+- kanji koohii FORUM (http://forum.koohii.com)
+-- Forum: Learning Japanese (http://forum.koohii.com/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: Off topic (http://forum.koohii.com/forum-13.html)
+--- Thread: Continuation of tangent discussion/civil debate about religion thread (/thread-2337.html)
Continuation of tangent discussion/civil debate about religion thread - plumage - 2008-12-29
Tobberoth Wrote:As for the first part, of course no one has come to my door and told me how awesome they are, that would be ridiculous. Christians however HAVE come to my door and told me to become a Christians, which is just as ridiculous. Evangelism, my good friend. Perhaps you understand my point with the example now.No, because your rhetoric is of a different category altogether. Yes, people have come to your door to tell you to become Christian. I might tell you the same thing here. But that has nothing to do with beauty contests or whatever. It's an invitation as any other. Become a Christian, become an environmentalist, become a democrat, have lunch with me. None are forcing anything, all are asking you to do something the person asking values and wishes you'd partake of. Frankly, if a person comes to me and asks me to be Buddhist or whatever, I'll thank him for thinking so highly of me as to want what he believes is best for me. Then I'd engage him about his ideas in a friendly way. That is true tolerance.
Tobberoth Wrote:Yes, I'm not affraid to say I do find the churches in Korea an abomination and every Korean I know agrees with me. They are buddhistWell, of course they'd agree then. It doesn't prove the churches are abominations, of course. I've never been to Korea, but about half of my church here in NYC is Korean, and they don't see it as you do, obviously. Nor do they see the pure profit motive you do either. I won't deny that there are some so-called churches that are simply money grabs and preach heresy, but I also know that folks who are non-believers extend this blanket to cover almost every church just because they pass a money plate.
Neither is it a fault of evangelism--it's a fault of sin and greed. People have turned just about every good thing in the world into a money grab if they can find a way to do so--religions, governments, N.G.O/non-profits. That's not a problem with the thing counterfeited, it's a problem with the counterfeiter.
Tobberoth Wrote:If there's no chance, what do they need Christianity for in the first place?I said some things would change. Shinto shrines and Buddhist temples would fall into disrepair, some philosophies would be found to be empty, some morality would change, superstitions would start to fade. Christianity ultimately is not about changing cultures first and foremost (and if it was, it would make sense that they would become 1st c. Israelis, not 20c American, right?), it is about changing people, specifically in how they orient themselves towards God. They'd still play 太鼓の達人, though, you know?
Tobberoth Wrote:Their have their own ideas and values, no one needs to go there and tell them to change them.That strikes me as being your idea and value, and you telling me what to do based on it. Hmm.
Tobberoth Wrote:Compare it to a religion which has no evangelism instead, where people convert by finding the religion by themselves instead of being coerced.Ok, I call those religions of no consequence. If they believe nothing so true that I should know it, then they shouldn't bother telling me about it. They are being consistent. I wish atheism would keep itself in this category, since it fits well.
Tobberoth Wrote:(re: Big Bang) I let them do their own research, come to their own conclusions and decide for themselves.That sounds nice, but what if the Japanese decided to become Christians of the 10,000 year variety, and then decided for themselves to believe that? I think you'd be here complaining about Christianity again.
Continuation of tangent discussion/civil debate about religion thread - Tobberoth - 2008-12-29
plumage Wrote:If you're intolerant to anything, then you harbor intolerance by definition. I appreciate your effort to escape hyprocrisy, however.I would say it's quite alright to call yourself a tolerant person if the only thing you do not tolerate is intolerance, just like I can call myself a nice person even if I lied once or twice in my lifetime. Nothing is absolute.
plumage Wrote:Since Christians don't "force" their beliefs on anyone, I'm happy to see we agree.Unfortunately, we don't. Christians force their beliefs on people all the time and I'm glad that you haven't noticed because that means not every single Christian does it, which is a very good thing. Evangelism means missionary zeal, purpose, or activity. If that would always mean simply making a website where the faith is described and putting up some notes for people to watch that site, I wouldn't mind it at all. Unfortunately, it rarely works like that.
plumage Wrote:*You* think they should choose not to, so you're imposing on their consciences what you think they should or should not do.I'm sharing my opinion, not forcing anyone to follow it. I'm saying if I were a Christian, I would not be okey with feeling I need to convert people to my faith because I would find it immoral. I would HOPE that they would choose not to. Obviously, they won't which is why I'm ranting about it in the first place.
plumage Wrote:I've never heard of a Buddhist in California forcing buddhism on anyone either. Are you really this confused on what constitutes forcing, or do you just employ rhetorical language to try to score points? Frankly, you are more strident in your language than the vast majority of Buddhists and Christians in evangelism, so the shoe would easily fit you in this argument: You are trying to force your beliefs on us.The reason why I'm not forcing my beliefs onto you but evangelists are, is because this is a discussion we have all decided to join and we all knew what it would constitute. We are all firm believers of our points and we're stating our opinions.
Evangelism is completely different. Missionary works is actively going to another country and telling people what to believe and how to behave. It isn't force by violence, but it is stil forced. The people you are trying to convert didn't invite you, didn't ask for your opinions like I do in this topic. I'm actively asking for your opinion, so no matter what you say, you can't possibly be forcing anything on me. I asked for it.
I'd also like to point out that I didn't bring up the buddhist example, I'm just saying it's the same for all.
plumage Wrote:Perhaps you could quote where our book says we should be tolerant of other faiths such that we should merely let them be? We are to seek to change people's minds, but we are to do so without harm, without force, and with love. By talking, by debating, by challenging and answering questions. By engaging people in ideas.I'm all for what you're saying, I really am. Like I said, if you have a site where you objectively tell people "This is christianity, this is what we believe, this is what we practice" and let people know that site exists, I would be perfectly fine with evangelism, but we both know that isn't what it entails. It entails standing in a crowded street and giving pamphlets. It entails putting up notices which are provocative like "Do you want to go to hell? No? Read here!". It entails engaging people who didn't ask for it in discussion. It entails doorknocking (though that's mainly Jehovas vitnesses of course). (You have to excuse my hyperboles, I have never seen such a notice but i have seen similar provocative work.)
Continuation of tangent discussion/civil debate about religion thread - Tobberoth - 2008-12-29
plumage Wrote:No, because your rhetoric is of a different category altogether. Yes, people have come to your door to tell you to become Christian. I might tell you the same thing here. But that has nothing to do with beauty contests or whatever. It's an invitation as any other. Become a Christian, become an environmentalist, become a democrat, have lunch with me. None are forcing anything, all are asking you to do something the person asking values and wishes you'd partake of. Frankly, if a person comes to me and asks me to be Buddhist or whatever, I'll thank him for thinking so highly of me as to want what he believes is best for me. Then I'd engage him about his ideas in a friendly way. That is true tolerance.Telling me to become a Christian is telling me to believe in God, which is the same as me telling you to believe I'm awesome and extremely good looking. It's an opinion and it's asking someone to change it. Calling one thing an invitation and not the other doesn't make them different.
plumage Wrote:Neither is it a fault of evangelism--it's a fault of sin and greed. People have turned just about every good thing in the world into a money grab if they can find a way to do so--religions, governments, N.G.O/non-profits. That's not a problem with the thing counterfeited, it's a problem with the counterfeiter.If it has nothing to do with evangelism, then why aren't there moneygrabbing buddhist temples in the states? If evangelism didn't exist in Korea, there wouldn't be moneygrabbing christian churches. Maybe one or two, but not one on every corner (go to Korea and you'll see what I mean...). Would there be other sects grabbing money by use of religion? Yeah, I think so. But the reason why there are so many in Korea is because of ignorance coupled with Christian spread because of evangelism. A sect created to make money can't spread even close to as fast as actively preached Christianity, Christianity has a HUGE impact because of size and other factors (which is why islam spreads to incredibly fast as well). Like I said, not a fault of Christianity, but depandant on it. Not the problem, but the scale of it.
plumage Wrote:I said some things would change. Shinto shrines and Buddhist temples would fall into disrepair, some philosophies would be found to be empty, some morality would change, superstitions would start to fade. Christianity ultimately is not about changing cultures first and foremost (and if it was, it would make sense that they would become 1st c. Israelis, not 20c American, right?), it is about changing people, specifically in how they orient themselves towards God. They'd still play 太鼓の達人, though, you know?I'd say that's a lot of changes which I doubt most Japanese would change willingly. Add some force and maybe it will happen! I'm not a buddhist nor a shintoist, but I love going to temples. I'm not a Christian but I love going to big churches. I would be very sad if evangelism made Shinto and Buddhist temples fall into disrepair (I would be equally sad if it happened because Japanese people by their own accord changed faith, but at least there wouldn't be anyone to blame for that).
plumage Wrote:That strikes me as being your idea and value, and you telling me what to do based on it. Hmm.I'm not telling you to do anything, I'm telling you my opinion. If you don't want to hear it and can't hear it without taking my words as me forcing you, you are free to leave the topic at any time, I won't hunt you down and force you to read my opinions.
plumage Wrote:Ok, I call those religions of no consequence. If they believe nothing so true that I should know it, then they shouldn't bother telling me about it. They are being consistent. I wish atheism would keep itself in this category, since it fits well.I'd call those religions tolerant and open minded. I'd say their God is probably kind and good enough to let people who believe other things go to heaven, it won't force people to go to hell just because they thought a God with a different name was the true God. Their God probably values their tolerance to other faiths. They believe in something so true that you don't need to know it if you don't want to, their God won't judge you because of ignorance. I know a lot of horrible Atheist who have their own form of evangelism, who are on a constant crusade against Christians. I say the same thing about them, let Christians believe what they want. If a Christian asks them for their opinion, that's a different story all together.
plumage Wrote:That sounds nice, but what if the Japanese decided to become Christians of the 10,000 year variety, and then decided for themselves to believe that? I think you'd be here complaining about Christianity again.I don't appriciate you telling me what I would and wouldn't do. I said earlier in the topic that I would not mind Japanese people choosing Christinaity by themselves. You calling me a lier doesn't help your argument what so ever.
Continuation of tangent discussion/civil debate about religion thread - plumage - 2008-12-29
Tobberoth Wrote:You can say so if it makes you happy, but you're still intolerant. ;-)plumage Wrote:If you're intolerant to anything, then you harbor intolerance by definition. I appreciate your effort to escape hyprocrisy, however.I would say it's quite alright to call yourself a tolerant person if the only thing you do not tolerate is intolerance, just like I can call myself a nice person even if I lied once or twice in my lifetime. Nothing is absolute.
Tobberoth Wrote:That's all we do, too.plumage Wrote:*You* think they should choose not to, so you're imposing on their consciences what you think they should or should not do.I'm sharing my opinion, not forcing anyone to follow it.
You hold two views of "forcing" then. One says that "forcing others to follow your opinion" is forcing. Another says that offering your opinion unasked for is forcing. Although you may be meaning the same thing but sounding like you mean two things.
Tobberoth Wrote:I'm saying if I were a Christian, I would not be okey with feeling I need to convert people to my faith because I would find it immoral.Then you would not be a Christian, and you would consider Jesus to be immoral. I'll scratch that paragraph as unhelpful and move on.
Tobberoth Wrote:Evangelism is completely different. Missionary works is actively going to another country and telling people what to believe and how to behave. It isn't force by violence, but it is stil forced. The people you are trying to convert didn't invite you, didn't ask for your opinions like I do in this topic. I'm actively asking for your opinion, so no matter what you say, you can't possibly be forcing anything on me. I asked for it.Ah, we get to the meat of the matter. What you mean, then is that Christians force their ideas onto people through evangelism. But that's different from saying we force people into becoming Christians. I'll admit we do the former by your characterization (though I'd disagree with your characterization of it, by and large), but we cannot do the latter. Having been "forced" to hear our message, it is up to the individual to accept it or not. We cannot therefore force anyone to be a Christian.
Tobberoth Wrote:I would be perfectly fine with evangelism, but we both know that isn't what it entails. It entails standing in a crowded street and giving pamphlets.This one doesn't fit your definition of forcing, since a pamphlet offered on the street (without words in this case) is not an opinion forced on someone since the opinion is not revealed if the person doesn't look at it as they walk by. It is a pamphlet offered, nothing more, nothing less.
Tobberoth Wrote:It entails putting up notices which are provocative like "Do you want to go to hell? No? Read here!".For consistency's sake, I would hope you'd stand with those who opposed the plastering of buses in England and Washington D.C. with advertisements saying there is no God.
Tobberoth Wrote:It entails engaging people who didn't ask for it in discussion. It entails doorknocking (though that's mainly Jehovas vitnesses of course). (You have to excuse my hyperboles, I have never seen such a notice but i have seen similar provocative work.)Nah, I've seen similar. I'll split this into two things: engaging people in conversation in public places or in intimate settings, and engaging people at their homes. They are quite different contexts, I'm sure you'd agree.
The latter first: I actually agree that Christians should not go door-to-door. Few non-Mormons and JWs do this anymore, but I'm sure a few still do. I consider this common courtesy more than anything else. There may have been an era when this was taken with far less hostility, but these days I think it hardens more folks than it helps.
I find big loud signs to be unhelpful, too. I'll note that the early Christians in the Bible did not resort to either of these techniques in their evangelism.
What they did do was 1.)Engage people in public places: Paul went to places where people would discourse in public, and joined them. Like this forum, aptly named after the Roman practice. 2.)Engage people they knew: families, friends, co-workers. This is harmless. We engage family, friends, co-workers on all sorts of topics. There's no reason why religion should be off the table, though modern society has tried to discourage it. If I respect my friends, family, and co-workers, why should I have any problem discussing anything with them? 3.)Act within their society in such a way that strangers would become friends, enabling evangelism through point #2.
It may be that the early Christians walked up to strangers on the street and preached to them, but I can't think of examples. Jesus street-preached, but typically he had a crowd waiting to hear from him, or he went to a place of public discourse to do it also. Nations can still be changed through evangelism using these methods, and I'd personally be happy to restrict evangelism to these.
Continuation of tangent discussion/civil debate about religion thread - Tobberoth - 2008-12-29
I'm going to stop quoting your whole posts because I think we've gotten to the core of the argument so I don't need to adress everything.
As for you calling me intolerant, you're wrong
You calling me intolerant is like me calling you stupid just because you missed one question in school, or me calling you a lier because you lied once to a friend when you were 5 years old. There are things people shouldn't tolerate, ever. Like killing children for fun. I can't tolerate that. I'm still a tolerant person and I would laugh at you if you called people who do not tolerate pleasurekillings of children "intolerant people" because of it. There's a scale to everything, by using common sense you see where to draw the line.Indeed, it's two different kinds of forcing. Forcing by violence is telling someone you will hit them if they do not go to church every sunday. Forcing someone to listen to your opinion is hardly as bad, but it's bad enough.
As for giving a pamphlet being forcing, I can agree that it isn't. I was just listing a few things which evangelism entails which is active work, not simply letting people research by themselves.
You seem to agree, more or less, with me on what is acceptable evangelism and what isn't. I personally do not like when religious people engage me in public places. I HAVE to be in that public place, I can't choose to leave just because I don't want to hear your opinions, so it's definately forcing it down my ears. I believe that if you want to tell people of your religion, you should invite them to a meeting or something like that where people who want to hear it can attend. That's 100% ok in my book, that isn't forcing anything on anyone and it's still spreading the opinion.
Of course, I agree that any advetisement claiming there's "No God" is just as bad. They can't prove it, so it's an opinion, and opinions shouldn't be advertised.
If evangelism was restricted to what you said, I would still not like the fact that people learn about Japan and Japanese just to go there and do missionary work. I find it to be a bad reason. HOWEVER, if they liked Japan and learned about it before for other reasons and then lived there and decided they wanted to do missionary work (with the restrictions you said) I would not be so heavily against it. That would just be someone spreading their opinion in a decently nice manner in their society. It would not be someone targeting an area for "cleansing".
Continuation of tangent discussion/civil debate about religion thread - plumage - 2008-12-29
Tobberoth Wrote:Telling me to become a Christian is telling me to believe in God, which is the same as me telling you to believe I'm awesome and extremely good looking. It's an opinion and it's asking someone to change it. Calling one thing an invitation and not the other doesn't make them different.I don't believe people tell you to believe in God. They ask. There is a difference between the two, and you did characterize the ridiculous part as people telling you they are good looking, not telling you to believe they are good looking. There is a fundamental difference between me "telling" you 2+2=5 (even if I'm wrong) and me "telling" you you should have lunch with me. One is a representation of fact, one is an invitation to do something. They are fundamentally different.
Tobberoth Wrote:If it has nothing to do with evangelism, then why aren't there moneygrabbing buddhist temples in the states?1.)There aren't as many temples as churches in the states 2.)They don't make headlines. Here's a story
about Buddhist money-grabbing at the center of Buddhism, though, from page 1 of a Google search. You'll also find buddhist sex scandals, militant buddhists, etc.. It's not our cultural context, so I don't expect to see our newspapers riddled with their stories. Likewise, I'm sure Chinese newspapers didn't carry stories on Jim Bakker.
Tobberoth Wrote:If evangelism didn't exist in Korea, there wouldn't be moneygrabbing christian churches.And if there were no currency, there would be no counterfeiting, but I'm not sure why currency would be to blame in this. If it's as you say, then something is particularly awry in S Korea, since I'm sure you'd admit that it's a unique case among nations with large populations of Christianity. The exception that proves the rule, perhaps?
Tobberoth Wrote:I'd say that's a lot of changes which I doubt most Japanese would change willingly. Add some force and maybe it will happen!Note that those things haven't changed. That just proves Christianity isn't forced. The Japanese have freely chosen to retain what they have for the time being. They have that right, as they have the right to, in the future, make the change.
Tobberoth Wrote:Which is my point, I know you're telling me your opinion--I just don't consider it to be a forcing of any kind to hear it whether here or on the street. And I do hear lots of people on the street speaking out loud, saying things like you are saying. I'm "forced" to hear it, but I don't consider them to be forcing their opinions. I just think we have different definitions of force. Being told someone's opinion, even unasked for--rude perhaps, not forcing me to anything. Being told to convert or die (as is happening in India right now to Christians by Hindus)--forcing me.plumage Wrote:That strikes me as being your idea and value, and you telling me what to do based on it. Hmm.I'm not telling you to do anything, I'm telling you my opinion. If you don't want to hear it and can't hear it without taking my words as me forcing you, you are free to leave the topic at any time, I won't hunt you down and force you to read my opinions.
Tobberoth Wrote:I don't appriciate you telling me what I would and wouldn't do. I said earlier in the topic that I would not mind Japanese people choosing Christinaity by themselves. You calling me a lier doesn't help your argument what so ever.I don't mean to do that, but you appear to say things that say one thing but appear to imply something else. Someone else a few posts earlier noted the same thing, so I know I'm not alone. I think I've done a decent job of trying to untie your words to unpack what you really mean, and you've been good at letting them be unpacked. I'm happy to take you at your word on this point.
And with that it's time for work. I'll clear the airwaves for the rest of you for awhile. Thanks for the back-and-forth Tobberoth. It helped clarify your posts and your thoughts. I think our interaction today qualified as "civil debate," as the thread should be.
Continuation of tangent discussion/civil debate about religion thread - plumage - 2008-12-29
Last point, Tobberoth. I agree that we seem to have untangled most of our discussion, and I think we can shake hands on your last post. Cya!
Continuation of tangent discussion/civil debate about religion thread - Tobberoth - 2008-12-29
Now that's a bit surreal, a religious debate which didn't completely degenerate... For a discussion on an issue where both parties aren't expected to budge even one bit, I'd say it was a pretty nice experience, enlightening one could say.
It's always nice to join together with different opinions and part with the same different opinions without any ill feelings about it or eachother.
Continuation of tangent discussion/civil debate about religion thread - igordesu - 2008-12-29
Wow, this thread took off pretty fast. If you would please excuse my delayed response time, that would be great. I've been in an out of the hospital recently as I burned my arm and hand really, really badly at work, so...I'm on pain meds, too. But whatever. I know some of you like Activearo and others are perhaps eagerly awaiting a response (or not, lol...) but rest assured that I'll get there. I'd first like to deal with the "evangelism" issue.
@Tobby (can I call you that?) and others:
I have no problem with you criticizing what some people unfortunately call evangelism. Televangelism and crazy healing preachers, etc...they're all completely different from real biblical evangelism.
You have to understand where Christians (like myself) are coming from when they engage in any act of evangelism or try to share their faith. First of all, I would never, ever ask for money. And I would never, ever ask for attendance or membership to an organization or a church. That's not what it should be about. A Christian who honestly believes the Bible in its entirety wants to go all over the place and "evangelize" for a different reason. If you're an honest Christian, then you honestly believe that everybody else who hasn't so far put their trust in the God of the Bible is doomed to an eternity of separation from God in hell. That's why you go and share your faith with them. You go because you honestly want them to come to have a good relationship with their creator and because you honestly care for their eternal well-being.
You see, Christians who do this stuff honestly believe it. That's why attacking their acts of evangelism as "intolerant" or opinion-pushing isn't fair. If really have a problem with them doing this, then that means one of two things. Either 1) you don't understand what I've just said or their reason for doing this, or 2) you have a problem with the belief itself. If it's number 2, then those are the grounds on which you need to attack true evangelists and Christianity. If you have a problem with cults or people who are just trying to make money in the name of "Christianity" or a religion, more power to you. I agree with you there. Evangelism should never be about money or a membership to a church.
Continuation of tangent discussion/civil debate about religion thread - bodhisamaya - 2008-12-29
Alot was discussed while I was sleeping
If a person is militant or evangelical, by definition, they are not Buddhist. They might wear a robe or sit in meditation posture, but have never examined in depth the Buddhist view. The vast majority of Buddhists would condemn this behavior. How can a person call himself a follower of the "Middle Path" and be militant as well? Buddhism considers all religions based on altruism to be valid. It would even be thought of as immoral to try to convert a Christian and we are cautioned repeatedly that this is harmful. Sex and theft scandals do occur but they are vary rare simply because it is a path based on reason and these acts are of course unreasonable. The impulses that cause immoral behavior are not suppressed as in most traditions. They are examined in meditation from all angels. Negative acts produce naturally occurring negative results. No one to punish you or any blind faith to accept. Suffering will be the consequence of harmful acts.
Continuation of tangent discussion/civil debate about religion thread - vosmiura - 2008-12-29
I'm not going to get into any personal debates here, but have any of you watched "Zeitgeist"? There's a section in there that draws many parallels between Christianity, Judaism and other modern religions, and their similarity to Ancient Egyptian religion. Jesus is compared to Horus.
Continuation of tangent discussion/civil debate about religion thread - bodhisamaya - 2008-12-29
I saw many comparisons to Christianity and Egyptology from books years ago but I would have to go back and research it to list them as it has been a while. It seemed as if most of the major themes from the Bible were borrowed from Egyptology and Astrology. It was a nifty thing where the name Israel can be broken down from the three sun gods: Isis, Ra, and El. Christian prayers are closed with the phrase "Amen". As in Amen Ra. Clever as well is the story of the "Sun" of God walking on water just as it does if you watch a sunset near a lake or ocean with waves coming to shore.
Growing up 20 years ago in an evangelical church, I was taught that Catholics and Mormons were damned as well for various reasons. Is this still the view today? I haven't really kept up with changes (if any) in the beliefs since that time.
Continuation of tangent discussion/civil debate about religion thread - mentat_kgs - 2008-12-29
This remembered me of a chat I had with a japanese girl that grew in a shinto family. Her view of the stories of the old testament were so pure! She interpreted the pieces of what she had heard of the old testament as fairy tales!
Btw, you are wrong when you talk that japan is not an evangelized country. Japan has a very strong religion: FOOD!
Continuation of tangent discussion/civil debate about religion thread - playadom - 2008-12-29
bodhisamaya Wrote:Growing up 20 years ago in an evangelical church, I was taught that Catholics and Mormons were damned as well for various reasons. Is this still the view today? I haven't really kept up with changes (if any) in the beliefs since that time.This alone is a major flaw of those evangelical religions: there are some Mormons and Catholics that are very kind people, don't think that the evangelicals are going to Hell, are very devoted to God and Jesus, as well as other assorted religious things.
Compare these kind people with the evangelicals that claim so loudly that the genuinely kind people who subscribe to the above religions are damned.
If I were Jesus, I'd rather pass a good judgment on the kind people.
Have any of you heard of James Dobson? He's a crazy evangelical. He claims to be a "good Christian man" and that he is promoting "good family values", but he is actually shockingly cruel and intolerant.
I remember reading somewhere that Dobson excluded certain Christian religious groups[like the Mormons for example] from having a prayer group with them.
Jesus said, "Love one another."
These evangelicals are going against a major part of their doctrine, are they not?
Continuation of tangent discussion/civil debate about religion thread - igordesu - 2008-12-29
bodhisamaya Wrote:I saw many comparisons to Christianity and Egyptology from books years ago but I would have to go back and research it to list them as it has been a while. It seemed as if most of the major themes from the Bible were borrowed from Egyptology and Astrology. It was a nifty thing where the name Israel can be broken down from the three sun gods: Isis, Ra, and El. Christian prayers are closed with the phrase "Amen". As in Amen Ra. Clever as well is the story of the "Sun" of God walking on water just as it does if you watch a sunset near a lake or ocean with waves coming to shore.The view (which is in accordance with the Bible) isn't that people of any particular denomination are damned or not because of their belonging to that denomination. As you probably know, as long as a person has accepted Jesus Christ as their personal savior they would (according to the bible) go to heaven. So...it's possible that people of those denominations have done that, just very, very unlikely given the traditions and particular beliefs and theology in those churches/demoninations. A common thing with Catholicism (and Mormons, maybe) is that they value traditions and their church way, way more than the Bible.
Growing up 20 years ago in an evangelical church, I was taught that Catholics and Mormons were damned as well for various reasons. Is this still the view today? I haven't really kept up with changes (if any) in the beliefs since that time.
Continuation of tangent discussion/civil debate about religion thread - mentat_kgs - 2008-12-29
Igor, this view you present is the evangelical view. The catholics really believe other christians will go to hell.
Continuation of tangent discussion/civil debate about religion thread - bodhisamaya - 2008-12-29
Can it be broken down within different demoninations within the evangelical community as to who is and who is not on the path to salvation? Some relatively liberal churches now allow women or gays to preach. What percentage of those who call themselves evangelicals are following the true path and so will be saved? How many evangelicals do you estimate are interpreting the Bible incorrectly and so too are damned?
Continuation of tangent discussion/civil debate about religion thread - igordesu - 2008-12-29
playadom Wrote:Well, I can't say anything about James Dobson, b/c I have no idea who that is and I don't feel like googling an answer. But I can say...it's good thing you *aren't* Jesus.bodhisamaya Wrote:Growing up 20 years ago in an evangelical church, I was taught that Catholics and Mormons were damned as well for various reasons. Is this still the view today? I haven't really kept up with changes (if any) in the beliefs since that time.This alone is a major flaw of those evangelical religions: there are some Mormons and Catholics that are very kind people, don't think that the evangelicals are going to Hell, are very devoted to God and Jesus, as well as other assorted religious things.
Compare these kind people with the evangelicals that claim so loudly that the genuinely kind people who subscribe to the above religions are damned.
If I were Jesus, I'd rather pass a good judgment on the kind people.
Have any of you heard of James Dobson? He's a crazy evangelical. He claims to be a "good Christian man" and that he is promoting "good family values", but he is actually shockingly cruel and intolerant.
I remember reading somewhere that Dobson excluded certain Christian religious groups[like the Mormons for example] from having a prayer group with them.
Jesus said, "Love one another."
These evangelicals are going against a major part of their doctrine, are they not?
This is related to a misconception or perhaps question that some people have been having in this discussion, which is that Christianity is about spreading "good values," being a "good person," "loving your neighbor," or "being tolerant about other beliefs." Yeah, I was once telling a friend(-ish) of mine about a recent thing that's been going on in the church with Eastern religious ideals and practices entering many church practices now. I don't want to debate about it, but I was basically telling her about how that's a bad thing. And you know what she said? She said sarcastically, "Some Christian you are!" I didn't want to sound pompous or anything so I didn't say it, but I was thinking, "Umm....yes? I know."
Here's the deal. I know people love talking about how Jesus was all "Love your neighbor as yourself, etc." People say Christianity is about "tolerance," and they say we shouldn't be narrow-minded. Bullocks (as Khatz would say). But Jesus also claimed to be the ONLY way to God. He claimed to BE God. Heck, he was probably one of the most narrow-minded people ever. In fact, that was just as important if not more important of a part of His teaching. I don't want to get into a Bible-verse-citing competition/festival, so, if you need more, I can provide them, but a good example is John 14:6 "I am *the* way, *the* truth, and *the* life. *No one* comes to the Father except through me."
And now onto the "good person" bit. I agree that if this is the purpose of Christianity, than Christianity is pointless. Actually, not just pointless. Stupid. Stupid. Stupid. There are so many other religions that you can go to which stress being a "good person." But the fact is...according to God's standard, you're not a good person.
Let's take Tobby-chan's (sorry, lol...) example of lying. Have you ever told a lie? Even just a small lie, once. My guess is you have. What do you call someone who has told a lie? A liar. Have you ever stolen anything? *Anything* that wasn't yours? (I love asking people what you call someone who steals something, they always say "stealer"--it's pretty hilarious) That makes you a thief. Have you ever hated someone? Yes? Well, Jesus says that hating someone in your heart is the same as murder. So, you're a murderer. You may have an issue with calling someone who has lied once or twice a liar, but a person only has to kill one person and that warrants them being called a murderer. And a sin is a sin. So, that would make you a lying, thieving, murderer. And if you're a guy (or maybe a women), you've probably looked at a women in lust at one point in time. Jesus says that's like adultery in the heart. So you could add adulterer to that. Don't worry, I'm guilty of the same things. You see, that is God's (biblical) standard. Nobody can beat that. We're all guilty.
That is the purpose of Christianity. Because of this imperfection present in all of us, we are all doomed. Therefore, God sent his son Jesus to save us, etc. all that Jazz. After that, you can add "Love one another." In fact, the Bible demands it. In the Corinthians, it talks about how all is purposeless without Love. This makes sense. The Christians that you're describing above who preach this message of "turn or burn" seem to be lacking the element of love when dealing with these other people.
This also brings us back to the evangelism thingy. You have to understand that Christians who honestly believe all this stuff are honestly trying to get people saved. That's why some Christians logically find perhaps irritating someone by asking a few questions about God in a public place to be a small price to pay in exchange for the possibility of this person's soul being saved.
(I know activeaero had a question/problem earlier with God just making this stuff up and how it's purposeless, or whatever, and I seem to be avoiding it. I'm not, lol...Yeah, we'll save that for a future post. We'll also save the freedom of choice/predestination debate for a later debate, too.)
Continuation of tangent discussion/civil debate about religion thread - igordesu - 2008-12-29
bodhisamaya Wrote:Can it be broken down within different demoninations within the evangelical community as to who is and who is not on the path to salvation? Some relatively liberal churches now allow women or gays to preach. What percentage of those who call themselves evangelicals are following the true path and so will be saved? How many evangelicals do you estimate are interpreting the Bible incorrectly and so too are damned?That's a tough question to answer. I think it can maybe be roughly broken down into denominations, but the official stance of a particular denomination on everything may not reflect what's actually going on in the members' lives. It might not be an issue of "interpreting the bible incorrectly" as much as not interpreting the bible at all. Apart from the church that I attend (Calvary Chapel, a nondenominational which has churches all over the us and elsewhere), there are very, very few churches who teach through the bible, verse-by-verse. That may not seem very important, but it is. Without that (which is supposed to be the word of God), Christianity would just a bunch of traditions passed down and loyalty to a group of people who claim to be of God (*cough* Catholic church *cough*). I don't know, though. I know there are a number of surveys out there which aim to find out what people who attend church actually believe, but...like I said. I think you'd be hard pressed to find a large group of people who put Jesus as the most important thing in their life.
Continuation of tangent discussion/civil debate about religion thread - snispilbor - 2008-12-29
Actual Christianity, as Jesus actually established it, is ridiculously simple: "Believe you're saved, and you'll be saved. Have a nice day." That's IT. There's nothing else. No bible. No church. No ten commandments.
Bible: Jesus never read the Bible.
Church: Jesus never went to a Christian church (in the sense of an institution)
Ten Commandments: Jesus himself said they were null and void. They are the "old covenant".
The Christian religion which exists today is pure evil and should be utterly destroyed.
Any religion which tries to spread "abstinence until marriage", is evil and should be utterly destroyed.
Any religion which attempts to LOWER peoples' consciousness, is evil and should be utterly destroyed.
Any religion which declares certain natural-born minorities (e.g. gays) to be inherently evil, is evil and should be utterly destroyed.
Jesus himself agrees with me absolutely, and as His tantrum in the Jewish synagogue demonstrates, He would happily light the first detonator.
Continuation of tangent discussion/civil debate about religion thread - bodhisamaya - 2008-12-29
igordesu Wrote:Yeah, I was once telling a friend(-ish) of mine about a recent thing that's been going on in the church with Eastern religious ideals and practices entering many church practices now. I don't want to debate about it, but I was basically telling her about how that's a bad thing.I think these are positive things. Local Christian churches here now have classes on Yoga, meditation on the breath, and objective debate on the Bible during the week. Like the Japanese; Take the best of what other cultures have to offer and incorporate it into your own. I even have a picture on my wall of Jesus sitting on a lotus flower with a monks robe in meditation posture
Continuation of tangent discussion/civil debate about religion thread - alyks - 2008-12-29
snispilbor Wrote:Actual Christianity, as Jesus actually established it, is ridiculously simple: "Believe you're saved, and you'll be saved. Have a nice day." That's IT. There's nothing else. No bible. No church. No ten commandments.Very nicely said.
Bible: Jesus never read the Bible.
Church: Jesus never went to a Christian church (in the sense of an institution)
Ten Commandments: Jesus himself said they were null and void. They are the "old covenant".
The Christian religion which exists today is pure evil and should be utterly destroyed.
Any religion which tries to spread "abstinence until marriage", is evil and should be utterly destroyed.
Any religion which attempts to LOWER peoples' consciousness, is evil and should be utterly destroyed.
Any religion which declares certain natural-born minorities (e.g. gays) to be inherently evil, is evil and should be utterly destroyed.
Jesus himself agrees with me absolutely, and as His tantrum in the Jewish synagogue demonstrates, He would happily light the first detonator.
I myself was never even raised with religion. Both my parents are atheists, and believe it or not, it seems really strange to me to see people talk about religion like this. The ideas of the bible, church or even god never existed to me until I grew up. When people say things like "As you probably know, as long as a person has accepted Jesus Christ as their personal savior they would (according to the bible) go to heaven.", it really is a concept that I was truly not aware of until fairly recently in my life. It's like what Mentat said, a lot of what I have heard of the bible does seem like fairly tales. I don't know if people take them literally or figuratively, but it would be pretty strange to take them as actual events that happened.
And I guess it just doesn't make sense to me. Most people grow up with this kind of thing since they're were born, and it might make sense to them, but to me it doesn't. I guess I'm just wondering, why do we need to have a religion? I mean, I like to think I'm not a terribly bad person. I generally give people the benefit of the doubt and I don't do anything bad to anybody. I've gotten along fine without religion and will continue to do so.
Continuation of tangent discussion/civil debate about religion thread - bodhisamaya - 2008-12-29
Religion isn't necessary. The same results can be achieved by secular means of debate on philosophy. I find Buddhism fun. The art work and fairy tales are an enjoyable and imaginative way to keep a wider perspective of things. Counting to ten and taking deep breaths can simulate meditation for calming a restless mind without the need to imagine a Buddha.
Continuation of tangent discussion/civil debate about religion thread - mentat_kgs - 2008-12-29
Erm, not the same. Much better results!
Continuation of tangent discussion/civil debate about religion thread - igordesu - 2008-12-29
snispilbor Wrote:Actual Christianity, as Jesus actually established it, is ridiculously simple: "Believe you're saved, and you'll be saved. Have a nice day." That's IT. There's nothing else. No bible. No church. No ten commandments.(*sighs in despair as he begins to further dispel silly rumors/blatant lies about the Bible*) just kidding, lol...
Bible: Jesus never read the Bible.
Church: Jesus never went to a Christian church (in the sense of an institution)
Ten Commandments: Jesus himself said they were null and void. They are the "old covenant".
The Christian religion which exists today is pure evil and should be utterly destroyed.
Any religion which tries to spread "abstinence until marriage", is evil and should be utterly destroyed.
Any religion which attempts to LOWER peoples' consciousness, is evil and should be utterly destroyed.
Any religion which declares certain natural-born minorities (e.g. gays) to be inherently evil, is evil and should be utterly destroyed.
Jesus himself agrees with me absolutely, and as His tantrum in the Jewish synagogue demonstrates, He would happily light the first detonator.
To which Jesus in which Bible are you referring? Seriously?
"Actual Christianity, as Jesus actually established it, is ridiculously simple: "Believe you're saved, and you'll be saved. Have a nice day." That's IT. There's nothing else."
Actually, Jesus typically said something more like, repent of your sins and follow me (in belief). And in the translation of the word believe, which we take to mean "accept as the truth or fact," actually means something more like "put your trust in."
"Bible: Jesus never read the Bible."
You're wrong. Even if you don't agree that He was the son of God or anything, it is still clear from the Bible that he was familiar with the old testament. In his teachings, he quotes A LOT from the book of the *law*, Deuteronomy (He quotes from here more than anywhere else, gee, isn't that FUNNY...). In Luke chapter 4 verses 16-21, Jesus specifically reads from the book of Isaiah in the Old Testament in a synagogue in Nazareth. It's true that He wasn't familiar with the New Testament as it wasn't written yet, but, if you believe the first chapter of John and that Jesus is God, then it is clear that the Bible is the very word of God (Jesus).
"Church: Jesus never went to a Christian church (in the sense of an institution)"
Of course. The church wasn't founded until the day of Pentacost (read about it in the book of Acts) after Jesus' death and ascension. This is irrelevant anyways since, even if you don't believe that he was God and the founder of the church, the church was still originally founded upon his ideas.
"Ten Commandments: Jesus himself said they were null and void. They are the "old covenant"."
Wrong again. Jesus said in Matthew 5:17-21 "Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven." You must have skipped over this part, eh? The purpose of the law was never to save us but to show us our faults. It is by the law (ten commandments) that we know we are sinners in need of Jesus. That's what he means by "fulfill." When Jesus says the greatest commandment is to love God totally and the second greatest is to love your neighbors, this is a summary of the ten commandments.
"The Christian religion which exists today is pure evil and should be utterly destroyed."
How can you say this (or anything else) is evil? To what standard are you comparing this when you say it's evil? There MUST be some standard for you to say that. If you are an athiest, there is no basis for you to call anything evil. Without starting a debate on creationism, etc., if we are all the product of random chance, there is really no reason for you to call something evil. The only "law" there would be is survival-of-the-fittest. "Might makes right." If we're products of random chance, none of us is better than the other, and therefore no one's sense of ethics is better than another's.
"Any religion which tries to spread "abstinence until marriage", is evil and should be utterly destroyed."
Because we all know teenage pregnancies and STDs are the best thing ever.
"Any religion which attempts to LOWER peoples' consciousness, is evil and should be utterly destroyed."
Not sure what you mean by that.
"Any religion which declares certain natural-born minorities (e.g. gays) to be inherently evil, is evil and should be utterly destroyed."
Actually, the bible declares every "natural-born minority" to be inherently evil. The bible says everybody is inherently evil. I'm not sure what your point is there. I won't get into a debate about homosexuality in this public forum. We all know that discussion would not end up being a normal discussion. If anybody really wants to debate it, I guess I'd do it over email.
"Jesus himself agrees with me absolutely, and as His tantrum in the Jewish synagogue demonstrates, He would happily light the first detonator."
No, He doesn't. He did not have a tantrum in the Jewish synagogue (actually, I think it was the temple). He did that to dispel the people who were making a monetary profit off of religion. I think many people in this thread could sympathize with that.