same way when each goes to a different college. College buddies don't talk for years after they go their ways after graduation. Just because it's church association doesn't change human tendencies.

I asked very clearly, "Do you have any other association with those people?" It sounds as though you do. But with others who've left your church, how many are still involved with those of the congregation? I'm sure some of them were good friends. How much of that is left?

I can't explain a disappearing tumor, but then for most of human history we couldn't explain why there was a tumor there in the first place. Lack of understanding doesn't support any conclusion.

My grandpa and his translator were in some country with a man who had a brain tumor. The doctor who diagnosed the brain tumor was absolutely sure that it was there - there was no doubt about it whatsoever. My grandpa and his translator were praying for this man right before he was going to go back to the doctor either to see how he was doing or for one last checkup before he died (I don't remember exactly what) but they were laying hands on him and praying for him. While my grandpa was praying for this man to be healed he, the translator, and the man with the tumor all got the same "picture" in their head of a walnut. It started out the normal size and then it started shrinking and shrinking until it just disappeared. After they were done praying the man went to see the doctor. The doctor scanned his brain or did whatever they do and the tumor was gone. There was no trace of it, no sign that it was ever there. Apparently the doctor had forgotten that he was the one who diagnosed the tumor but afterwards he was like "whoever said there was a tumor is an idiot". My grandpa told the doctor that it had been him.

There's the tumor story, make what you want out of it, but I thought you should know it before assumptions were made.

Missionaries are going around the world because the authorities of their community, the religious leaders, are telling them to do so. Those doing it believe that doing what their leaders tell them will have some positive consequence for themselves and those of their community. That's not hard to understand at all. The same thing explains terrorism, Green Peace, and any number of other organizations. It explains multi-level marketing. It explains franchises. It's common human behavior. Religion has just been doing it longer and has more arbitrary consequences that compel people to keep it up. With sales, if you don't get anything from it you'll do something else. With conservation, if you don't see real, measurable improvements people give up. With religion and missionary activity, or terrorism for that matter, your success or failure is generally assessed after death.

Im a missionary. Or at least, I have done missionary work. Many of my friends have done missionary work. Don't assume we do that because we are told to. Personally, I have gone on mission trips because I WANTED to. If I felt obligated to, I wouldn't have done it. I can almost guaruntee you the same goes for everyone else I have served with. We all want to serve God. My grandpa is/was a missionary. He did what I want to do in the future - go to different countries to serve as a doctor/nurse. Would he do that if he didn't want to? He did that for many years of his life. I don't see anybody doing that for a big chunk of their life if they were just obligated to.

I'm certain that if your church and the people there did not give you the idea that missionary work is something they approve of and didn't give status to those who do it, it would never cross your mind. I'm not saying they explicitly ask or demand it of you. It's again part of the social coercion that goes with religion. Religion gets away with peer pressure and cliquish behavior that would never be acceptable in any other association.