This is a continuation of the civil yet religious debate that was the result of a tangent discussion in the "I study Nihongo because..." thread. To maintain the purpose of the original thread, I've taken the liberty of creating this thread to maintain the "religious" discussion. I hope that's okay.
2008-12-28, 10:04 pm
Maybe it would help to copy most of the replies concerning religion here, so you will know where to start. 
2008-12-28, 10:08 pm
Let's get this party started! Actually, I just said that because I feel weird that I'm posting this and I'm the only person posting in this thread so far. Anyways, Bodhisamaya, this one's for you, bro!
Um…no? I think that maybe a recent movement that has hit the church today has given you the wrong idea of heaven. People are coming to Christianity more and more for the experience, when that’s not what it’s about (if you want experience, go check out an eastern religion….just kidding, lol). Think of it like this. What if hell was a place filled with all kinds of amazing pleasures. Imagine that it’s almost like some sort of paradise with whatever you want; food, drinks, any kind of relationships that you want, etc…whatever. However, you are separated from God. Now imagine that heaven is a place where you do brutal, difficult labor for long hours everyday. But you get to spend your days working side-by-side next Jesus. After work, you eat meals with Jesus and fellowship with your creator. Which would you choose? I’m not saying this is the way heaven or hell really are. But, I think that if someone would choose hell in this hypothetical situation the person's entire motivation for becoming a Christian and wanting to go to heaven is wrong. Heaven isn’t about the experience. It’s about choosing God above all else. An example is when Jesus is talking to the rich young ruler (He tells him to go sell all his things, give the money to the poor, and follow Him). It’s the same thing when Jesus explains the Ten Commandments. What he meant by the first and greatest commandment is to love God completely (forgive me, I’m paraphrasing) and the second is to “love thy neighbor” is simple. Look at the Ten Commandments. The first few are dealing with our relationship with God (the “greatest” commandments), and the last ones are dealing with our relationship with other people. In Matthew 8:21-22, Jesus tells someone to forget about burying his father and to follow Him. God obviously wants us to choose Him over family. It’s hard to accept, but it makes sense. Family raised us and we grew up with them. However, God went beyond even creating us and bore our sin upon the cross to death (I know, we’ll get to that in a second). And anyway, if God is truly as magnificent as the Bible says he is, then once a person is in His presence I would find it hard to justify someone else’s rejection of Him to the point of disbelief.
“Another issue is the Son of God dying on the cross for the sins of everyone. This is an idea borrowed from Buddhism and probably many other religions. It is called Tonglen in Sanskrit. "May I alone take on all the suffering of every sentient being in the universe and may they only experience bliss". Also, "For the sake of even one suffering being, may I endure the chopping of my body into a thousand pieces". These are prayers that have been repeated by every sincere Buddhist practitioner since far before the birth of Jesus. Every time a Bodhisattva dies, he has the motivation to be re-born in human form instead of a heavenly re-birth to endure once again all the tortures of human existence in order to ease other beings suffering. "For as long as space endures and living beings remain, may I too abide to dispel their misery".”
I’ll be honest. I know almost nothing about Buddhism and other Indian religions. So, please correct me and forgive me if I make any mistakes here. So Buddhism “started” around 400 BC, right? Now, I don’t mean to be picky or anything, but is it like the exact same idea? I mean, is it like, the creator of all sentient beings, despite their rejection of said creator, bearing the rejection and sin of all sentient beings out of Love? I don’t know, but I think the ideas that you say are expressed in Buddhism are a bit different (maybe since you say that many different people repeat prayers about this-this may show my ignorance, as I don’t know a lot about Buddhism. This is a very specific idea in the Bible from very early, and not just an advent of the New Testament. I realize that there could have been cross-cultural exchanges of religious ideas like these in the middle east that could have led to similarities (like this), but…I doubt that they’re the same. The book of Isaiah (written around 8th century BC according Wikipedia) says in 53:5-7: “But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed. We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all. He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth.” (note that, although this is in the past tense, this is a literary convention used in Hebrew literature/prophecy and still refers to the future) And this is all pretty consistent with what’s been happening earlier in the Bible, too, so I don’t really see this as being borrowed from other religions. Especially since the Jews of that time period were kind of separated from the other people groups around them with their belief in one, almighty creator God.
”The idea that a God incarnate with all the knowledge in the universe of anatomy and physiology and the reasoning behind pain would have any discomfort on a cross seems silly. There are multitudes of Yogis in India who can endure any kind of mutilation to their bodies you can heap upon them and not even drop their mala beads. They have overcome their aversion to pain and even laugh at it. A God incarnate would certainly see through the illusion of pain. It would be like, "Well guys, that was fun. Lets do that whole cross thing again next week. I'll bring the nails."”
Let’s clarify “God incarnate.” That means Jesus was 100% God and 100% human. I know…I have trouble with the 200% deal myself. If you doubt me, check out the first chapter of John (at first, Jesus is described as God and then in vs. 14 he “became flesh and dwelt among us.” Jesus did many things to show His full divinity such as forgive sins. However, He was fully human. He had to sleep and eat. And He had emotions such as sadness: “and Jesus wept.”) Therefore, Jesus could die, but He conquered death because he was God and lived a perfect, sinless life. Also, this wasn’t just a silly, random decision on the part of God to have Jesus die. If you are at all familiar with the Old Testament and sacrifices, etc, then you will know that it was necessary for Him to die as the final atonement for sins. Yeah, you seem pretty familiar with the Bible, so I kind of assumed you knew some background info there, but, if you need more clarification, I can elaborate.
bodhisamaya Wrote:Iqordesu. Do you really under-estimate your own capacity for compassion to the point that if your own mother were burning in hell for all eternity, it would still be a heavenly experience for you?“Iqordesu. Do you really under-estimate your own capacity for compassion to the point that if your own mother were burning in hell for all eternity, it would still be a heavenly experience for you?”
Another issue is the Son of God dying on the cross for the sins of everyone. This is an idea borrowed from Buddhism and probably many other religions. It is called Tonglen in Sanskrit. "May I alone take on all the suffering of every sentient being in the universe and may they only experience bliss". Also, "For the sake of even one suffering being, may I endure the chopping of my body into a thousand pieces". These are prayers that have been repeated by every sincere Buddhist practitioner since far before the birth of Jesus. Every time a Bodhisattva dies, he has the motivation to be re-born in human form instead of a heavenly re-birth to endure once again all the tortures of human existence in order to ease other beings suffering. "For as long as space endures and living beings remain, may I too abide to dispel their misery".
The idea that a God incarnate with all the knowledge in the universe of anatomy and physiology and the reasoning behind pain would have any discomfort on a cross seems silly. There are multitudes of Yogis in India who can endure any kind of mutilation to their bodies you can heap upon them and not even drop their mala beads. They have overcome their aversion to pain and even laugh at it. A God incarnate would certainly see through the illusion of pain. It would be like, "Well guys, that was fun. Lets do that whole cross thing again next week. I'll bring the nails."
Um…no? I think that maybe a recent movement that has hit the church today has given you the wrong idea of heaven. People are coming to Christianity more and more for the experience, when that’s not what it’s about (if you want experience, go check out an eastern religion….just kidding, lol). Think of it like this. What if hell was a place filled with all kinds of amazing pleasures. Imagine that it’s almost like some sort of paradise with whatever you want; food, drinks, any kind of relationships that you want, etc…whatever. However, you are separated from God. Now imagine that heaven is a place where you do brutal, difficult labor for long hours everyday. But you get to spend your days working side-by-side next Jesus. After work, you eat meals with Jesus and fellowship with your creator. Which would you choose? I’m not saying this is the way heaven or hell really are. But, I think that if someone would choose hell in this hypothetical situation the person's entire motivation for becoming a Christian and wanting to go to heaven is wrong. Heaven isn’t about the experience. It’s about choosing God above all else. An example is when Jesus is talking to the rich young ruler (He tells him to go sell all his things, give the money to the poor, and follow Him). It’s the same thing when Jesus explains the Ten Commandments. What he meant by the first and greatest commandment is to love God completely (forgive me, I’m paraphrasing) and the second is to “love thy neighbor” is simple. Look at the Ten Commandments. The first few are dealing with our relationship with God (the “greatest” commandments), and the last ones are dealing with our relationship with other people. In Matthew 8:21-22, Jesus tells someone to forget about burying his father and to follow Him. God obviously wants us to choose Him over family. It’s hard to accept, but it makes sense. Family raised us and we grew up with them. However, God went beyond even creating us and bore our sin upon the cross to death (I know, we’ll get to that in a second). And anyway, if God is truly as magnificent as the Bible says he is, then once a person is in His presence I would find it hard to justify someone else’s rejection of Him to the point of disbelief.
“Another issue is the Son of God dying on the cross for the sins of everyone. This is an idea borrowed from Buddhism and probably many other religions. It is called Tonglen in Sanskrit. "May I alone take on all the suffering of every sentient being in the universe and may they only experience bliss". Also, "For the sake of even one suffering being, may I endure the chopping of my body into a thousand pieces". These are prayers that have been repeated by every sincere Buddhist practitioner since far before the birth of Jesus. Every time a Bodhisattva dies, he has the motivation to be re-born in human form instead of a heavenly re-birth to endure once again all the tortures of human existence in order to ease other beings suffering. "For as long as space endures and living beings remain, may I too abide to dispel their misery".”
I’ll be honest. I know almost nothing about Buddhism and other Indian religions. So, please correct me and forgive me if I make any mistakes here. So Buddhism “started” around 400 BC, right? Now, I don’t mean to be picky or anything, but is it like the exact same idea? I mean, is it like, the creator of all sentient beings, despite their rejection of said creator, bearing the rejection and sin of all sentient beings out of Love? I don’t know, but I think the ideas that you say are expressed in Buddhism are a bit different (maybe since you say that many different people repeat prayers about this-this may show my ignorance, as I don’t know a lot about Buddhism. This is a very specific idea in the Bible from very early, and not just an advent of the New Testament. I realize that there could have been cross-cultural exchanges of religious ideas like these in the middle east that could have led to similarities (like this), but…I doubt that they’re the same. The book of Isaiah (written around 8th century BC according Wikipedia) says in 53:5-7: “But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed. We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all. He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth.” (note that, although this is in the past tense, this is a literary convention used in Hebrew literature/prophecy and still refers to the future) And this is all pretty consistent with what’s been happening earlier in the Bible, too, so I don’t really see this as being borrowed from other religions. Especially since the Jews of that time period were kind of separated from the other people groups around them with their belief in one, almighty creator God.
”The idea that a God incarnate with all the knowledge in the universe of anatomy and physiology and the reasoning behind pain would have any discomfort on a cross seems silly. There are multitudes of Yogis in India who can endure any kind of mutilation to their bodies you can heap upon them and not even drop their mala beads. They have overcome their aversion to pain and even laugh at it. A God incarnate would certainly see through the illusion of pain. It would be like, "Well guys, that was fun. Lets do that whole cross thing again next week. I'll bring the nails."”
Let’s clarify “God incarnate.” That means Jesus was 100% God and 100% human. I know…I have trouble with the 200% deal myself. If you doubt me, check out the first chapter of John (at first, Jesus is described as God and then in vs. 14 he “became flesh and dwelt among us.” Jesus did many things to show His full divinity such as forgive sins. However, He was fully human. He had to sleep and eat. And He had emotions such as sadness: “and Jesus wept.”) Therefore, Jesus could die, but He conquered death because he was God and lived a perfect, sinless life. Also, this wasn’t just a silly, random decision on the part of God to have Jesus die. If you are at all familiar with the Old Testament and sacrifices, etc, then you will know that it was necessary for Him to die as the final atonement for sins. Yeah, you seem pretty familiar with the Bible, so I kind of assumed you knew some background info there, but, if you need more clarification, I can elaborate.
Edited: 2008-12-28, 10:10 pm
Advertising (Register to hide)
May 16 - 30 : Pretty Big Deal: Save 31% on all Premium Subscriptions!
- Sign up here
2008-12-28, 11:19 pm
ええ？どうしてこのフォーラムで宗教について話しています？宗教と言えば、外で続けたほうがいいです。代わりに日本の駅前でマイクロフォンを使います。イヴァデェリストのように。。。
’するとその異人が金牛宮の頂にある七星の話をして聞かせた。。。最後に自分に神を信仰するかと尋ねた。自分は空を見て黙っていた。’ http://www.amazon.co.jp/Ten-Nights-Dream...275&sr=8-1
忘れないでください：'This forum is first and foremost a means for Reviewing The Kanji (RevTK) members, to support, encourage and help each other to complete the Remembering the Kanji (RtK) self-study method.'
’するとその異人が金牛宮の頂にある七星の話をして聞かせた。。。最後に自分に神を信仰するかと尋ねた。自分は空を見て黙っていた。’ http://www.amazon.co.jp/Ten-Nights-Dream...275&sr=8-1
忘れないでください：'This forum is first and foremost a means for Reviewing The Kanji (RevTK) members, to support, encourage and help each other to complete the Remembering the Kanji (RtK) self-study method.'
2008-12-28, 11:28 pm
@igordesu
I've never been a fan of missionaries or their "agenda's." My personal opinion is that it's religious marketing plus the "white man's burden" wrapped up in a nice little bundle. To be fair, I've also met some Buddhists with the same kind of pushy mentality. I'm not saying I dislike the religion, or any religion for that matter, but I dislike the way that people try to force it on you. Your thoughts?
I've never been a fan of missionaries or their "agenda's." My personal opinion is that it's religious marketing plus the "white man's burden" wrapped up in a nice little bundle. To be fair, I've also met some Buddhists with the same kind of pushy mentality. I'm not saying I dislike the religion, or any religion for that matter, but I dislike the way that people try to force it on you. Your thoughts?
2008-12-28, 11:54 pm
igordesu Wrote:then you will know that it was necessary for Him to die as the final atonement for sins.I asked this earlier and I'd like you to address it.
Who said it was necessary for Jesus to die for our sins? The only answer I know of is God. God created the entire scenario that said he had to sacrifice himself (Jesus) for the very plan he created in the first place. This is not a sacrifice. That's called being sadistic. It also just doesn't make since nor is it impressive in the slightest for some all powerful being even if we do assume none of the logical fallacies exist. Countless mortal men have willingly sacrificed their lives in order to save their fellow man. The creator of the entire universe doing it and then acting like it is something unbelievably special is laughable.
You also haven't answered what point does all of this serve. If everything is merely a creation stemming from some single being then there is absolutely no point in doing ANYTHING. Any action is equally irrelevant and/or equally important. Endless "happiness" or endless "suffering" both achieve the same goal within the frame of some single creator's infinite time frame (or lack of time completely)......which is of course nothing.
Edited: 2008-12-28, 11:54 pm
2008-12-29, 12:24 am
@ igordesu
In all honesty, my view of Christianity would be a lot different if it wasn't for the Old Testament. I have an overall positive view of Jesus, but I was able to identify much better with the Buddhist scriptures. For example, even if I accept your premise that the actions of God as presented in the Old Testament are just and fair given the historical context, the books still come across as very violent and frequently ambiguous by today's standards. I began reading some Buddhist scriptures as a child and, alternatively, I found them to be much less violent and easier to understand without having to resort to complicated interpretations or guesswork.
I think that one reason the Japanese may be much less likely to accept Jesus is because many Japanese Buddhists already have a savior of their own. His name is Amida, and the belief system that follows him bears many remarkable similarities to Christianity. For example, the oldest forms of Buddhism were all do-it-yourself in the same sense of the Jewish Law. The concept behind chanting Amida's name is very similar to the Christian concept of grace. Through Amida, believers feel that they will find themselves in a kind of heaven when they die. Although the Amida followers might not say, "I'm not a saint, I'm just saved" they could say "I'm not a buddha, I'm just saved." In this sense, it looks like Amida in Japan fulfills a very similar function to that of Christ in the West.
Given that you will find many decent and kind people in Japan and that Buddhism shares the same basic moral values of Christianity such as compassion, peace, altruism, humility, and frugality, how do you reconcile this with your beliefs of Christian exclusivity?
"Jesus warned in Matt: 7:15-20
15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit."
Under the Christian worldview, how can Buddhists have strong moral values and "good" personality characteristics? Weren't you theorizing before that people who adhere to other religions might be being tricked by Satan? But according to Matthew, Satan cannot ever lead to acts of good.
In all honesty, my view of Christianity would be a lot different if it wasn't for the Old Testament. I have an overall positive view of Jesus, but I was able to identify much better with the Buddhist scriptures. For example, even if I accept your premise that the actions of God as presented in the Old Testament are just and fair given the historical context, the books still come across as very violent and frequently ambiguous by today's standards. I began reading some Buddhist scriptures as a child and, alternatively, I found them to be much less violent and easier to understand without having to resort to complicated interpretations or guesswork.
I think that one reason the Japanese may be much less likely to accept Jesus is because many Japanese Buddhists already have a savior of their own. His name is Amida, and the belief system that follows him bears many remarkable similarities to Christianity. For example, the oldest forms of Buddhism were all do-it-yourself in the same sense of the Jewish Law. The concept behind chanting Amida's name is very similar to the Christian concept of grace. Through Amida, believers feel that they will find themselves in a kind of heaven when they die. Although the Amida followers might not say, "I'm not a saint, I'm just saved" they could say "I'm not a buddha, I'm just saved." In this sense, it looks like Amida in Japan fulfills a very similar function to that of Christ in the West.
Given that you will find many decent and kind people in Japan and that Buddhism shares the same basic moral values of Christianity such as compassion, peace, altruism, humility, and frugality, how do you reconcile this with your beliefs of Christian exclusivity?
"Jesus warned in Matt: 7:15-20
15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit."
Under the Christian worldview, how can Buddhists have strong moral values and "good" personality characteristics? Weren't you theorizing before that people who adhere to other religions might be being tricked by Satan? But according to Matthew, Satan cannot ever lead to acts of good.
2008-12-29, 12:38 am
an interesting debate... i'm just curious, do you guys (activeaero and bodhisamaya) believe in a God at all or are you just atheists? i don't know much about Buddhism myself (if that's what you are) so i don't know where you are coming from that much... i'm Christian btw...
i'ld like to pose another question in this debate (maybe i will push it over the edge haha) but since this is a language based website, what do you guys think about people speaking in "tongues"? Both my grandmother and mother do this as they have been given that gift by God... but what i am curious in is do they speak tongues in Buddhism? i have often heard people speak in weird languages in Buddhist temples when i have visited Japan in the past... i know it wasn't Japanese, but i'm not sure what it was... maybe somebody can educate me a little on it... (oohh... i just asked my Japanese fiance about it and she said they are praying in kanji or something but she doesn't understand it either) maybe someone could elaborate on the details.....
i'ld like to pose another question in this debate (maybe i will push it over the edge haha) but since this is a language based website, what do you guys think about people speaking in "tongues"? Both my grandmother and mother do this as they have been given that gift by God... but what i am curious in is do they speak tongues in Buddhism? i have often heard people speak in weird languages in Buddhist temples when i have visited Japan in the past... i know it wasn't Japanese, but i'm not sure what it was... maybe somebody can educate me a little on it... (oohh... i just asked my Japanese fiance about it and she said they are praying in kanji or something but she doesn't understand it either) maybe someone could elaborate on the details.....
2008-12-29, 1:51 am
stehr Wrote:@igordesuI also have a problem with people pushing things on me, who doesn't? I agree that trying to force Christianity on someone is the wrong way, and let's admit it, not very effective anyway. In fact, it often does more harm then good... When I feel someone trying to force me or trick me into something I automatically switch off or get super defensive -- either way I'm certainly not listening to what they're saying. Can anyone else identify?
I've never been a fan of missionaries or their "agenda's." My personal opinion is that it's religious marketing plus the "white man's burden" wrapped up in a nice little bundle. To be fair, I've also met some Buddhists with the same kind of pushy mentality. I'm not saying I dislike the religion, or any religion for that matter, but I dislike the way that people try to force it on you. Your thoughts?
"Evangelism" has become a dirty word today because it conjures up images of narrow-minded Fundamentalists and crazy people on TV trying to sell you something.
Jesus didn't force anyone to follow him, and neither should Christians. However there is nothing wrong with real evangelism. And what I mean by that is giving people the opportunity to hear the gospel and the actual message of Christianity. And not just telling, but showing them through actions and actually doing something meaningful for them.
Simply trying to convince/trick/force someone into becoming a Christian is ludicrous when you really think about it, because it'll be just as easy for someone else to come along and convince/trick/force them out of it.
People must make their own decision. Thus my role as a Christian is to give enough information to those that want to hear, so that they can then make an informed/adult decision for themselves.
2008-12-29, 2:19 am
Dragg Wrote:@ igordesuThis is an excellent point and kind of goes with my post.....what exactly does Christianity have to offer that is actually relevant to anything?
"Jesus warned in Matt: 7:15-20
15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit."
Under the Christian worldview, how can Buddhists have strong moral values and "good" personality characteristics? Weren't you theorizing before that people who adhere to other religions might be being tricked by Satan? But according to Matthew, Satan cannot ever lead to acts of good.
If people can become incredibly kind, loving and peaceful and yet Christianity still condemns them to a fate of internal suffering because they just didn't happen to believe in Jesus' resurrection, which is exactly what Christianity does state, then Christianity is not a religion worth following. It makes absolutely no sense to preach about an "all loving, all forgiving" being that sends good people to suffer in hell for eternity. The whole idea is self contradictory.
2008-12-29, 2:24 am
Hashiriya Wrote:an interesting debate... i'm just curious, do you guys (activeaero and bodhisamaya) believe in a God at all or are you just atheists? .No I don't believe in any specific personalized God for the simple reason that there is no proof nor reason to believe in one. In fact I hope God does NOT exist as it would make life completely meaningless.
2008-12-29, 3:13 am
sammyB Wrote:Jesus didn't force anyone to follow him, and neither should Christians. However there is nothing wrong with real evangelism. And what I mean by that is giving people the opportunity to hear the gospel and the actual message of Christianity. And not just telling, but showing them through actions and actually doing something meaningful for them.Great points. I agree with you on all these points. There's a lot of great things about Christianity that can be shared to those who wish, and those who want to learn will usually seek help out on their own. With information readily available to most people, and bibles in every hotel room (thanks to the secret ninja-race of Gideons), I can't really see the point in missionary work concerning converting people to Christianity, besides the two points I've listed above.
Simply trying to convince/trick/force someone into becoming a Christian is ludicrous when you really think about it, because it'll be just as easy for someone else to come along and convince/trick/force them out of it.
2008-12-29, 5:15 am
Just got off work so a little tired but I will answer a couple questions. Buddhism is technically atheistic. There is a belief in gods but not a creator god. Moreover these gods are considered not really worthy of veneration. There are two levels of gods. The higher level level gods are afflicted by pride. The lower level gods are afflicted by jealousy and the love of war. I don't mean this in a dis-respectful way but the Christian God would fall into the lower category. Gods have extremely long lives. Lasting for periods of many Big Bangs and Big Crunches of the universe. But it is not permanent. Even gods die and are re-born into a "lesser" existence such as that of a human or animal. The Buddha made it clear he was not a god. He claimed he was just "awake". His only purpose was to teach others how to become awake.
The primary Buddha in Japan is Amidha, the Buddha of Boundless light. Those who follow Pure Land Buddhism meditate on him. Most who follow this path mis-understand that the Pure Land is, like everything else, impermanent and so consider it an eternal heaven similar to the Christian Heaven. It is not considered a wrong path by other Buddhist. Just one that takes longer to become a fully awake, "Buddha". The historical Buddha, Shakyamuni, claimed that he was the fourth Buddha on this planet. There will be a future Buddha called Maitreya. Many Tibetans believe this to be a man called Karmapa who is living in Darmasala, India now and preparing to take over the Dalai Lama's work when he dies.
Buddhism is often referred to as not a religion at all as there is no god to worship. It is closer to a science than a religion. The Dalai Lama himself tells his followers, "If religion and science disagree, it is wise to side with science. When asked what his religion is, he claims it to be kindness.
Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. Do not believe in anything because it is written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. After observation and analysis, when you find that it agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and the benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.
---Buddha
The primary Buddha in Japan is Amidha, the Buddha of Boundless light. Those who follow Pure Land Buddhism meditate on him. Most who follow this path mis-understand that the Pure Land is, like everything else, impermanent and so consider it an eternal heaven similar to the Christian Heaven. It is not considered a wrong path by other Buddhist. Just one that takes longer to become a fully awake, "Buddha". The historical Buddha, Shakyamuni, claimed that he was the fourth Buddha on this planet. There will be a future Buddha called Maitreya. Many Tibetans believe this to be a man called Karmapa who is living in Darmasala, India now and preparing to take over the Dalai Lama's work when he dies.
Buddhism is often referred to as not a religion at all as there is no god to worship. It is closer to a science than a religion. The Dalai Lama himself tells his followers, "If religion and science disagree, it is wise to side with science. When asked what his religion is, he claims it to be kindness.
Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. Do not believe in anything because it is written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. After observation and analysis, when you find that it agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and the benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.
---Buddha
2008-12-29, 6:12 am
I'm going to go back and read the rest of this thread soon, but before I start wading through I wanted to offer up this one thought I've always had about Christianity.
It is *entirely* based around what is written in the bible. Literally any debate/discussion I've had with any Christian has always descended into them saying "but the Bible says..."
Even ignoring the glaring holes in the Bible, its basically impossible to argue with that. The problem is that a Christian has a single premise and assumption, which is that the bible was written by God, and is therefore true and accurate .
This then means arguing anything is useless, because even when you shoot down every argument the Christian offers, they always fall back to the basis that the Bible is right, and any other evidence has to be wrong because it contradicts something they have accepted as fact. Basically, it means people ignoring reality so that they don't feel contradictory inside.
The Bible is, of course, a book written by man. It was written by people (and not even in English, might I add) and people by nature are not necessarily honest. The fact that it was originally written by a person, means that it in itself cannot be 100% trusted. Once a person accepts that the Bible is not always right, one can move forward in actually determining their own beliefs and trying to determine that from evidence around them. Not just based on what someone else says.
It is *entirely* based around what is written in the bible. Literally any debate/discussion I've had with any Christian has always descended into them saying "but the Bible says..."
Even ignoring the glaring holes in the Bible, its basically impossible to argue with that. The problem is that a Christian has a single premise and assumption, which is that the bible was written by God, and is therefore true and accurate .
This then means arguing anything is useless, because even when you shoot down every argument the Christian offers, they always fall back to the basis that the Bible is right, and any other evidence has to be wrong because it contradicts something they have accepted as fact. Basically, it means people ignoring reality so that they don't feel contradictory inside.
The Bible is, of course, a book written by man. It was written by people (and not even in English, might I add) and people by nature are not necessarily honest. The fact that it was originally written by a person, means that it in itself cannot be 100% trusted. Once a person accepts that the Bible is not always right, one can move forward in actually determining their own beliefs and trying to determine that from evidence around them. Not just based on what someone else says.
Edited: 2008-12-29, 6:13 am
2008-12-29, 6:18 am
activeaero Wrote:If people can become incredibly kind, loving and peaceful and yet Christianity still condemns them to a fate of internal suffering because they just didn't happen to believe in Jesus' resurrection... then Christianity is not a religion worth following. It makes absolutely no sense to preach about an "all loving, all forgiving" being that sends good people to suffer in hell for eternity. The whole idea is self contradictory.I see where you are coming from I think. How can He be a loving and forgiving God, yet punish "good" people at the same time? Don't those people deserve to go to heaven (if there is one)?
Well, I guess it becomes pretty important to work out who exactly you consider "good" people to be. Is it those that go out of their way to help others? Or can it just be those that don't intentionally hurt anyone else? Is it those that give lots of money to charities? If so, how much of one's salary is enough? 10%? 50%? Or do you have to actually go to 3rd world countries and help out? Does that make one a "good" person?
Or is it just being "incredibly kind, loving and peaceful" enough?
Are you starting to see any problem here?
Let's flip it the other way... What makes you "bad" person? Do you have to murder someone? Or rape someone? Or does just lying make you bad? If so, how many lies? What about if they're just little lies, that don't really affect anyone else that much? What about if you do more good things than bad things, will that balance it out?
There is a problem. God, if he's there, and if he really IS God, is perfect right? Otherwise he wouldn't be God. His standard is perfection. You want to know what a truly "good" person is? It is someone who lives their entire live without doing anything wrong, without ever stuffing up or hurting anyone or ever causing any pain. Clearly, none of us measure up to that standard.
It's like doing reviews in Anki, you only have to get ONE wrong, and you'll never get your average back to 100%. Even if you get the next 10,000 right you still can't get to 100%.
That's the problem. We're not perfect, God is. So whom amongst us deserves to go to heaven and spend eternity with a perfect God? No-one. That's right. Christians don't deserve to go to heaven any more than anyone else. God is a loving God, but he is a just God too...
Think about a courtroom... if there was someone on trial for stealing stuff, and the Judge went "Oh don't worry about it, you seem nice enough, go free." Would he be a good judge? Heck no... Same deal with God. If he is a righteous and perfect God he must punish sin.
So technically, we're all stuffed. Romans 3:23 says "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God".
Woah, wait a second. What's the point of even trying then? No matter how hard we try it will never be enough right..?
That is why Jesus had to come. He claimed to be sinless, and backed it up by the way He lived. And because He lived a sinless life, His death in our place is the only payment acceptable for the sins of the world. That's grace man... None of us deserve it...The fact that he rose three days later proved He was the Son of God, and confirmed that God accepted His death as complete payment for all our sins (I'm sorry if you know all this already, just wanted to make sure there wasn't any confusion about what Christians actually believe).
Is that starting to make more sense?
Can you see now why it is possible for God to be loving and forgiving, but also just and having to punish those who don't accept the grace He is offering us? God does not force us to blindly follow Him and if you choose to pay for your own sin, He will honour your decision... God does not want to send people to hell. He does not get some sadistic pleasure out of it. The fact that He went to so much effort to give us a way back proves that...
Sorry for the long post, hope it answers your question.
2008-12-29, 6:21 am
bodhisamaya Wrote:Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. Do not believe in anything because it is written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. After observation and analysis, when you find that it agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and the benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.I'm not a Buddhist (maybe in the future after I do my research) but the insight it provides is truly something you would except from a real higher power as seen by this quote. Christianity is oppressive when it comes to expanding human thought and actually teaches to not question certain aspects of it and that the followers, if having trouble with certain aspects, are to simply rely on faith. This is a cop out that would be a disgrace to any true God like being.
---Buddha
Like I said earlier I'm still wanting an answer as to what positive benefit Christianity provides to human kind, while on earth, that is not already obtained by non-Christians?
2008-12-29, 6:38 am
I'd like to add God's very own word on the subject to show just how disturbing it would be if he was real......and how Christians are completely wrong when they say he gave us free will:
This is from Romans 9: 15-24
15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.
16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.
17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.
18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.
19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?
20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
There is no debating those words. That passage right there, as clear as clear can be, is God straight out telling that he makes some people evil, on purpose, so that he can enact his will against them to show his power to others. Verse 19 even has God knowing we are going to respond with "how in the heck can you punish us if you are the one making us do it?" but naturally God isn't having any of the crap and tells man to STFU because we are nothing but clay that he can mold to his will to be dishonorable so he can flaunt his powers a bit.
As I said, the Christian God is the definition of pure evil as proven by his own words.
This is from Romans 9: 15-24
15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.
16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.
17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.
18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.
19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?
20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
There is no debating those words. That passage right there, as clear as clear can be, is God straight out telling that he makes some people evil, on purpose, so that he can enact his will against them to show his power to others. Verse 19 even has God knowing we are going to respond with "how in the heck can you punish us if you are the one making us do it?" but naturally God isn't having any of the crap and tells man to STFU because we are nothing but clay that he can mold to his will to be dishonorable so he can flaunt his powers a bit.
As I said, the Christian God is the definition of pure evil as proven by his own words.
2008-12-29, 9:20 am
Good, then I can finally give my opinion: Evangelism is horrible. Do I come to your house and tell you how good looking I am? Do I come to your house trying to sell you books about how awesome I am? No, that would be pushing my opinion on you which isn't a nice thing to do (in fact, it's immoral). So why is it okey for evangelists to come to my house and tell me to believe in THEIR God? The nerve!
And you know what's even worse? When people learn about another culture and another country with the objective to change it! IMO, with the objective to DESTROY it. If you want everyone around you to be christians, that's fine by me, go to a christian place and stay there. Don't force your beliefs onto the Japanese, their culture is amazing and does not need Christian defilement, it had enough of that in the past. (Look at Korea and all those stinking churches, it's horrible).
I'm all for tolerance, I don't hate christians and I don't really hate christianity. What vexes me are people who believe a book to be truth, and believe it's their job to force everyone else to accept this "truth".
And you know what's even worse? When people learn about another culture and another country with the objective to change it! IMO, with the objective to DESTROY it. If you want everyone around you to be christians, that's fine by me, go to a christian place and stay there. Don't force your beliefs onto the Japanese, their culture is amazing and does not need Christian defilement, it had enough of that in the past. (Look at Korea and all those stinking churches, it's horrible).
I'm all for tolerance, I don't hate christians and I don't really hate christianity. What vexes me are people who believe a book to be truth, and believe it's their job to force everyone else to accept this "truth".
2008-12-29, 9:28 am
active, you pick up on some good stuff, stuff that goes way deep into theology; calculus, I might say. You do realize that Christians have known that passage for 2000 years and have grappled with it, right?
Here's the first thing I would say to anyone: Christianity has been around for 2000 years, with libraries full of thought and commentary written on it through the centuries. If you think anyone has brought up a new challenge recently, or that your 15 minutes or whatever of half-interested pondering has sprung up the unanswerable response, you're ignoring 2000 years of history. Just because you aren't willing to grapple with the writings on various subjects does not mean that they aren't there--if responses in writing have been long or "boring" such that you won't bother reading them, that's your fault. But simply declaring that you've "shot holes" into arguments or whatever is shallow. When (some) Christians appear unphased it's not that they're being hard-headed, often it's that they've dealt with the issues. You may not like the answers, but liking the answers is less important than whether the answers represent truth.
Now then, regarding Romans--and this gets into territory that is not a slam-dunk among theologians with regards to the will--at least one large stream of theology recognizes that man in his "natural" state is completely hostile to God (Scripture easily supports this part). Given that man has sinful desires, God has the right to grant mercy on whom he will have mercy--imagine the oft-pictured death row pardons, in that no one deserves them, but the governor is free to give them according to his will. For those that do not receive one, God has sometimes in Scripture used the sinful motivations of man to accomplish some greater purpose.
When Joseph was sold into slavery by his brothers, he later told them that what they intended for evil, God intended for good. One action, two intents. There was no sadism in it--God foresaw that they would long to do evil to their brother, and God wrested the outcome from them.
Likewise, entire armies are brought into this picture--in Isaiah 8, God uses the evil intents of an entire nation to bring them against Israel, then punishes that nation for the evil intents it had. God used those evil intents for another purpose, but the intent of their heart was their own.
Likewise, Pharaoh was not an "innocent" person who would've done good to the Jews had God not prevented him. Rather, Pharaoh hated the God of the Jews and intended evil towards them. God never intended to grant mercy on Pharaoh, but did intend to use Pharaoh's stubbornness to greater purpose, and so hardened him so that the extent of God's power might be known, and so that the extent of his wrath might be made known.
2 things to consider: when the Jews left Egypt, it's recorded that many Egyptians came with (Exodus 12:37-38)--apparently some, because of the plagues, understood that God was to be followed. Secondly, God's actions in Egypt were meant to be so powerful "that my name might be declared throughout all the earth." That's a pretty boastful claim for something that happened regionally so long ago, millennia before the world intermingled. Yet surely throughout all the earth this story is now known. God's purposes were thus fulfilled, and he used the intentions of an evil man to accomplish it.
Here's the first thing I would say to anyone: Christianity has been around for 2000 years, with libraries full of thought and commentary written on it through the centuries. If you think anyone has brought up a new challenge recently, or that your 15 minutes or whatever of half-interested pondering has sprung up the unanswerable response, you're ignoring 2000 years of history. Just because you aren't willing to grapple with the writings on various subjects does not mean that they aren't there--if responses in writing have been long or "boring" such that you won't bother reading them, that's your fault. But simply declaring that you've "shot holes" into arguments or whatever is shallow. When (some) Christians appear unphased it's not that they're being hard-headed, often it's that they've dealt with the issues. You may not like the answers, but liking the answers is less important than whether the answers represent truth.
Now then, regarding Romans--and this gets into territory that is not a slam-dunk among theologians with regards to the will--at least one large stream of theology recognizes that man in his "natural" state is completely hostile to God (Scripture easily supports this part). Given that man has sinful desires, God has the right to grant mercy on whom he will have mercy--imagine the oft-pictured death row pardons, in that no one deserves them, but the governor is free to give them according to his will. For those that do not receive one, God has sometimes in Scripture used the sinful motivations of man to accomplish some greater purpose.
When Joseph was sold into slavery by his brothers, he later told them that what they intended for evil, God intended for good. One action, two intents. There was no sadism in it--God foresaw that they would long to do evil to their brother, and God wrested the outcome from them.
Likewise, entire armies are brought into this picture--in Isaiah 8, God uses the evil intents of an entire nation to bring them against Israel, then punishes that nation for the evil intents it had. God used those evil intents for another purpose, but the intent of their heart was their own.
Likewise, Pharaoh was not an "innocent" person who would've done good to the Jews had God not prevented him. Rather, Pharaoh hated the God of the Jews and intended evil towards them. God never intended to grant mercy on Pharaoh, but did intend to use Pharaoh's stubbornness to greater purpose, and so hardened him so that the extent of God's power might be known, and so that the extent of his wrath might be made known.
2 things to consider: when the Jews left Egypt, it's recorded that many Egyptians came with (Exodus 12:37-38)--apparently some, because of the plagues, understood that God was to be followed. Secondly, God's actions in Egypt were meant to be so powerful "that my name might be declared throughout all the earth." That's a pretty boastful claim for something that happened regionally so long ago, millennia before the world intermingled. Yet surely throughout all the earth this story is now known. God's purposes were thus fulfilled, and he used the intentions of an evil man to accomplish it.
2008-12-29, 9:36 am
Tobberoth, you don't sound particularly tolerant . . . sure am glad you're not trying to impose an opinion. ;-)
Is everything that isn't pure and traditional automatically stinking, defiled & destroyed? What are we to do about Buddhists from California and Japanese rap artists?
Is everything that isn't pure and traditional automatically stinking, defiled & destroyed? What are we to do about Buddhists from California and Japanese rap artists?
2008-12-29, 9:44 am
KristinHolly Wrote:Tobberoth, you don't sound particularly tolerant . . . sure am glad you're not trying to impose an opinion. ;-)I'm intolerant to intolerance, which is just what evangelism is, and that alone makes me tolerant.
Is everything that isn't pure and traditional automatically stinking, defiled & destroyed? What are we to do about Buddhists from California and Japanese rap artists?
Everything that isn't pure has to be unpure. Unpure could of course be seen as a synonym of dirty. Defilement is making something pure unpure, something clean unclean, so by your own choice of words I'd say yes. I'm not against Japanese christians at all, everyone is free to believe anything. That doesn't mean christian fanatics should be allowed to go there and force their opinion on the Japanese (well, they should be allowed, it shouldn't be banned. They should listen to their own conciense and choose not to). People in California forcing Buddhism on people is just as bad (though I suppose it's a very uncommon practice since Buddhism rarely entails evangelism). How Japanese rap is related, I have no idea, there's no evangelism near it.
When Japanese people choose to destroy their own culture (by taking every new word directly from English for example) that's their choice, it's their culture. Christians do not need to go there and force the process. They have a religion already and they are entitled to it. Christians need to listen to their own holy book and be tolerant to people of other faiths and beliefs.
2008-12-29, 9:49 am
Tobberoth Wrote:Evangelism is horrible. Do I come to your house and tell you how good looking I am? Do I come to your house trying to sell you books about how awesome I am? No, that would be pushing my opinion on you which isn't a nice thing to do (in fact, it's immoral). So why is it okey for evangelists to come to my house and tell me to believe in THEIR God? The nerve!Tob, obviously you are being ridiculous. I'd invite you to more serious discourse.
And you know what's even worse? When people learn about another culture and another country with the objective to change it! IMO, with the objective to DESTROY it. If you want everyone around you to be christians, that's fine by me, go to a christian place and stay there. Don't force your beliefs onto the Japanese, their culture is amazing and does not need Christian defilement, it had enough of that in the past. (Look at Korea and all those stinking churches, it's horrible).
I'm all for tolerance, I don't hate christians and I don't really hate christianity. What vexes me are people who believe a book to be truth, and believe it's their job to force everyone else to accept this "truth".
I'm curious who has come to your door to actually tell you how good looking or awesome they are? None, of course.
Your concept of cultural destruction is interesting. If a local people adopt a belief system and then of their own accord change their culture, do they not have the right to do that? Who are you to--not of their culture--to say what they should do with theirs? As well, not all cultural practices are intrinsically good--the British (though they did terrible things, too) abolished some absolutely despicable practices done in India--good.
I find your language to be at odds with itself. You say you're tolerant towards Christians and don't hate them, but bemoan the "stinking churches" in Korea as being "horrible." You say one thing but reveal another--if that's what tolerance and not hating sounds like, I'm curious as to what it does sound like.
Christianity is not Islam. In Islam, a majority muslim nation adopts Shari'a and thus basically becomes an Arabic nation from language to dress to custom. Look far and wide throughout the world at nations impacted by Christianity and you'll find every difference in cultural expression in the world. Consumerism and capitalism does more to change culture than Christianity does. Christianity inevitably changes some practices (most of which are of the sort that require change as with the Indians and some of their abominable practices), but is largely content to leave most of a culture alone.
If the Japanese became majority Christian there is very little that their new faith would require them to change. Their language that we all love would remain, their writing, some of their ceremonies, many of their philosophies, their cultural dress (which they largely abandoned long ago without becoming Christian, to underscore my point above about consumerism/capitalism). Compare that to if they became a muslim nation and note the contrast.
Lastly, of course you mean that Christians accept the content of a book to accurately speak truth. What's strange in that? Our culture believes a lot of books accurately speak truth. A lot do. Any truth worth knowing is a truth worth sharing, and if Christianity is true, then what else would you expect Christians to do with it? If Christianity is true and on the last day you and your loved ones do face judgment, what would you say to every Christian marching to heaven if every single one had kept their mouth shut and you never even knew Christianity existed? You'd say, "You knew this, and said nothing? What kind of wicked creature are you?" So we cannot win either way, but Christians prefer, ultimately, to be despised here for inconveniencing folks than to hear that theoretical retort on the last day if they keep their message to themselves.
2008-12-29, 9:56 am
Tobberoth Wrote:What vexes me are people who believe a book to be truth, and believe it's their job to force everyone else to accept this "truth".Lets assume you thought this book to be 100% true.
This 'book of absolute truth' tells you that you must spread Christianity.
Therefore, you spread Christianity because the book of truth inspired by the all knowing creator of the universe told you to do so.
Is it that hard to see why people do this?
I know many Christians who feel it is a sin not to try to spread Christianity. It's not a matter of "making you believe what I believe." It's part doing it because "the Bible tells me so" and part doing it because of a fear that those who don't convert to Christianity will go the Hell.
I don't really think it's that difficult to see from the perspective of an evangelist. Someone tried to convert me to another religion while I was in Japan. I didn't want to convert, but I understood why he was doing it.
2008-12-29, 10:00 am
plumage Wrote:I'm curious who has come to your door to actually tell you how good looking or awesome they are? None, of course.I cut out the parts I don't nessecarily disagree with, read my followup post to see my views on that.
I find your language to be at odds with itself. You say you're tolerant towards Christians and don't hate them, but bemoan the "stinking churches" in Korea as being "horrible." You say one thing but reveal another--if that's what tolerance and not hating sounds like, I'm curious as to what it does sound like.
If the Japanese became majority Christian there is very little that their new faith would require them to change. Their language that we all love would remain, their writing, some of their ceremonies, many of their philosophies, their cultural dress (which they largely abandoned long ago without becoming Christian, to underscore my point above about consumerism/capitalism). Compare that to if they became a muslim nation and note the contrast.
Lastly, of course you mean that Christians accept the content of a book to accurately speak truth. What's strange in that? Our culture believes a lot of books accurately speak truth. A lot do. Any truth worth knowing is a truth worth sharing, and if Christianity is true, then what else would you expect Christians to do with it? If Christianity is true and on the last day you and your loved ones do face judgment, what would you say to every Christian marching to heaven if every single one had kept their mouth shut and you never even knew Christianity existed? You'd say, "You knew this, and said nothing? What kind of wicked creature are you?" So we cannot win either way, but Christians prefer, ultimately, to be despised here for inconveniencing folks than to hear that theoretical retort on the last day if they keep their message to themselves.
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.
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 buddhist, they don't want those churches there and those churces aren't even real christian churces! It's more or less companies who want to buy in on the evangelism and spreading of Christianity in Korea, their practices do not resemble western Christianity at all. It's just normal houses with a big neon cross on top.. go there, pay money, recieve salvation. If you went to one of those churches, you would probably agree with me. It's not a fault of christianity it self, but it IS a fault of Christian evangelism which is the kernel of my argument.
How much the Japanese would have to change doesn't interest me in the slightest. If there's no chance, what do they need Christianity for in the first place? Their have their own ideas and values, no one needs to go there and tell them to change them. Like I said before, if they change them on their own accord, I do not care. I don't see why you need to compare it islam to defend it. Compare it to a religion which has no evangelism instead, where people convert by finding the religion by themselves instead of being coerced.
I don't think it's strange at all that people believe they find truth in the bible (though I would personally be sceptical why the bible would be more true than any other book in the history of man... It doesn't really cite sources.) I do find it odd how they can feel the need to force other people to see this "truth". I don't force people to believe in the Big bang, I don't learn Japanese and go to Japan to tell them how the Big Bang happened. I let them do their own research, come to their own conclusions and decide for themselves.
2008-12-29, 10:01 am
Tobberoth Wrote:I'm intolerant to intolerance, which is just what evangelism is, and that alone makes me tolerant.If you're intolerant to anything, then you harbor intolerance by definition. I appreciate your effort to escape hyprocrisy, however.
Tobberoth Wrote:That doesn't mean christian fanatics should be allowed to go there and force their opinion on the JapaneseSince Christians don't "force" their beliefs on anyone, I'm happy to see we agree.
Tobberoth Wrote:(well, they should be allowed, it shouldn't be banned. They should listen to their own conciense and choose not to).*You* think they should choose not to, so you're imposing on their consciences what you think they should or should not do. What I think you mean is, "They should listen to their consciences and decide for themselves." That's what I would say--am I really to be more open-minded than you in this?
Tobberoth Wrote:People in California forcing Buddhism on people is just as badI'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.
But you're not, and it would be silly to say so. But neither are Buddhists and Christians in evangelism.
Tobberoth Wrote:Christians need to listen to their own holy book and be tolerant to people of other faiths and beliefs.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.