Recently people in my area were getting Bibles left at their front door, clearly trying to convince them to convert to Christianity or Jehovah's Witnesses.

Many were shocked about the move, having a religious book thrust upon them as individuals. For me though, it could be something some people need to refresh their lives, currently full of other books, newspapers and the media - much of it full of propaganda.

Is it though the right thing to be doing though? I've never had a Bible left at my house and I don't know if I'd like it. Should people be left alone when it comes to religion and people putting Bibles on their properties?

A sign of the times.

There is also a resurgence of interest in people from all walks of life and creeds, interested in learning Hebrew.

Spreading the “word” is fundamental to religionists.

But of course, that doesn’t answer the question asked here, of the philosophy behind spreading the word.

So to help with that answer, why not compare the act of Bible giving, to that of the giving of a specials catalogue from the local supermarket landing in your letter box uninvited.

Is it right to leave a Bible at your front door?

Well whoever is doing it obviously thinks it is.

It just seems like an expensive over-zealousness
which most probably will end up being turfed
anyway.

I would not take this
personally or look for any ulterior motives
behind this gesture. We get so many leaflets
and flyers in our letter-boxes advertising all
sorts of things. This gesture for most people
would probably just end up in the bin with the
other leaflets.

Not very well thought out.

Oh, the horror of getting something for nothing!

The title of this suggests it's about you leaving a Bible at your own door. But no: it's some evil people, "Christians or Jehovah's Witnesses", (apparently Jehovah's Witnesses are not Christians in some people's eyes) trying to "convert people".

Many people were "shocked". How many? Did you interview everyone who got a free Bible?

Shocked? It's a bloody book, not a bomb or a dog turd. If they don't want it, they can bin it as they do junk mail.

It's neither right or wrong. It's a non-event; and much better than having your ears bashed by an irritating evangelist.

We're forced to forfeit funding to fund worthless outfits such as Arts & Greens & other hangers-on.
So, finding a 1000 page paperback that is NOT paid for by tax Dollars is the least of our problems.

For those that it's a problem, a 'NO JUNK MAIL' sign is available from BUNNINGS, and also you probably have a 'Yellow Bin' from the local council. For years the The Gideons were freely , and with the agreement of the owners I would say, placing Bibles in hotel rooms, their aim was to place a Bible in every hotel room in world. As a traveller of many years, once it was common to find a Bible in your room, today hardly ever. Stayed in 5 or 6 hotel in NZ recently, only found one with a Bible.

My wife has a Bible in her Maori language, she paid about $35 for it, her choice. I was surprised to lean, according to the Mormons, the 'Book of Mormon' supersedes the Christian Bible. I have both books in my possession, for reference. Although Maori people were active Mormons from early times, the first Mormons came to NZ in 1867, it was not until 1976 that Maori were allowed into what had been a 'Whites Only' Temple, there were Maori Mormon temples available for the "not so white" fellas. To this day JW's forbid Maori members from exercising their traditional burial customs (tangi) at a Marae, yet voluntary Christian "church", mostly conducted by Christian ministers, is an integral of a tangi.

It is wrong to place ANYTHING in someone else's property, in fact even entering it without permission is wrong.

In this particular case also, many Bibles, with God's name in them, will be placed in garbage bins and many home-owners will be forced to pick these Bibles and throw them in there - including those who respect the Bible but already have too many Bibles at home or who read the Bible in different languages or prefer a different translation.

And to think that God wanted such behaviour...

All hotel rooms usually have Bibles in them. And the
choice is up to you if you want to read them or not.
The choice is yours. After all it is only a book. If
you seriously have a problem with the book - perhaps
the problem is you - not the book?

Foxy,
Ditto but not perhaps-definitely !

the 'Book of Mormon' supersedes the Christian Bible.
Paul1405,
The publishing date on the in side cover should tell you. When did the Maoris actually start to teach & read printed words ?

If entering someone else's property is wrong then why do most homes have doorbells?

*…If entering someone else's property is wrong then why do most homes have doorbells?…*

Not illegal to enter a private property to access front door, however, if property owner instructs you to leave and you don’t, then you are trespassing.

If you progress from an unanswered front door towards the rear door, that is trespassing, if the point is pushed.

Dear Dan,

The question is not whether it is legal or otherwise to enter a private property to access the front door, but rather whether it is morally right or wrong. Unless one sincerely believes that they have been invited, explicitly or implicitly, that is wrong to thus disturb the peace of the people inside.

Yuyutsu

Ok, interesting. But what if you open the bedside draw in your room at a hotel or motel, and observe a Gideons Bible, what is your response?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gideons_International

Indy,

I realise English is not your fore, "supersedes" means 'takes the place of', it doesn't mean 'predates'. Mormons give significance to the Christian Bible, but believe the 'Book of Mormon' is a more important work, for true salvation is contained within, first published by Joseph Smith in 1830, reprinted many times. The most commonly used Bible,the 'King James Bible', dates from 1611, as is evident by the Elizabethan language used. The 'New King James Bible' is far more recent, first published in 1982 both are based on earlier Greek text.

As for Maori language, the (Maori) language (Te Reo) the written version was begun in 1814, coinciding with the establishment of Samuel Marsden's Christian Mission in the Bay of Islands. By 1820 the written language was advancing through the work of Professor Samuel Lee of Cambridge University worked with the chief Hongi Hika and his junior relative Waikato to systematise the written language. The 1840 Treaty of Waitangi was produced in both English and Te Reo, the Maori translation was undertaken by the Missionaries Henry and Edward Williams, although both were fluent speakers of Te Reo, due to the rushed job of the Treaty there were significant differences between the two versions.

When did the Maoris actually start to teach & read printed words ? The above answers that question. Surprisingly many Maori could read and write both English and Te Reo, whilst most Europeans and others were illiterate in their own language. Of the 500 who signed the Treaty on behalf of Maori, the majority could read one or both versions. William Hobson the first British Governor failed to have sufficient copies of the Treaty produced in any language, and therefore many Chiefs failed to sign.

Hongi Hika (1772- 1826) an ancestor of my wife, was well educated, travelling to England and meeting with King George IV. Samuel Marsden having first met Hongi in Sydney in 1814 describe him as "a very fine character ... uncommonly mild in his manners and very polite".

Indy who was the first in your family who could read and write?

Hi Foxy,

From my experience Bibles are now a rarity in hotel rooms. Without doing an exhaustive investigation as Issy has done to determine that "most homes have doorbells" I can't say conclusively.

A little story, you will appreciate the following.

A few years back in Sydney, my niece, a lovely girl, then a practising Mormon, she had done a "mission" to Guam some years before, she insisted I come along to the Temple this particular Sunday, to get a better understanding of the Moron faith, besides there would be a visiting American Bishop there on his Australian tour, a white guy about 50'ish, the wife and I went along. Never one to shy away from a little controversy I purposely wore my Maori taonga (a bone carving tiki about 100mm long worn around the neck), the niece kept saying; "Uncle put your taonga inside your shirt" I refused, I didn't see why, its my taonga. After the service and meeting the Bishop, he would have assumed I was just one of the congregation. When coming to me the Bishop with a drewly mid western American accent, stops, take my bone carving in his hand for a closer look, saying; "What is this?", I reply; "That is my Maori taonga", from him in an indigent voice; "Its purpose!" from me; "to ward off evil spirits....obviously its not working" with that he moved on. Afterwards my niece said; "Uncle how could you say that to the Bishop."...... "Easy, he's just as intolerant as so many others."

Dear Paul,

Thanks for the story. I remember the times when the
Lithuanians would only invite Liberal politicians to
their Club here in Melbourne for special events -
like celebrating Lithuania's Independence Day,
And so many of the
politicians were ill-prepared for the occasions -
not having done their homework as to what the event
was for which they had been invited. One Independence
Day - Jeff Kennett made a speech - no on Lithuania's
Independence - but on gun-control. Not sure why.

Anyway, today - the Lithuanians have finally learned
over the years - and
now invite politicians from several parties. Not just the one
that took us for granted for so long - and kept saying that
Lithuanians "assimilate" better than anyone else in this
country. Not realizing that it wasn't a compliment.

"supersedes"
Paul145,
The remark re the publishing date was meant as a light-hearted thing.

Many Indigenous command better English than many Australian & indeed British educated !
Put people in undeserved privileged circumstances & they'll inevitably become fluent in jargon in no time at all !
We saw & still see that happening in all arty-farty useless outfits !
You prove yourself to be one of them by opportunistically jumping at the slightest mistakes but totally failing to answer when serious questions are put to you. This just proves that all the education is pointless when you lack integrity. Hasn't anyone ever told you that idealism & hypocrisy don't automatically equate to integrity ?

Indy,

Whenever you ask a racially motivated question like; "When did the Maoris (sic) actually start to teach & read printed words ?" I am wary with my answer,as often than not you are looking for an opportunity to unloaded on the subject of race with some disparaging remarks.

Again who was the first in your family who could read and write?

The presence of a front doorbell is implicit invitation to enter the property.

Issy Salutations

"The presence of a front doorbell is implicit invitation to enter the property." By a side open window, when no one is home, and leave the same way with the colour telly.

Issy has just given me his morning count for doorbells in Australia

Doorbells 13,765,982
Knockers 7,218,567
No Front Door 327,476
Those living in a tent 25 435
Those living up a tree 3 and a half

Issy is presently somewhere west of the Black Stump checking the doorbell count on foot. He expects to report back sometime before the rainy season sets in.

Issy, when you worked as a full time 'Avon Lady' and part time 'Encyclopedia Seller' how many doorbells could you ring in a day? just asking. I believe the world record his held by a "Fuller Brush" salesman, Mr Fred Ziffle of Warmecock Nebraska at 27,568 doorbells rang in a single day. A little bird tells me you are up for the challenge!

Dear Dan,

«Ok, interesting. But what if you open the bedside draw in your room at a hotel or motel, and observe a Gideons Bible, what is your response?»

Not much really, it's a petty thing which I just tend to ignore.
It's been many years since I've been in a hotel/motel and as far as I remember, I never even bothered to open the bedside drawer.

When I want to look at the Bible, I read the original anyway, not a translation.

Unlike at home, for most people, finding a Bible in a hotel room is no big deal because they need not do anything about it. One exception is observant orthodox Jews who could not stay in the same room with a New-Testament, being considered an article of idol-worship which must be destroyed at all costs, so unless there is a fireplace in the room, this would likely result in a blocked toilet.

At home, I would find it awkward to either throw a Bible in the bin or to use it as a firewood starter, but suppose there are children in the house, then neither this nor hoarding would provide them with a good example.

you are looking for an opportunity to unloaded on the subject of race with some disparaging remarks.
Paul1405,
That's your domain, don't try to avert the focus on the subject, besides by far the more racist among us here is you.
As to who was the first in my family to read & write well, the school that I & all my forebears from our town attended has the date 1500 chiseled into the stone door step !

Remember how 'Telstra' would leave you the White and Yellow pages, in Sydney it was 2 big volumes of each. I would no soon finish reading last years White pages and this years would arrive. They made great door stoppers! Just the other day I had a delivery of a very small Yellow pages, oh how times have changed.

Yuyutsu

Ok. So it’s not illegal to arrive at a front door of a residence,and probably not illegal to leave a gift of a Bible either…But…judging by the response of the author of this thread, and yourself of course, it is seen as an intrusion and an affront to your personal religious views.

Also I would imagine, an Islamist would not be happy with the gift of a Bible either. But would a Buddhist or a Hindu be insulted by the act of a Bible as a gift, left at the front door?

Diver Dan,
An Islamist would not be insulted as Christians are considered as “people of the book”
The Bible, whilst having nowhere the significance of the Qur’an, is still considered to be a Holy Book so no insult would be perceived, rather the opposite.

Dear Dan,

A saint of any religion would not be insulted by anything. Period.

Being less than a saint, people can be insulted by this and that.
A Buddhist or a Hindu who is less than a saint may not be insulted by the religious content of that gift, but instead be annoyed by the fact that someone took the liberty to invade their property, made assumptions about themselves, doubted their faith and forced them to somehow dispense of an object they did not choose to have. Not only do they have to, say, put on shoes to get to the bin (which might also perhaps be already full), but also they need to face the dilemma of how to ethically dispense of a book that is considered holy by others.

An orthodox Jew could be even more disturbed by the need to touch such a book: on the one hand it contains the sacred (for them) Old-Testament (which they already have at home in the original Hebrew, likely many copies) while on the other hand it also contains the filthy and forbidden (for them) New-Testament which they are commanded to destroy. How could they dispense of the Old-Testament respectfully without touching the New-Testament? They might use a long pole or two to try and pick the book and dump it in their garbage bin, but what about the good, Old-Testament part? (FYI: the best solution to this dilemma, complying with Jewish law, would be to employ/pay a non-Jewish person to take the book away, but until they come the Jewish family must somehow find a way to get around their doorstep without touching the object, but while still kissing the Mezuzah on the side of their door - not so easy and nice, especially when you also have children, who could also misunderstand and get scared by that forbidden object. In extreme cases they could even find themselves locked inside or need to enter/exit through the windows)... You see how such insensitivity could unknowingly cause someone much pain!

We used to see pairs of Mormons doing their missionary work and Adventists walking the streets distributing Watchtower magazines but not so much lately.

However there are a few places I know that are constantly staked out by a few women armed with brochures in the hope of gaining converts.
Somebody should tell them that women are forbidden from doing such things in the Bible.

I remember years ago when pairs of women would go door-to-door offering to "bless your money" and Krishna people also handed out books (or flowers if you declined making a donation in return for the book) but they too have gone.

Nowadays proseltizing seems to come mostly via electronic media.

It's interesting that England and Wales are no longer majority Christian countries. King Charles had better lift his game in that department.

Hi rache,

The JW's and the Mormons are still about, there is a JW church/temple/meeting house in our area, so they do door knocks, send letters and stand in the street. My sister-in -law aged 59 in NZ when she was approaching death with cancer, she was considering joining as a baptised member of the Jehovah's Witnesses, she believed they gave her "comfort" She was concerned with the reaction of her family with such a move, JW's don't allow Maori members to be buried in the traditional way, they kick up a fuss about it with the family. I just advised her to do what her heart told her to do. Unfortunately she died before she made that move, and was buried in the Maori way with her body taken to the wharenui at the marae, no JW's in sight.

As with any useless documents such as the telephone directory, Labor and gangrene pamphlets, they all go straight to recycling.

SM,

Unfortunately you can't recycle LIBERAL PARTY trash, I'm told they are GARBAGE and have to go into the red bin for incineration.

Albo will inevitably fall victim to the same corrupt & incompetent bureaudroids that fell all of his predecessors.
Imagine trying to run the show with bureaudroids of Paul1405's character & mentality !.

VI,

I thought of using gangrene pamphlets as toilet paper, but with several skid marks on them already it wouldn't be hygienic.

Yuyutsu

ok again but:

Would you not consider then, the intentions of the giver of the Bible to be pure?

Why would the donor not have an expectation of a right to perform the charity, as ipposed to the residents objection to overrule the donor’s legal right to enter the property for legal purposes?

There is a historical example to draw on.
Once in this Country it was customary for peddlers of goods and services to visit door to door, (as it was termed), to sell their goods and services.

As a counter to this practice, signs were often seen attached to front gates, prohibiting the entry of such peddles of services entry.
Such people, having been duly warned by the sign, were considered then to be trespassing if the boundary was crossed.

But then came the current norm of building caveats in many development areas, prohibiting the building of front fences, which would normally define a boundary, making any signage less effective.

It seems then, the argument reduces to a philosophical question of solving the dilemma of equal rights.
One argument in the mix would be ; what of the rights of those who wish to benefit from such charity, and have no objection towards it?

The Bible is a record of how God dealt with people and how people dealt with each other. The Hebrew text identifies the culture of Israel. The New Testament deals with the way and the truth and the light as revealed by Jesus Christ. Understanding and living that truth changes character and develops deeper love for others. Reading it encourages purity of life.

As for the book of Mormon it is a fiction and the original included texts lifter out of the Old Testament and Shakespeare.

Dear Dan,

But I was not speaking of "legal" - states and their laws are created by Godless people and count for nothing, they have nothing to do with morality and all that is behind them is brute force.

A house, with a front fence where possible, is one way religious people can mitigate the terror of the secular state and general society, a fortress within which individuals, families and communities can live according to their religious values, not disturbing anybody else and minimising the disturbances from outside. Signs too can be helpful to a certain degree.

Overpopulation makes it very difficult for people to protect their spiritual integrity by isolating themselves in their own spaces - that is the root of the problem we face today.

My point was simple: people can be hurt even when the perpetrators have good and charitable intentions. The perpetrator's ignorant lack of consideration for others and failing to place themselves "in others' shoes", neither pleases God, nor honours the Bible. A measure of sensitivity can go a long way - sensitivity rather than "rights".

Yuyutsu,
I guess that the Planet that you have migrated to does not have conscription.

Not all religions are enjoined to spread the word. Islam and Christianity are the primary ones that bug people. I think Zoroastrians neither seek nor accept converts. Judaism will accept converts but will question you first to see what your motives are.

https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1086/692109 tells about recent studies of religious conversion.

Hi david f and Foxy

Among the Christian religions its the Evangelicals and Pentecostals which go out of their way to "spread the word". The JW's are part evangelical and part restorationist Christian, which makes them a bit of an odd mix.

Rather than give out Bibles, it might be of more practical comfort to give out Xmas hampers and gifts. Our charity has 109 names on the list, for Wednesday and Friday handout. With work advancing from tonight 8.30pm and again from 7am tomorrow. We will be packing bags for "single homeless" to "accommodated families". There will be tins of ham, Xmas cake, plum pudding for starters, then lots more depending on the type of hamper, and guess what, there's not a Bible in sight.

p/s We have been overwhelmed by the generosity of business and the community. Just this morning a local business donated 50 ladies toiletries bags, with toiletries, they retail for about $50 each, tomorrow another business is dropping off 60 children's backpacks. The manager of the local Woolies (just across the road) called in, and asked is there's anything we need, she'll see what she can do! Our Coordinator has not stopped for a month or more organising, organising and organising. The Port of Brisbane for example donated all the hamper bags for us to fill. Thought we would have a quite morning this morning for "Brekky Morning", Monday is our busiest day normally with 5 "staff", we had 10 today and were struggling, over run with local people coming in with food donations. Our "pantry" is full and the store room is packed out with boxes of products. Unbelievable! Anyone who thinks Australians are A-holes, don't know Australians.

p/s One elderly lady came in and asked if someone could come out to her car and help bring in the "shopping" I went out she had 8 bags of groceries from Woolworths (Woolies bags) to drop off. Seems she told her family members not to giver her a Xmas gift, but give her $50 each which she donated as groceries to us today.

Dear Josephus,

I find it amazing that your superstition is true, and others are false.

Well done, Paul and company.

Dear Yuyutsu,

Godless people may be quite moral. There is no evidence that believing in a god has anything to do with morality. Morality is defined by the way in which a person behaves - not by superstitious belief.

Dear David F.,

Godless people BEHAVE as if there is no God even while some of them may mentally believe in God or whatever. There is little correlation between them and people who do not believe in God.

And since you mentioned superstition, citing Josephus' last comment as example, I curiously went to check it:

«The Bible is a record of how God dealt with people and how people dealt with each other.»

Well doesn't this description fit every historical/non-fictional book about humans? Each being just a tiny fragment, but still...

Yes, if what you meant by "superstitious" is the belief that the Bible is a true historical record, then I tend to agree, yet some Christians (like Peter Sells) argue that the Bible was never meant to be a historical record in the first place. Indeed, why must it be?

«The Hebrew text identifies the culture of Israel.»

Well doesn't it?

«The New Testament deals with the way and the truth and the light as revealed by Jesus Christ.»

Well doesn't it?

Dealing with a topic does not necessarily require accurate and complete knowledge of that topic. Even clumsy essays may still be on topic.

«Understanding and living that truth changes character and develops deeper love for others.»

Well why not? Josephus was referring to the TRUTH as revealed by Jesus Christ, rather than "the truth as revealed by the Bible". The truth is still the truth and regardless even whether it is written anywhere, understanding the truth indeed changes one's character and develops deeper love for others.

«Reading it encourages purity of life.»

"it" being the New-Testament (on its own), I think that overall it does. The information therein need not be correct or accurate in order to encourage one to strive for purity of life.

«As for the book of Mormon it is a fiction and the original included texts lifter out of the Old Testament and Shakespeare.»

Don't we all agree on this?

So 5/6 of Josephus' statements are non-superstitious: that's a high distinction in OLO standards!

Hi David and Yuyutsu,

Yuyutsu, David is quite right, there is no evidence that a Christian is any more morally correct that say a Hindu or Buddhist or anyone of another religion or of no religion at all. Morality is a state of mind determined by the individuals own perception of what he or she believes to be the moral thing to do. If millions of people believe themselves morally correct yet have never read the Bible then that in itself proves that ones morals are not determined by the Bible alone, but come from some other influences. The Bible like many other things may assist one to come to a certain moral viewpoint, but its not the Bible that determines exclusively that moral view one has.

To give an analogy; A person does not become a good car driver by simply reading the book of road rules, it may help, but the book alone is no guarantee of driving competency, there are other factors as well. The Bible acts in some ways like the book of road rules, if heeded it may help, but its not the be all and end all, other sources could come into play; "Johnny was unable to read the book of road rules but is a good driver and passed the test because he was taught all the right things by his father who is also a good driver". "Jan studied the book of road rules but failed the test, because she was taught all the wrong things by her mother who is a very bad driver."

Dear Paul,

«there is no evidence that a Christian is any more morally correct that say a Hindu or Buddhist or anyone of another religion or of no religion at all.»

This depends on how you define a Christian, so yes, if you refer to common dictionary definitions then I fully agree with all you wrote.

Yet I rather define 'Christian' as someone who follows Jesus Christ, who like him is willing if necessary to be crucified or suffer something equivalent for their love of others. I don't know of too many Christians, but they would be the epitome of morality...

In an opportunistic society, morality is merely the degree of exploitation you can get away with !

Is it right to leave a Bible at your front door?

Yuyutsu

By implication, the question could be read as; is it right or is it wrong to leave a Bible at the front door, (the moral question), and does a person have a legal right to do so?

The latter part of the question (I would conclude) , with a yes.

How do we conclude with a definite answer to the moral question, since morality is arbitrary?

Dear Dan,

«The latter part of the question (I would conclude) , with a yes.»

If "right" and "wrong" in your lexicon mean "legal" and "illegal" then I suppose it is a yes, though I'm not a lawyer. For me, "right" and "wrong" are always of the moral kind.

«How do we conclude with a definite answer to the moral question, since morality is arbitrary?»

The best way is to apply Hillel's golden rule: would you [likely] hate it if you found yourself at the receiving end (which would include the recipient's existing religion and life-situation)?

If you would hate it being done unto yourself - then do not do so unto others.

In other words, place yourself in the recipient's shoes. Do you sincerely want to help them, or are you in hurry to just tick them off?

Please include in your consideration people of other religions, like Jews who could suffer a significant hardship as a result, also Christians who already have 50 copies of the Bible and might be forced to build an extra room to house this extra one that out of respect they couldn't throw, also non-English speakers who would not be able to read that Bible even if they wanted, also people who aren't at home (thus encouraging burglaries).

If you don't know the recipients - is it right to not even check first?

Another consideration: is it a good idea to print that many Bibles on paper, reasonably knowing that 95% of them would be thrown in the bin straight away or eaten by the family's dog and no more than 1% would ever be read? Further, that this intrusion would make some 80% averse to Christianity and reduce their chances of ever coming closer to Jesus? Does this honour the Bible?

Perhaps there were times when people simply did not know about the Bible, and were pleasantly surprised by its message, but now in the 21st century? Nowadays anyone who does not already have Bible(s) and is slightly curious, already knows that they can get it for free in practically any church.

Yuyutsu

So, we have established the correctness of the act from a legal perspective and could conclude from the novice level of law, that leaving a Bible at a front door crosses no line of illegally under most circumstances.

I agree with your list of objections to the act of charity ( let’s call it) which has obvious good intentions attached to it. There is no malice or I’ll intent in the act.that’s a positive.

But… there may be harm done with the good intention.

Under those circumstances I’ve outlined, I believe the donators of the bibles are justified in their actions, and thus are morally correct.

But as you and I are reflecting on the possible harm of the act of charity, those who donate bibles in this way are (we suppose) are oblivious to any harm to others in their act of generosity., ( assuming that the act of giving is treated as an act of generosity.

Until those who may object to the act of generosity on their doorstep , erect signs prohibiting entry to their premises, for such purposes, then whatever the personal circumstances of the receiver, be they Orthodox Jews or anybody else that would be insulted by the free gift of a Bible, then I would consider them in breach of an act of civility, to abuse the giver of the Bible.

Surely it’s a responsibility of self protection for the offended to fortify themselves against intrusion, rather than the reverse.

Excuse minimal editing).

Thanks Issy,

Its a community effort, "shock horror", The hamper bags 200 of them, didn't arrive as scheduled Friday, I though they had, then no show yesterday from Australia Post Ah! panic stations, enquires with AP from Coordinator; "They went on the truck Friday, the up shot, if they're not delivered by Jan 3rd get back to us." Ahhhhhh! panic! Well remember, The manager of the local Woolies (just across the road) called in, and asked is there's anything we need, she'll see what she can do!"

Thank you, 200 green Woolworths bags, not the cheapy 15c plastic jobs, but the good strong ones! For those who may not believe me you can ring Wynnum Central Woolworths store here in Brisbane, and ask for the store manager yourself, a lovely young lady. Can I say a miracle happened. 163 hampers packed this morning, singles and doubles, toys wrapped, 60 brand new loaded backpacks arrived. The business owner brought them to us personally, they came in a Red "Ford Raptor' (brand new), fair dinkum it looked like Santa's slay on big wheels. I said; "Look Santa has gone all modern". The donor brought along his wife, his two little girls and his PA, and another guy who drove the Raptor, beautiful folks. Photos all round, Fantastic!

p/s I though he owned some kind of "bag" business. Not so he owns one of the largest logistic businesses in Brisbane, just a donation got to be $10 grans worth. Anyway if those bags do arrive from AP, we'll keep them for next year.

Dear Dan,

«leaving a Bible at a front door crosses no line of illegally under most circumstances.»

In Australia.

«There is no malice or I’ll intent in the act.»

One can also steal without malice - they just need the money.
Or drive 100k/h above the limit and kill without ill-intent - they just need to arrive on time.

«I believe the donators of the bibles are justified in their actions, and thus are morally correct.»

Being justified falls short of being morally correct.

It's like the banks and insurance companies that give you 40 pages of small print: nobody is really expected to read them, but if circumstances allow them to take advantage, they will wave that document in your face and tell you, "you should have known, we are justified".

Are you telling the home-owners: "look, you cannot say that you did not receive the Bible - I placed it right there at your door: do you claim that have not read it? well that's your problem, no heaven for you, go to hell!". Is this your act of goodwill and charity? Do you think God will tick off your name saying "You have completed your good deed for the day, welcome to heaven"?

«assuming that the act of giving is treated as an act of generosity.»

Indeed, is it true generosity or a selfish desire to please God and go to heaven?

«I would consider them in breach of an act of civility, to abuse the giver of the Bible.»

Nobody here suggested to abuse the giver - that's rare, the common scenario is for the house-owner to sulk and suffer quietly (or possibly beat their wife/children/dog in their anger), then come to hate anything to do with Christianity, maybe even religion in general.

«Surely it’s a responsibility of self protection for the offended to fortify themselves against intrusion, rather than the reverse.»

Do we want to erect and live with high walls just because our neighbours are insensitive? Is this the Christian way?
How high should their wall be for them to be considered responsible?

Yuyutsu

You would need to prove to me that the moral imperative lives outside the judicial imperative, in this instance.

Because the moral imperative is really it’s own universe, with its own moral codes of law , entirely based on an individuals view of his own moral code, and in many instances is divorced from human rights and societies judicial judgements.

Using your example of the offended Orthodox Jew and his abhorrence of the gift of a Bible, wasn’t it a historical fact that the orthodox Pharisees were responsible for the execution of Christ on the cross?

Does this war continue?

My argument for civil rights aligned to morality in this instance, is based on the rights of an individual to legally transgress a threshold of a property to peruse his lawful business, in this instance, distributing bibles.

I support my argument further by forgiving any transgression of the charity over the personal foibles of the property owner and his objection to the act of charity.

(Again, minimal editing).

Dear Dan,

You assert that distributing Bibles is necessarily a charitable action solely on the grounds that the object given (the Bible) is good. The Bhagavad Gita speaks of three kinds of givers: the Highest (in the mode of goodness), the Middling (in the mode of passion) and the Lowest (in the mode of nescience):

"Charity given to a worthy person simply because it is right to give, without consideration of anything in return, at the proper time and in the proper place, is stated to be in the mode of goodness.
But charity given with reluctance, with the hope of a return or in expectation of a reward, is said to be in the mode of passion.
And that charity, which is given at the wrong place and wrong time to unworthy persons, without showing respect, or with contempt, is held to be of the nature of nescience."
[BG 17:20-22]

Your givings may be legal, your givings may be socially acceptable, your givings may comply with some people's personal moral codes, your givings may not be in conflict with human rights even - but do judge them yourself and decide under which of the above three categories they fall, because even if nobody else is able to judge your givings, God sees to the heart unfailingly!

«Using your example of the offended Orthodox Jew and his abhorrence of the gift of a Bible»

I didn't claim that the Orthodox Jew necessarily abhors that gift, only that they would find themselves in trouble because of it.

Why? Because they follow Jewish Law (Halakhah), which they believe was commanded by God through Moses, according to which a Jew must stay away from and destroy all articles of idolatry. According to Judaism, Jesus is treated [by Christians] as an idol, thus books containing his name are articles of idolatry and must be dealt with accordingly.
That's their Law, whether they like it or not, regardless whether they like the book or abhor it.

P.S. Nothing justifies the despicable act of the orthodox Pharisees causing the execution of their political opponent, Jesus Christ.

Were I asked what I thought people were most frightened of these days, I would say Christianity and Donald Trump. The American Democrats are more frightened of Trump because they are going to bring criminal charges against him (concerning other people's behaviour) in another desperate attempt to keep him out of politics.

I must drill deeper into my argument for affirmations of correctness of the giver on the door step.

I’ve argued the giver has the right to distribute his bibles on private property to the front door; a right that may be challenged by the property owner either prior to the intention by signage, or during the act of distribution, by a personal challenge to the giver of the Bible.

But all things being equal, there are mutual obligations to be considered.

I take your point, this act may be considered insulting to some, and upsetting to others.
I personally believe the distributors of bibles using the door to door method are naive and show a lack of judgement; but to my mind, not a serious lack of judgement, but is the generous act of Bible distribution lacking in morality, when the intention is to help lost souls find the spiritual light, (to the evangelists view)? No, I don’t think so.

A question you raised on the degree of charity using Hindu judgements, I think are irrelevant to a Christian in this instance. I’d choose to ignore that point.

I think your argument against is a weak one so far. I’d reconsider my stand if the process of door to door Bible distribution were being performed in India, where Hinduism predominates; or for that matter, Israel, where many Jews would be insulted.

Your argument against would hold more water then.

Ttbn.

The Democrats consistent attacks on Trump are more than penciling in the next US Civil War.
Maybe, since they appear to hold a controlling influence on the security services and the military, this intention is believable. And maybe even sooner than later they will achieve the aim of everlasting domination of US politics. No need to vote!

Promoting a major war with Russia and China is the engineering of a smoke screen to achieve it

Dear Dan,

I remember these stickers: "Driver, don't be right - be wise".
I think that they apply in this case just as they apply on the road.

Looking at the dictionary, an "Evangelist" is:
1) a person who seeks to convert others to the Christian faith, especially by public preaching.

So people who indiscriminately distribute Bibles on door-steps (that was the original topic, as opposed of those who preach in public, those who ring and seek to talk with the home-owner, or those who place Bibles in hotel drawers, these we could discuss separately), may be evangelists, but very inefficient and unsuccessful evangelists who cause much disturbance, create much hostility and resistance to Christianity, cause that many Bibles to be desecrated and are unlikely to make even one convert in a lifetime of book-distribution - not a soul saved. They may be right - but not wise, they cause that many accidents and fail to bring anyone safely home!

The Bhagavad-Gita is universal wisdom, but may need to be translated for different cultures to understand, so what if I spoke of three types of evangelists: the best, the middling and the lowest.

The best evangelist preaches to a worthy person simply because it is right to preach, without consideration of anything in return, at the proper time and in the proper place.

The middling evangelist preaches with reluctance, with the hope of a return or in expectation of a reward.

The lowest evangelist preaches at the wrong place and wrong time to unworthy persons, without showing respect, or with contempt.

All being evangelists, which of them, you think, pleases God the most?

Yuyutsu

I well understand the points you make, @nd with many of them I agree, but the author asked the question; is it right to leave a Bible at the front door of a dwelling.

I’ve clearly argued that there exists a right for a person to do that under most circumstances, but not all circumstances.
As a property owner, you will not get much sympathy from a policeman if you should complain about the delivery of a Bible to your front door when unasked for.

The above is the main frame of his question, and my answer to go along with it.

Now from that jumping off point, you seem to be attempting to steer the debate down another path, and that path inclusive of a moral question IE: is it ”ethically” correct to place a free Bible on a door step.

To that additional annex of the question, I’ve argued that not only is it legally correct to do so, but it is also ethically correct.
Supporting my conclusion to the ethical question, I pointed out that Australian doorsteps can fairly safely be assumed as to be Christian doorsteps, since Australia is a Christian Nation.

I think personally, it’s a bit rich in expectation for a resident otherwise than a Christian to be offended by an act of Christian generosity.

To cover the possibility of offensiveness by the act of giving out Christian literature , it surly then must be accepted by all residents of the country, to be on guard against the offensive nature of Christian proselytising (to them), and place signs in English in a prominent position which can be easily read and understood.

In other words, buyer beware.

Dear Dan,

If by "right" you mean "legal", then it's a legal question that should be answered by a lawyer.

If by "right" you mean something like "fitting with public mood and acceptance", then this is constantly changing and open to controversy.

When Nathan opened the discussion, he asked: "Is it though THE right thing to be doing?", rather than "Is it though A right thing". From this I conclude that he meant neither legality nor ethicalness, but rather whether that is in the line of wisdom. But perhaps Nathan could enlighten us here about his original intention?

As a property owner, you will not get much sympathy from a policeman when complaining about commercial junk mail either (despite the signs)... I tried, I actually went to the police station, they just sent me away. One must be truly naive to believe that the state and its police are there to protect ordinary people.

Is Australia a Christian Nation? That too is a controversy which I have no interest getting into right now (but just for the record I don't even accept that Australia is a Nation).

Still even if it is, Christians too can be offended by Bibles placed at their front door and never count it an act of generosity. For example if they already have too many Bibles at home (I could list more reasons, but there's a word limit).

Either way, you may expect people (Christian or otherwise) to not be offended, but the fact is that they are! The fact is that at times they could be so upset as to become violent and hurt their family members.

Yes, after it happens the first time, most English-speaking people with sufficient understanding of the Australian culture would place a prominent sign. I don't have such a sign, but then nobody ever placed a Bible on my door-step. I would have felt awkward to throw someone's holy book in the bin, but probably would do so anyway if the Bible was in English (though I could have use for another original Hebrew copy or a Sanskrit translation).

Yuyutsu

I think your making a strategic retreat by asking for the authors intervention to explain the obvious intent of the question, which I think explains itself in its simplicity.

Not many property owners are aware or care what rules apply to egress into their property I would suspect, but ignorance of the law is not a defence, and not the everyman is expected to be a lawyer obviously.

No doubt there will be people, as you pointed out, offended by the act of placing a Bible at the front door, but there is no law broken by doing so, which justifies to a very large extent their action in doing so.

So it is a simple question asked by the author, with an eaually simple answer.

I think the examples you raise as objection, lead away from the simplicity of the question. These arguments are a wheel in perpetual motion, and could be addressed in other areas of debate more fully.

Dear Dan,

I am not a lawyer, I don't think any of us here is.
If Nathan wanted to ask a legal question then he should have asked (and paid) for a legal advice, and would at least name this thread, "Is it legal to leave a Bible at your front door" if he wanted free advice from laypeople like us.

I tend to agree that Australian law allows such foolish actions - not because it favours Christians (that would be against the Australian constitution) but because it favours a heated economy (more taxes) where people buy things they do not really need, and does not differentiate between shonky advertisers and naive Bible placers. I sadly find that the British/English tradition worships the idol of commerce!

Legally speaking, ignorance of the law of men is indeed not a defense, just as ignorance of the presence of a wolf is not a defense for the lamb. I believe that God's laws are more merciful than that! ("The Lord is gracious and righteous; our God is full of compassion. The Lord protects the unwary; when I was brought low, he saved me." [Psalms 116:5-6])

«No doubt there will be people, as you pointed out, offended by the act of placing a Bible at the front door»

Not only people, but Bibles too, I believe, who would cry out if they had a mouth to complain. Most religions abhor the act of placing sacred scripture on the ground, I believe this even includes mainstream churches.

Yuyutsu

Really, the authors question is asked very simply, and as a consequence the answer to the question should remain simple beside it.

But of all your muddying of the waters on this simple issue, the statement you make of your personal God is the most intriguing.
My understanding of the Hindu God is its description more as an it, and not genderised as in Christian thought.

But be warned, I’ll not discuss that point here, since it will detract from the thread.

Dear Dan,

There is no "Hindu God", nor my or your "personal God". We all live in the same and only immutable, undivided, beginningless, eternal, who is beyond the capacity of any mind to understand, thus call Him/Her/It by any name that fills your heart with devotion - Praise and glory and wisdom and thanks and honor and power and strength be to our God for ever and ever. Amen!

Yuyutsu

And dittto to that.

There are hundreds of Hindu gods, male and female,recently the Indian Railway’s freight line project was held up because the surveyors didn’t see a small temple that was dedicated to some obscure Hindu god.
Here’s just the most prominent ones,
Brahma: the god responsible for the creation of the world and all living things.
Vishnu: the god that preserves and protects the universe.
Shiva: the god that destroys the universe in order to recreate it.
Devi: the goddess that fights to restore dharma.
Krishna: the god of compassion, tenderness and love.

And Kali the consort of Vishnu.

"There are hundreds of Hindu gods, male and female"

gods, not God, not just hundreds but hundreds of thousands. gods (better translated to English as "angels") are just instrumental focal points through which people can be helped to better focus their attention on God. Jews, because they have their own tailored spiritual practices, were forbidden by Moses' second commandment to use such focal points, Hindus are not.

Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva and Devi are different aspects (i.e. perspectives, ways to see) of God, the only and same. Krishna was, like Jesus, a human incarnation of God who lived on earth some 5200 years ago, now confirmed by new archaeological evidence. The consort of Vishnu is Lakshmi, the goddess of wealth and fortune whereas Kali is an aspect of Parvati, the consort of Shiva.

Hindus do not leave holy scripture on the ground near people's doorsteps. Hindus rejoice when seeing others able to focus on God through Jesus and the Bible.

Yuyutsu,
You said that there was no Hindu God but now you seem to have found one.
Religions are either monotheistic or polytheistic (with rare exceptions).
Hinduism is polytheistic..

Dear Is Mise,

Religions are polytheistic, monotheistic or non-theistic. Most versions of Buddhism do not postulate a God or god. Neither does Unitarianism or humanistic Judaism.

It is not wrong to leave a bible at someone's front door.
It is, however, a stupid thing to do.
When not well received, it will likely be discarded.
Creating unnecessary waste should not be encouraged.

When someone tries to interest us in particular ideas, we can do one of two things.
We can ignore them, or we can engage with them.
If their action is not unlawful, there are times we might need to adjust our lives around it.
For example, when someone delivers unsolicited written information to our doorstep.

However, if we want to disagree with another person's philosophy, we must first know what it is?
So we might choose to read what they have left for us?
If we have nothing better to do that day of course.
At the very least it can keep our 'disgust' fresh.

Do we see those with alternative views as 'enemies'?
If so, would it not be better to keep them close to us?
Have some idea of their thought processes, and their potential threat to normal life.
I must say I feel sorry for those who live in a story world.
It prevents them from experiencing mental freedom.

I've change the title of this thread;

Is it right to leave a pile of hundred dollar bills at your front door?

I'm voting YES! Even if they are stuffed inside a Bible!

Dear Ipso Fatso,

When it comes to physical objects placed on your property, this is no longer a matter of ideas.

It may be legal in Australia to be so stupid this way, but this does not render such actions "not wrong": they can hurt others in several ways and doing so knowingly is wrong. Each and every one of us, humans, I believe, does at least one, big or small, wrong act a day which is not illegal.

«However, if we want to disagree with another person's philosophy, we must first know what it is?»

But what if we aren't interested in disagreement, what if that isn't the issue?
What if we already happen to agree (but do not want the physical object)?
What if we just want to be left alone, neither agreeing nor disagreeing, neither looking for friends nor for enemies?
What if some in the family agree and others don't and we rather keep the peace in our family?
What if the question whether or not (or how) to dispose of that object causes family quarrels?
What if we have a difficulty (physical, mental, emotional and/or spiritual) in disposing of that physical object?
What if we trip and break our leg while disposing of the object?
What if just the fact of having our property entered startles us, scares us, wakes us from a good sleep, interrupts our meditation, study or sex even? What if it disturbs our children and pets, etc., etc.?
What if the Bible distributor, just by entering, finds things (legal or otherwise) in our yard (or inside, through a window) which we do not want others to know about?
What if our dog grabs the Bible before we can even get hold of it and tears it to pieces to our religious dismay?
What if before we find that Bible, the rain comes, the birds poo on it and we find a big upsetting mess on our doorstep?
What if burglars see the Bible thus know that we aren't home?

My home is my castle. Nobody should enter it uninvited.

What if we come back to the real world?

Oh Paul,

«Is it right to leave a pile of hundred dollar bills at your front door?»

By someone who wishes to implicate me in their robbery/forgery and have me jailed in their place?

david f,
It's more complicated than that. Most forms of Unitarianism are monotheistic even if the most popular form isn't. And there are certainly monotheistic and polytheistic forms of Hinduism - I think there are non theistic forms too.

__________________________________________________________________________

Ipso Facto,
It's far from stupid. The amount of waste is relatively small, and it's recyclable and biodegradable. There's far more to gain than to lose.

Back in the real world, I doubt leaving a message at the door is illegal.
And one must remember that they mean well.
In saying that, I am being polite rather than accurate.
I have found that theirs is a mindset which is very unhealthy.
They live in a world where theirs is the only philosophy needed.
And they want you to accept their ideas no matter what.

They are driven by this narrow-mindedness.
They exhibit a kind of tunnel vision.
Overall, a very unhealthy state of affairs.
I see it as a kind of mental illness.
They are easily manipulated by their superiors.
They are stuck in a groove, and cannot break out.

Anyway, religion 'piggy-backs' on a celebration established long before it existed.
And the celebration is at the wrong time of the year as well?
However, I am willing to share this time with them.
But I won't share their ideas.
I see having a truthful view of life as being the norm.
If I stop to consider it, their view is both aberrant and abhorrent to me.

Having delivered catalogues as exercise in the past, the ruling is it must be placed in the letterbox unless the letterbox is signed no unsolicited mail. However, having delivered Election pamphlets this is overridden because they are public information that may affect the householder.

Hi ho Jose', happy festive season.

"having delivered Election pamphlets", but did it improve the One Nation vote? I've always held the view "letter boxing" does little to affect the vote one way or the other.

BTW, my son with his business, in the early days ignored "No Junk Mail" signs as he considered his material differently, it was, according to him; "Quality Advertising Material" seems there is a difference, but I couldn't see it.

Dear Paul1405,

I think those how-to-vote papers thrust on you when you go to the polls are insulting. When you get to the polls if you don't know enough about the alternatives by then it seems to me you should put in a blank ballot to be consistent with your views.

Dear Josephus,

There are many crimes which are not listed on the state's criminal code.
Some crimes are even silently encouraged by the state because they increase economic activity and employment.

Disturbing other people's peace seems to be cheap, but this does not mean that one can escape the consequences of their actions once they, as a figure of speech, stand at the pearly gates.

before we moved into our secure apartment building
we used to have all sorts of people coming to the
front door of our house. From real estate agents,
to sales people, gardeners looking for work, to
bible-preaching religious folk. We have never had a Bible
left outside our front door. Although we have had
religious pamphlets given to us.

I never questioned the "legalities" of any of these
activities. I just took them as a norm - and dealt with
each one as politely as possible. I was brought up to
believe that good manners mattered in all situations.

As for whether it's being right to leave a Bible
at your front door? I would never question it. I would
simply accept the good intentions of the people doing
it - with no malice or mischief intended. I would not look
for any hidden meanings or bad vibes. I also would not turf
the Bible in the bin but leave it on a pew next time I went
to church - where it belongs.

I've been reading through the comments here and I agree you need to think about the positions of others and whether you would like such practices to be thrust upon yourself.

Dan (Diver Dan) here I don't think is doing that in any way or form here, so maybe providing a scenario of what could occur here, might encourage Dan to think about why it is important to consider the positions of others, in essence be considerate.

Let's say I am a Jehovah's Witnesses member, and I am delivering a Bible and place it at your front door. You go outside and pick it up, but find you have very little to no space, to place it, so you just leave it in the hallway near the front door. Over time, more are delivered to your place of residence, and you have six bibles to deal with. Your bookshelf is already filled with books and your spare room is already used for other purposes.

So, you have all of these Bibles lying around near the front door. You already have one from your parents, from high school, and another from your grandparents. You have no idea what to do with all of these Bibles and no idea on what to do.

The final straw comes when your partner comes home with the shopping and trips over these piles of Bibles left near the front door. Your partner is badly injured and has had to go to hospital by ambulance after suffering a terrible injury. You are left at home to clean up all the mess.

Tired of these Bibles causing so much trouble, out of anger and frustration you decide to throw them in the bin. You're not happy about that as you don't agree with throwing holy books in the bin, but you care about your family and have to put them first compared to a book thrust upon you without your permission.

Dear Nathan,

«You're not happy about that as you don't agree with throwing holy books in the bin»

Jews may not throw away holy books that contain God's name.

But any book gets old, worn and torn eventually, so it needs to be buried in the ground, with a proper funeral like human bodies.

Some communities provide this service, for example http://www.jcam.org/Pages/Services/book_burials.php