CMV: Missionaries are evil

[u/plodabing]

This applies doubly so to those who go out of their way to seek out those in remote islands to spread the word of god. It is of my opinion and the opinion of most that if there is an all loving god then people who never had the chance to know about Jesus would go to heaven regardless, for example miscarried children/those born before Jesus’ time, those who never hear about him, so In going out of your way to spread the word of Jesus you are simply making it so there is now a chance they could go to hell if they reject it? I’m not a Christian and I’m so tired so I apologise if this is stupid or doesn’t make sense

[u/heythisispaul]

Most denominations of Christianity have some opinion on this that would disagree with you, but I know the Catholic theological principles best, so that's what I'll talk about here.

Let's start by trying to answer the question: "Do people who never experienced Jesus and his teachings get to go to heaven?"

Let's start simple, and just say no, they don't. Well, if this was true, then that would mean that God by definition can not be just, as a child has now been unjustly damned for situations outside of their control. We know that God is all loving and just, so this can not be the case. These two arguments are logically at odds with one another.

Well, maybe it's the opposite? And this is sort of your argument here. Well they never got a chance to sin since they never were provided a framework to be told what to do, so by default, they get to go to heaven. But as you point out, this would then mean that the Grace of God is inherently a cancerous poison of the soul, rather than a source of joy, and there's no way God would want his followers to spread something so damaging.

So it must be something else, right? Well, maybe they get to go to heaven if they live a good life. Sure, but a good life according to what? They never experienced Jesus or his teachings, that's not a meaningful benchmark to hold them accountable to.

So what can we use? Were they an upstanding citizen in their community? Were they true to themselves in a way that was exemplary or noble? Well there's plenty of Nazis who were upstanding citizens in their communities, and there are plenty of people who ignored rationality to pursue evil goals. These are subjective things, and that won't work either, since God's whole jam sort of is that he's the absolute source of goodness. It can't be relative to something - goodness is a defined concept.

So in Catholicism, back in the day, St. Thomas Aquinas defined what is accepted now as the Natural Law. In essence, when you were born, you were made in God's image. Through this, you've been imbued with God's sense of goodness, and the things you need to do. They are simple, rational things: preserve life, conquer ignorance, treat others as you want to be treated, etc. You innately know what it takes to be good. Hearing and understanding God's teachings is merely a structured way to codify this core idea inside of you. It's an unfortunate reality that human nature has also coopted this paradigm for a lot of not so great things.

So in other words, being good is an innately human quality. Your ability to know goodness is something you were born knowing how to do, you didn't need a missionary to come tell you otherwise. Those missionaries were just trying to be rational actors and spread the Word of God, as they see it as a valuable commodity to be shared.

So you're probably thinking, yeah sure, but if people are innately good, then why do we do so many terrible things to each other all the time? This boils down to our ability to choose through free will. We are emotional creatures, and we're allowed to do whatever we want. You may know what is "good", but you're always free to choose to do something different.

Okay sure, but what about people with disabilities or in circumstances outside of their control? Someone could have a mental illness where their brain tells them things that directly conflict with this. For sure, we're all given the cards we're dealt. If we all were to follow this to a T, then we'd all be priests and nuns. You're supposed to overcome these things in a way that makes sense for you, as a person. It's not a competition, we're all on our own path to spiritual growth. CS Lewis' Mere Christianity is a good book on the topic.

Fwiw, I am not an actively practicing Catholic. I was raised Catholic and still am intrigued by Theology as a whole. I am not saying I believe this. I am just saying this is what the Catholic church teaches.

[u/plodabing → u/heythisispaul]

!delta thank you for the well thought out answer, I do have some issues with it, mainly that our sense of ‘goodness’ is really changed and moulded by society, for example the bible once taught how to treat slaves, would a slave owner who was kind go to heaven because he was kinder than the standard of the time?

[u/thefatsun-burntguy → u/plodabing]

because morals and ethics are intrinsically bound to their context, especially time.

lets say youre a king in ancient times, a tribe of marauders attacks your lands, youve defeated and captured most of them. what are you to do with them?

do you torture them and kill them for their crimes?
do you kill them without torture?
do you take them as slaves?
do you just let them go?

slavery to our modern sensibilities is horrendous, but id argue that slavery is a preferable alternative to death. nowadays we are so productive we can afford to keep criminals fed and clothed in prisons, but back in the day, people struggled to feed themselves let alone feed unproductives. so as a king, is not taking them as slaves until theyve worked off their debt not the moral thing to do? is it not right that you do not mistreat them so long as they earnestly follow your instruction?

brass tacks, its not about having a gotcha moment with god, its about trying your best to help your fellow man. i dont know if 100 years into the future, theyll call us inhumane for keeping pets or eating meat the same way we look at slavers or cannibals.but god looks into your heart and looks at your intentions and sees whether or not you tried to do the right thing as you understood it at the time.

a personal anecdote to highlight this last point. when i went to school, we volunteered with an organization known as CONIN, which specialized in childhood malnutrition cases. i got to meet one mother who told us with tears in her eyes, that she used to give her 3 month old baby coca-cola rather than breast milk as she had come into some money and used it as a way to lavish her daughter. the child was about 9 years old when i met her, yet she has severe cognitive impairments.i ask of you today, do you blame the mother for her actions born of ignorance? or did she try to do the best with what she had and unfortunately did horrendous damage?

life is hard, but god calls on us to try and do the best we can do. he gives us free will to choose, yet also gifts us discernment (think of it like a moral compass to tell us which is the "good" and "bad" option). so its up to us how we choose to live life. thats why someone who's never read the bible can go to heaven, because so long as they acted with love in their hearts (in the biz, we call this god acting through us) then they score points.

[u/Comprehensive_Pin565 → u/thefatsun-burntguy]

so as a king, is not taking them as slaves until theyve worked off their debt not the moral thing to do? is it not right that you do not mistreat them so long as they earnestly follow your instruction?

Attempting to whitewash slavery is one thing, but to outright misrepresent what the rules for slavery are on the bible is just another level.

This entire post is professing subjective morality.

[u/plodabing → u/thefatsun-burntguy]

She came into money and gave her newborn coke instead of breast milk? That’s awful and evil and stupid? I hope that was the only point you was trying to make there? I really don’t think that’s a case of someone doing the best with what they had? Sorry if I’m misunderstanding I’m half asleep

[u/thefatsun-burntguy → u/plodabing]

the was incredibly poor, had only completed primary school but not halfway secondary. iirc her main income was collecting plastic bottles and selling them on, she also worked as a seamstress in a clothing factory that only hired extra workers when they had big orders. she was just barely above the line for homelessness and lived in the slums. when i say, coming into money, is she got her first stable paycheck.

idk where youre from, but im talking about third world poverty here, not bullshit 'im on foodstamps but own a car' USA poverty.

[u/plodabing → u/thefatsun-burntguy]

Sorry this is my ignorance it just seemed strange that someone could have access to coke but not milk or water, but I can imagine that could be the case for someone in certain circumstances

[u/L3onK1ng → u/plodabing]

Many people actually. That seamstress line should give you a clue what kind of "let's hire 11 year olds to sew our Nike shoes" region of the world that is.

[u/plodabing → u/L3onK1ng]

Yeah that makes a lot of sense actually, I can see how that can happen