Chrsitmas Myths
chang
Khun Pooyai,
Greetings. Hope you had a great Christmas and a wonderful
New Year, century, millennium... I've had fantastic hols.
Regarding your comment about the Christian way of life not
forming any part of Thai culture, I would however beg to
differ and sincerely do find it very difficult to accept
such an untenable proposition.
There are thousands and increasing numbers of Thai
Christians in Thailand holding strong to Christian doctrines
and celebrating the Christian way of life lawfully under
the laws of the country, and testifying daily to what God
has done in their lives, and whose very lives are a fragrance
of Christ Himself. In the light of this, it takes a quantum
leap in logical thought to suggest that that does not
represent an aspect of Thai culture in the same way that
there are myriads of postings in this NG, each representing
a different facet of life in Thailand. The said Thai
Christians would be hard-pressed to believe if they were
told that what they are practising was not a part of their
culture or way of life. The expression of such varied and
divergent views should thus not be interpreted as a sign of
disrepect to the other religious groups flourishing in
Thailand.
In fact, in a December issue of the Bangkok Post, an
article by a reader focusing on the true meaning of
Christmas was published. Is it not surprising that the
editor did not consider the views of the writer so foreign
to Thai culture that he should muzzle the very expression
of such thoughts? His understanding of the readership base
also gives credence to the same point.
With respect, your argument would cut some ice if this were
soc.buddhism.thai. The issue of culture (a broad concept)
is also not a "numbers" game, neither is it to be judged by
the postings in this NG in view of the silent masses.
In fact, as far as the above issues are concerned, the
Thais do have an insightful saying:
"Mai cheua dtae yaa lob lu."
I trust you can fathom the significance of this. If this
does not sit well with you, then as cultivated folks, it
would be best to agree to disagree.
Cheers & Best Wishes
Have a nice day too!
Chang
pooyai
First, while Christianity is present in Thailand...I have visited a few
Catholic Churches there, the percentage of the population that considers
itself Christian is so miniscule to even hint that Christianity is a
significant aspect of Thai culture.
Second, just because something occurs in a country does not mean it is
representative of the country's culture. There are probably more
prostitutes in Thailand than Christians, yet I would doubt you would say
that prostitution represents Thai culture. There are certainly more AIDS
victims in Thailand than Christians, yet I doubt you would say AIDS
represents Thai culture. There are probably more kamoys in Thailand than
Christians, yet I doubt you would say thievery represents Thai culture.
chang <cy...@np.edu.sg> wrote in message news:387b0605.0@nsuxnews...
>
> Khun Pooyai,
>
> Regarding your comment about the Christian way of life not
> forming any part of Thai culture, I would however beg to
> differ and sincerely do find it very difficult to accept
> such an untenable proposition.
>
> There are thousands and increasing numbers of Thai
> Christians in Thailand holding strong to Christian doctrines
> and celebrating the Christian way of life lawfully under
> the laws of the country, and testifying daily to what God
> has done in their lives, and whose very lives are a fragrance
> of Christ Himself.
There are thousands of Buddhists and in increasing numbers in America. I'm
one of them, yet I would not say that Buddhism is representative of American
culutre. In fact, few Americans know ANYTHING at all about Buddha or
Buddhism.
> The expression of such varied and
> divergent views should thus not be interpreted as a sign of
> disrepect to the other religious groups flourishing in
> Thailand.
I take exception to the word flourishing.
bunn...@my-deja.com
Christianity is transcultural....after all, it didn't start in the
States! Altho it is true that some Christian missionaries have made the
serious error of spreading Western culture and calling it part of
Christianity........one will find Christianity in many different
cultural flavors- if you are open to look. The basic truths are the
same-but God likes variety, and is not wanting to turn everyone into
a Westerner.
As an educator, I am sure you also realize that cultures do not exist in
a vacuum, and over the centuries cultures have blended, spread, and
influenced each other. Just as a Westerner may choose to become a
Buddhist, a Thai may embrace Christianity. He does not betray his
culture if he does.
Bunnyfire
--
Speak the truth, but leave immediately after.
--Slovenian Proverb
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
pooyai
<bunn...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:85ino2$i36$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> My dear bamboo buddy,
>
> Christianity is transcultural....after all, it didn't start in the
> States! Altho it is true that some Christian missionaries have made the
> serious error of spreading Western culture and calling it part of
> Christianity........one will find Christianity in many different
> cultural flavors- if you are open to look. The basic truths are the
> same-but God likes variety, and is not wanting to turn everyone into
> a Westerner.
> As an educator, I am sure you also realize that cultures do not exist in
> a vacuum, and over the centuries cultures have blended, spread, and
> influenced each other. Just as a Westerner may choose to become a
> Buddhist, a Thai may embrace Christianity. He does not betray his
> culture if he does.
>
you describe Thai culture, one would not discuss Buddhism because it does
not represent any significant percentage of the population. Buddhist, yes.
Muslim, yes. That's about it in terms of religions that are significant in
Thailand. That's not, of course, to say that it may not be significant to
an individual.
chang
"pooyai" <loveb...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Sorry, but I don't agree with you at all and for several reasons.>
>First, while Christianity is present in Thailand...I have visited a few
>Catholic Churches there, the percentage of the population that considers
>itself Christian is so miniscule to even hint that Christianity is a
>significant aspect of Thai culture.
No offence to Catholic churches (who are doing a great job
in their service to the community), but perhaps you may wish
to visit the charismatic/Pentecostal churches, where the
church is dynamic, flourishing and growing by leaps and
bounds. In your next visit to Thailand, try visiting the
Hope of Bangkok church in Bangkok, near Klawng Toey, here
you can see Thais from all walks of life practising their
faith with such passion, earnestness and joy that will put
many who call themselves Christians but do not walk a holy
life pleasing to God, to shame. Or try visiting the many
Christian hospitals/churches/communities in the provinces and you can
see many lepers, though deformed and their bodies tortured
in pain, yet joyfully praising God and thanking Him for
their daily bread and salvation.
And during the Christmas season, you can see many youths
in Siam Square and near the skytrain stations, distributing
brochures and doing street evangelism.
Need I go on...
As I said before, it is not purely a "numbers" game but
the quality of the way of life, the values and beliefs
which a particular group of people hold dear. Say what
you like, I love the Thai "brand" of Christianity and it
has acquired a trademark ring about it.
Going to McDonalds does not make you a hamburger just as
much as going to a church/temple/mosque or calling yourself
a Christian/Buddhist/Muslim or chalking up statistics, make
you such a person.
We thank the Western missionaries for bringing the
Christian faith to South-East Asia and now some say, Asia
will be the "Antioch of the East" bringing the faith back
to the West and repaying the favour.
>Second, just because something occurs in a country does not mean it is
>representative of the country's culture. There are probably more
>prostitutes in Thailand than Christians, yet I would doubt you would say
>that prostitution represents Thai culture.
Without commenting on the validity of this, there are many
who do not share your doubt. I fully support the Tourism
Authority of Thailand in removing whatever negative
connotations (whether arising erroneously or otherwise) as
far as the country's image is concerned and of construing
"Amazing Thailand" in the proper sense of the expression.
>There are certainly more AIDS
>victims in Thailand than Christians, yet I doubt you would say AIDS
>represents Thai culture. There are probably more kamoys in Thailand than
>Christians, yet I doubt you would say thievery represents Thai culture.
Oh goodness me, such a narrow and parochial understanding of
the term "culture". By the same token, hundreds of postings
in this NG concerning killings, accidents, bombing in
embassies, no-hands restaurant, sex (a favourite topic & and
not that I agree with it), things occurring in Thailand,
personal issues, etc, etc, etc, (Yul Brynner?) would have
absolutely nothing to do with your definition (sorry, do
you have one?)or your notion of culture and thus should be
eradicated. You have pigeon-holed and strait-jacketed it to
the point of breathlessness and have rendered it bereft of
any practical usefulness and value.
Reductio ad absurdum.
As I've said earlier, I anticipated we would not have
consensus ad idem over this issue and my original
suggestion remains.
Cheers
Torben Larsen
I have been there to attend a gospel sermon, and I also went to se the
new christian graveyard with a relative few graves in a nice
surronding, I think we have friends in common.
regards Torben
chang
"pooyai" <loveb...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>><bunn...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:85ino2$i36$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>> My dear bamboo buddy,
>>
>> Christianity is transcultural....after all, it didn't start in the
>> States! Altho it is true that some Christian missionaries have made the
>> serious error of spreading Western culture and calling it part of
>> Christianity........one will find Christianity in many different
>> cultural flavors- if you are open to look. The basic truths are the
>> same-but God likes variety, and is not wanting to turn everyone into
>> a Westerner.
>> As an educator, I am sure you also realize that cultures do not exist in
>> a vacuum, and over the centuries cultures have blended, spread, and
>> influenced each other. Just as a Westerner may choose to become a
>> Buddhist, a Thai may embrace Christianity. He does not betray his
>> culture if he does.
>>
>>I don't disagree with anything you said. My point is that
>>if one said could you describe Thai culture, one would not
>>discuss Buddhism because it does not represent any
>>significant percentage of the population.
Besides the grammatical fudge, it's interesting to note
that Buddhism does not represent any significant percentage
of the population. Wherein the culture then?
Naa...just pulling your leg.
>That's about it in terms of religions that are significant in
>Thailand. That's not, of course, to say that it may not be significant to
>an individual.
Surely not AN individual per se.
bunn...@my-deja.com
Anybody else besides Torben paid it a visit?
Bunnyfire
sae...@image.dk (Torben Larsen) wrote:
> Hi Khun Chang..
> I have been there to attend a gospel sermon, and I also went to se the
> new christian graveyard with a relative few graves in a nice
> surronding, I think we have friends in common.
> regards Torben
>
> On 13 Jan 2000 19:54:52 +0800, "chang" <cy...@np.edu.sg> wrote:
>
>
pooyai
chang <cy...@np.edu.sg> wrote in message news:387dbd0c.0@nsuxnews...
>
> "pooyai" <loveb...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >Sorry, but I don't agree with you at all and for several reasons.>
> >First, while Christianity is present in Thailand...I have visited a few
> >Catholic Churches there, the percentage of the population that considers
> >itself Christian is so miniscule to even hint that Christianity is a
> >significant aspect of Thai culture.
>
> No offence to Catholic churches (who are doing a great job
> in their service to the community), but perhaps you may wish
> to visit the charismatic/Pentecostal churches, where the
> church is dynamic, flourishing and growing by leaps and
> bounds. In your next visit to Thailand, try visiting the
> Hope of Bangkok church in Bangkok, near Klawng Toey, here
> you can see Thais from all walks of life practising their
> faith with such passion, earnestness and joy that will put
> many who call themselves Christians but do not walk a holy
> life pleasing to God, to shame. Or try visiting the many
> Christian hospitals/churches/communities in the provinces and you can
> see many lepers, though deformed and their bodies tortured
> in pain, yet joyfully praising God and thanking Him for
> their daily bread and salvation.
>
> And during the Christmas season, you can see many youths
> in Siam Square and near the skytrain stations, distributing
> brochures and doing street evangelism.
>
> the quality of the way of life, the values and beliefs
> which a particular group of people hold dear. Say what
> you like, I love the Thai "brand" of Christianity and it
> has acquired a trademark ring about it.
In a sense, what we were originally debating is a numbers game, because we
were talking about where Christianity is representative of Thai culture.
Give me a number. Of the 7-8 million people of Bangkok, what percentage do
you think are Christian? Keep in mind that whatever your answer, the
percentage will be far less in the countryside.
> We thank the Western missionaries for bringing the
> Christian faith to South-East Asia and now some say, Asia
> will be the "Antioch of the East" bringing the faith back
> to the West and repaying the favour.
>
It always interests me that in the third world Christian missionaries target
the poor, the less well educated, and the sick...easy prey.
> >Second, just because something occurs in a country does not mean it is
> >representative of the country's culture. There are probably more
> >prostitutes in Thailand than Christians, yet I would doubt you would say
> >that prostitution represents Thai culture.
>
> Without commenting on the validity of this, there are many
> who do not share your doubt. I fully support the Tourism
> Authority of Thailand in removing whatever negative
> connotations (whether arising erroneously or otherwise) as
> far as the country's image is concerned and of construing
> "Amazing Thailand" in the proper sense of the expression.
So reality is unimportant to you? Probably so....after all God works in
mysterious ways.
>
> your notion of culture and thus should be
> eradicated. You have pigeon-holed and strait-jacketed it to
> the point of breathlessness and have rendered it bereft of
> any practical usefulness and value.
>
My goodness, you win the award...most impressive way of saying nothing.
pooyai
chang <cy...@np.edu.sg> wrote in message news:387dc063.0@nsuxnews...
>
> "pooyai" <loveb...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >><bunn...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:85ino2$i36$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> >> My dear bamboo buddy,
> >>
> >>if one said could you describe Thai culture, one would not
> >>discuss Buddhism because it does not represent any
> >>significant percentage of the population.
>
> Besides the grammatical fudge, it's interesting to note
> that Buddhism does not represent any significant percentage
> of the population. Wherein the culture then?
>
because..."
pooyai
<bunn...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:85m2uf$1m1$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
>
> > >
> > It always interests me that in the third world Christian missionaries
> target
> > the poor, the less well educated, and the sick...easy prey.
>
> to the fact that these are the types of folk who have always reached out
> to God...have you never heard Jesus quoted as saying it is harder for a
> camel to go thru the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the
> Kingdom of God? Not because God hates rich folk but because rich folk
> are under the illusion they don't need Him.
> The Bible also teaches that God chooses the weak and foolish things of
> this world to shame the wise......
>
> I am sure that if the missionaries targeted the rich people they would
> be accused of snobbery....anyhow if I ever have the privilege of living
> in Thailand I might just target all the falang expatriates-from what I
> read on this newsgroup they REALLY need an encounter with the Living
> God....
>
Perhaps they prefer Buddha.
bunn...@my-deja.com
Bunnyfire
>
--
noo...@cwcom.net
>
>
>> >
>> It always interests me that in the third world Christian missionaries
>target
>> the poor, the less well educated, and the sick...easy prey.
>
> Vince, even a cursory reading of the New Testament would enlighten you
>to the fact that these are the types of folk who have always reached out
>to God...have you never heard Jesus quoted as saying it is harder for a
>camel to go thru the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the
>Kingdom of God? Not because God hates rich folk but because rich folk
>are under the illusion they don't need Him.
>The Bible also teaches that God chooses the weak and foolish things of
>this world to shame the wise......
>
>I am sure that if the missionaries targeted the rich people they would
>be accused of snobbery....anyhow if I ever have the privilege of living
>in Thailand I might just target all the falang expatriates-from what I
>read on this newsgroup they REALLY need an encounter with the Living
>God....
Have you ever thought that all the falang expatriates might be falang
expatriates partly because they are trying to escape from a culture
where it's considered ok to attempt to force your views upon others?
Perhpas they've falang expatriates because they've already had an
encounter with the Living God and they've decided they don't like
proselytising very much.
Perhaps they prefer to live in a country whose major religion allows
for the fact that there are alternative paths to enlightenment
(whatever you consider that to be) rather than a country whose major
religion says 'There is no God but me'?
bunn...@my-deja.com
noo...@cwcom.net wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Jan 2000 02:51:00 GMT, bunn...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> >
>
>
>
> Have you ever thought that all the falang expatriates might be falang
> expatriates partly because they are trying to escape from a culture
> where it's considered ok to attempt to force your views upon others?
>
> Perhpas they've falang expatriates because they've already had an
> encounter with the Living God and they've decided they don't like
> proselytising very much.
not talking about an encounter with "religious " people. What a lot of
people do not know yet is they can truly know the God of the universe,
not just hear stories ABOUT Him..... as for the rest, I do not cram
things down peoples' throats, as that is STUPID. I do , however, take
great pleasure in introducing people to the most wonderful Person I
know. And dearie, that is no stale religious platitude. He is very real.
He is just as real in Thailand as He is anywhere else. At least Thai
people have an understanding that there are beings in the spirit
realm....many Westerners are educated fools who hold on to a false
materialistic view of reality to their detriment.
Reject Jesus if you choose to-that is your right- but at least don't do
it out of ignorance. Know WHO it really is that you are
rejecting.....you might just be surprised!
Cordially,
Bunnyfire
> Perhaps they prefer to live in a country whose major religion allows
> for the fact that there are alternative paths to enlightenment
> (whatever you consider that to be) rather than a country whose major
> religion says 'There is no God but me'?
>
>
--
Robert White
>> in Thailand I might just target all the falang expatriates-from what I
>> God....
>>
>Perhaps they prefer Buddha.
Gotama Buddha is just another Guy! Didn't you get that in
comparative religion or something?
Personally I'm a cheerful happy practicing Buddhist which is just
fine with my God. I'm a Jew so what I have to deal with is God the
Father (the jealous, wrathful, hard-nosed,, ect ect. ) which these
born gain newbies who think Faith and choice has something to do with
religion don't need to deal with. Jehovah owns my genetic ass and
Jesus is a cousin.
But anyway Bunny can target anybody she likes, and maybe
consecrate some sextourist-bargirl marriages or something which might
do some good. Buddha would say, "up to you".
Rob
RICHLY TRAVEL CENTRE Next to the Train Station! - Bangkok
Tours Tickets Trekking for Thailand
http://richlybangkok.com/
noo...@cwcom.net
>In article <0nmt7ss0o7iphbudk...@4ax.com>,
> noo...@cwcom.net wrote:
>> On Fri, 14 Jan 2000 02:51:00 GMT, bunn...@my-deja.com wrote:
>>
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> Have you ever thought that all the falang expatriates might be falang
>> expatriates partly because they are trying to escape from a culture
>> where it's considered ok to attempt to force your views upon others?
>>
>> Perhpas they've falang expatriates because they've already had an
>> encounter with the Living God and they've decided they don't like
>> proselytising very much.
>When I said an encounter, I meant an encounter with God Himself. I am
>not talking about an encounter with "religious " people. What a lot of
>people do not know yet is they can truly know the God of the universe,
>not just hear stories ABOUT Him..... as for the rest, I do not cram
>things down peoples' throats, as that is STUPID. I do , however, take
>great pleasure in introducing people to the most wonderful Person I
>know. And dearie, that is no stale religious platitude. He is very real.
>He is just as real in Thailand as He is anywhere else. At least Thai
>people have an understanding that there are beings in the spirit
>realm....many Westerners are educated fools who hold on to a false
>materialistic view of reality to their detriment.
>Reject Jesus if you choose to-that is your right- but at least don't do
>it out of ignorance. Know WHO it really is that you are
>rejecting.....you might just be surprised!
Your post makes my point. You are unable to talk about your god
without proseltysing.
I must admit to a certain bias. I live three doors away from a church
and I find it quite offensive that members of that church think it's
ok to come knocking on my door several times a year at times that suit
them in order to try and convince me that their world view is right
and mine is wrong. I don't go haranguing them, what makes them think
they have the right to do it to me? As far as I'm concerned they're
entitled to believe what they want. I expect them to extend the same
courtesy to me without trying to convince me otherwise.
I neither accept nor reject Jesus, I'm simply not interested in him, a
point which many Christians (you apparently included) seem unable to
understand.
pooyai
<bunn...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:85n78e$pti$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <0nmt7ss0o7iphbudk...@4ax.com>,
> noo...@cwcom.net wrote:
> > On Fri, 14 Jan 2000 02:51:00 GMT, bunn...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > Have you ever thought that all the falang expatriates might be falang
> > expatriates partly because they are trying to escape from a culture
> > where it's considered ok to attempt to force your views upon others?
> >
> > Perhpas they've falang expatriates because they've already had an
> > encounter with the Living God and they've decided they don't like
> > proselytising very much.
> When I said an encounter, I meant an encounter with God Himself. I am
> not talking about an encounter with "religious " people. What a lot of
> people do not know yet is they can truly know the God of the universe,
> not just hear stories ABOUT Him..... as for the rest, I do not cram
> things down peoples' throats, as that is STUPID. I do , however, take
> great pleasure in introducing people to the most wonderful Person I
> know.
Do you mean that they come to you asking for the introduction or you offer
it from the outset?
Rum...@pobox.com
Just remember bunny: If you talk to god you're praying, if god talks to you
you're schizophrenic.
Rumpel
bunn...@my-deja.com wrote:
> When I said an encounter, I meant an encounter with God Himself.
> I do , however, take great pleasure in introducing people to the most
> wonderful Person Iknow.
>
> He is very real.
pooyai
interest I cautiously will get into a discussion with the.
To me preaching to someone is like visiting a country and never getting off
the tour bus. You're spoon fed.
Instead, seek out the truth independently.
<bunn...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:85omou$u61$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <85o7ja$4r0$1...@nntp5.atl.mindspring.net>,
> "pooyai" <loveb...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >
> > <bunn...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>
>
> >
> > Do you mean that they come to you asking for the introduction or you
> offer
> > it from the outset?>
> It really depends.....there is a lot of difference in having a
> discussion with someone and having the conversation go into spiritual
> topics, and going up to someone directly and "preaching" to them.
> Frankly I prefer the former for myself....I can say that if people who
> are around me see a difference in my life, they may come up and ask me
> why I am different... since my faith really is integrally woven into my
> life, it naturally one way or another comes under discussion
> eventually-in the same way that I may talk about Thailand, or my kids,
> or my job. Before I became a Christian I never liked being "preached
> at" but in all honesty some of the more direct people I came into
> contact with did make an impression on me-not that I liked to admit it
> at the time!
>
> Bunnyfire
Rum...@pobox.com
bunn...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Dear Rumpel,
> The question is not-does God talk-the question is- are we listening, or
> do we have our fingers in our ears?
> Cordially,
> Bunnyfire
I don't know where you have your fingers - my middle one is erect at anyone
who still pushes his/her ridiculous nonsense superstition about that guy
that supposedly loves
us but can't do anything against our wars and disease - what a cruel
bastard he
must be...
Once and for all: Religion is a crutch for feeble minded people, we should
not
teach our children to have any false hope because it blocks the view on
what's true,
we should let this practices die out now.
Rumpel
bunn...@my-deja.com
bunn...@my-deja.com
The question is not-does God talk-the question is- are we listening, or
do we have our fingers in our ears?
Cordially,
Bunnyfire
>
--
bunn...@my-deja.com
And as for the crutch thing-everybody has a crutch. For some it is
alcohol, for some it is drugs, for some it is sex, for some it is
money-the point is we are ALL needy, but are we going to "self-medicate"
so to speak, or find the only one who can heal us?
If you really want to discuss why there are still wars, etc. email me
and we can discuss it further-up to you.
Cordially,
Bunnyfire
> I don't know where you have your fingers - my middle one is erect at
anyone
>
> who still pushes his/her ridiculous nonsense superstition about that
guy
> that supposedly loves
> us but can't do anything against our wars and disease - what a cruel
> bastard he
> must be...
> Once and for all: Religion is a crutch for feeble minded people, we
should
> not
> teach our children to have any false hope because it blocks the view
on
> what's true,
> we should let this practices die out now.
> Rumpel
>
>
--
pooyai
<bunn...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:85pr9t$lq8$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> So you are blaming God for the stupid stuff that people do?
I certainly do not blame god for the stupid things people do, but I think
that the attitude many Christians have about god's relationship to things
happening is like talking out of both sides of their mouth. Something good
happens and they thank god. Something bad happens and they blame man. It
seems to me you can't have it oth ways. Do things in everyday life because
of god or because of man?
And of course, if god is all powerful why can he not or why will he not stop
wars, the Holocaust, the killing fields of Cambodia, birth defects (and I've
seen some horrible ones), etc., but someone thinks because they prayed that
their spring flowers will come up after planting that he did that?
It just seems to me that the human view of much of what god does or does not
do is juvenile.
> And as for the crutch thing-everybody has a crutch. For some it is
> alcohol, for some it is drugs, for some it is sex, for some it is
> money-the point is we are ALL needy, but are we going to "self-medicate"
> so to speak, or find the only one who can heal us?
And perhaps for some god is the crutch?
Rum...@pobox.com
bunnyfire wrote:
> So you are blaming God for the stupid stuff that people do?
No, I'm bringing evidence that god doesn't exist.
Wouldn't an all powerful father interfere if his children hurt each other?
> If you really want to discuss why there are still wars, etc. email me
> and we can discuss it further-up to you.
You're sayin you know?
Rumpel
helv...@mindspring.com
pooyai wrote in message
>
>I certainly do not blame god for the stupid things people do, but I think
>that the attitude many Christians have about god's relationship to things
>happening is like talking out of both sides of their mouth.
>
Amen
tunja
bunn...@my-deja.com
>
> > If you really want to discuss why there are still wars, etc. email
me
> > and we can discuss it further-up to you.
>
> You're sayin you know?
> Rumpel
>
Well, let's just say I have it settled in my own mind...I have been a
Christian for almost 20 years, and I have asked myself all of those hard
questions. But I don't think I want to get into all of that on this
forum, which is why I suggest if you or anybody else is interested we
can discuss it via private email....in all fairness to me, these aren't
the sorts of questions that can be answered in 25 words or less.
Bunnyfire
Lumier
I do not believe in the man made church, But I am man enough to
respect other peoples beliefs. I have noticed that Mrs. B does not
force her beliefs down peoples throats, though she does reciprocate
when people push the issue, she can be very verbal. Each to their own
brother.
Why be a cunt all your life, take a day off!
Lumier
On Fri, 14 Jan 2000 23:35:19 -0500, Rum...@pobox.com wrote:
>bunn...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>> Dear Rumpel,
>> The question is not-does God talk-the question is- are we listening, or
>> do we have our fingers in our ears?
>> Cordially,
>> Bunnyfire
>
>I don't know where you have your fingers - my middle one is erect at anyone
>
>who still pushes his/her ridiculous nonsense superstition about that guy
>that supposedly loves
>us but can't do anything against our wars and disease - what a cruel
>bastard he
>must be...
>Once and for all: Religion is a crutch for feeble minded people, we should
>not
>teach our children to have any false hope because it blocks the view on
>what's true,
>we should let this practices die out now.
>Rumpel
>
Don't just stand there!, 'PANIC'!!!!
John Dunstan
Rum...@pobox.com wrote:
> I don't know where you have your fingers - my middle one is erect at
> anyone who still pushes his/her ridiculous nonsense superstition
> about that guy that supposedly loves us but can't do anything against
> our wars and disease - what a cruel bastard he must be...
Rumpel, it's hard to imagine how individual freedom and the ability to
make moral decisions could exist without evil (wars and disease, etc).
> Once and for all: Religion is a crutch for feeble minded people,
Some of the greatest thinkers in the history of mankind have been
religious people, so it's hard to see how their existence would support
this argument.
> we should not teach our children to have any false hope because it
> blocks the view on what's true, we should let this practices die out
> now.
We should teach our children to have critical, enquiring minds. As to
what's true or not, let them discover that, as each generation makes
it's own contribution to the sum of human knowledge and wisdom.
Regards,
John Dunstan
pooyai
John Dunstan <john_d...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:85un6i$u1a$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <387FF907...@pobox.com>,
> Rum...@pobox.com wrote:
>
> > Once and for all: Religion is a crutch for feeble minded people,
>
> Some of the greatest thinkers in the history of mankind have been
> religious people, so it's hard to see how their existence would support
> this argument.
Faulty logic here. I believe he is saying that feeble minded people often
rely on superstition and religion. That is not to say that intelligent
people cannot also believe in religion, perhaps for totally different
reasons.
su...@supat.dhs.org
John Dunstan
Yes, I would agree if that is all that he is saying. But, if so, his
statement would then seem to be an argument IN FAVOUR of the utility of
religion, ie it assists (acts as a crutch for) feeble minded people cope
with the problems of life.
Joris Goetschalckx
> Yes, I would agree if that is all that he is saying. But, if so, his
> statement would then seem to be an argument IN FAVOUR of the utility of
> religion, ie it assists (acts as a crutch for) feeble minded people cope
> with the problems of life.
You have an interesting point there, John. Maybe this is indeed a good
reason why we should tolerate religious thought, even if we consider that
it is faulty. A big problem is however that some religions are inherently
intolerant towards anyone who is not a follower. Is providing a crutch
that helps the stupid cope with Life a sufficient excuse for ostracising
or even killing or torturing those who do not accept that crutch?
So I accept the statement that religions can be useful to help canalise
the thoughts (and acts) of those who are too stupid to think for
themselves (I mean: they would be believing bullshit anyway, so why not
let them follow a set of rules of long standing reputation, however
falsely motivated?). However there are some religions I would not be
comfortable to recommend...
Anyway, all this reminds me of a cartoon I once saw, depicting a big
capitalist factory owner (the most recognisable archetype in socialist
iconography; you know, with the cigar, topper, striped pants and some
dollar bills bulging out of his pockets...) and a bishop; says the factory
owner to the bishop: "I think we have a deal. You keep them dumb, I'll
keep them poor, OK?".
So, do we provide churches, oops, crutches, or not? Absit reverentia vero?
Joris
bunn...@my-deja.com
graduated with honors from high school, and scored extremely well on my
college boards.....not to brag, just to point out that by secular
standards i am not stupid. My husband has an IQ measured at the genius
level......and we are as I am sure you all know by now followers of
Jesus.....now there is a difference in being "religious" and being a
disciple of the Lord.....I do detest what a lot of organized
"churchianity" has done over the centuries, but that does not negate the
Truth-perhaps obscured it for way too many folk....
But if you want to classify me with the "simple and ignorant" I am proud
to stand with them.....better that than to be an educated idiot....lots
of those out there, you know......
And the Lord loves to use the foolish to shame the wise.......
Proud to be God's fool,
Bunnyfire
--
Speak the truth, but leave immediately after.
--Slovenian Proverb
Roscoe
Any good stories to share?
Roscoe
ing. W.J. Kalkman
....... text deleted.
Hi Joris,
Welcome back on SCT.
Are you going to write about your holidays in Thailand?
Greetings, Wim.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
ing. W.J. Kalkman Philips Research Laboratories Eindhoven
Building: WAY4 037 Prof. Holstlaan 4
Phone: +31 40 2742548 5656 AA Eindhoven
Fax: +31 40 2744626 The Netherlands
mailto:kal...@natlab.research.philips.com
Joris Goetschalckx
> But if you want to classify me with the "simple and ignorant" I am
> proud to stand with them.....better that than to be an educated idiot
Hi Bunny,
Wise words, as always. Although I hold it that you are mistaken, I think
highly of you. You know that, don't you? Hey, some of my best friends are
religious ;-)
More seriously, I think we agree more than it seems. Most of my criticism
is much more directed at churches than at religious thought.
Still, I honestly believe that if you are able to think for yourself, you
don't need religion. So in my view religion may not necessarily have to be
bad, but I certainly hold it for superfluous...
Cheers,
Joris
Joris Goetschalckx
> Welcome back, Joris :-)
Hi Roscoe,
Thanks, it is good to be back. I have missed you all (well, make that:
most of you...).
> Any good stories to share?
Hmmm, let me think... O yes, there was this meeting on the beach in
Jomtien, followed by a dinner. But that is soooo long ago. I have almost
forgotten who was there... ;-)
Cheers,
Joris
PS: tell that language miracle of yours that I was truly impressed...
amazing!
--
Joris Goetschalckx
http://www.joris.nu
http://users.skynet.be/sky98829
PGP Key ID: 0x6BC37252
Joris Goetschalckx
> Hi Joris,
> Welcome back on SCT.
> Are you going to write about your holidays in Thailand?
Hi Wim,
Indeed, I am back. I did not read SCT for more than a month. After all,
why read about Thailand when you have the real thing around you? :-) Any
recent developments that I should know about? How is our Mad Poster doing?
Is he still around? Any other recent cases of MPD (Mad Poster's Disease,
formerly known as Multiple Personality Disorder)? About writing, well give
me some time to read my email first... Megabytes of unread mail still
waiting for me...
Regards,
Joris
su...@supat.dhs.org
Roscoe
she wasn't impressed with everybody, but you definitely made her list. The
absence of a local lady at your side (that night) must have helped ;-) Too
bad we couldn't meet a second time. Well, next December, the REAL Millenium
SCT Party, right?
Roscoe
"Joris Goetschalckx" <joris.goe...@skynet.be> wrote in message
news:8627nq$le2$1...@news1.skynet.be...
> Roscoe <o-spamaw...@loxinfo.co.th> wrote:
> > Welcome back, Joris :-)
>
> Hi Roscoe,
>
> Thanks, it is good to be back. I have missed you all (well, make that:
> most of you...).
>
> > Any good stories to share?
> Hmmm, let me think... O yes, there was this meeting on the beach in
> Jomtien, followed by a dinner. But that is soooo long ago. I have almost
> forgotten who was there... ;-)
>
> Cheers,
> Joris
>
> PS: tell that language miracle of yours that I was truly impressed...
> amazing!
>
>
John Dunstan
Goetschalckx" <joris.goe...@skynet.be> wrote:
>John Dunstan <john_d...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> Yes, I would agree if that is all that he is saying. But, if so, his
>> statement would then seem to be an argument IN FAVOUR of the utility
>> of religion, ie it assists (acts as a crutch for) feeble minded
>> people cope with the problems of life.
> You have an interesting point there, John. Maybe this is indeed a good
> reason why we should tolerate religious thought, even if we consider
> that it is faulty.
Joris, this isn't my argument but rather what I see as the consequent of
accepting Pooyai's interpretation of what Rumpel actually meant by his
statement that "religion acts as a crutch for feeble-minded people." I
personally think that my original interpretation is probably closer to
the truth: that is, that Rumpel was implying that involvement with
religion is, in itself, a sign of feeble mindedness.
I would argue though that all thought, religious or otherwise, to
differing degrees is "faulty" although that's not to say that it doesn't
have value.
We should tolerate religious thought (and any other beliefs) because
tolerance is a necessary prerequisite for an open and free society.
That doesn't mean though that there should be no limits on tolerance
(the defining of which is a debate in itself) or that all ideas should
be treated as having equal merit.
>A big problem is however that some religions are inherently
>intolerant towards anyone who is not a follower.
I don't know that any of the world's major religions are inherently
intolerant, although historically it has been the case that at certain
times (including the present) and in certain places many religious
followers have acted with great intolerance.
> Is providing a crutch that helps the stupid cope with Life a
> sufficient excuse for ostracising or even killing or torturing those
> who do not accept that crutch?
The idea that religion is simply a crutch to help the stupid cope with
life is not something that I would want to argue. And I agree that no
excuse is sufficient for killing or torturing those who's beliefs are
different.
>
>So I accept the statement that religions can be useful to help canalise
>the thoughts (and acts) of those who are too stupid to think for
>themselves (I mean: they would e believing bullshit anyway, so why not
>let them follow a set of rules of long standing reputation, however
>falsely motivated?). However there are some religions I would not be
>comfortable to recommend...
I doubt that many religious people would accept that the sole or major
utility of religion is "to help canalise the thoughts (and acts) of
those who are too stupid to think for themselves". The major function
of religion for most, as I see it, is to provide guidance in the moral
sphere and answers to questions relating to why man, the world and the
cosmos exist.
The question as to which religions should or should not be recommended
is a difficult one. Most people without any self-reflection adopt the
religion of the family, commmunity, society that they were born into.
Very few people actually "choose" their religion. But supposing that we
are in a position to evaluate religions, and recommend one over another,
how would we do it? Pick the more tolerant religion? Pick the more
logically consistent religion? Pick the more historically grounded
religion. Pick the religion that demonstates the greater utility. Most
religious followers would say that we should pick the religion that has
the greatest truth value, invariably the religion that they themselves
follow.
On the other hand for many non-religious adherents religion/s is
rejected on the basis of seemingly insurmountable logical
inconsistencies between the doctrines of religion and the world as we
find it. Hence Rumple's argument against Christianity on the basis of
the apparent illogicality between the existence of a supreme deity that
is all powerful and all good, yet allows and fails to intervene to
mediate the effects of diseases, wars and other evils that exist in the
world - the problem of evil.
Buddhism (let's start to move this thread back on topic!), on the other,
has appeal to many Westerners (who have rejected Christianity) for
appearing in some ways to be more tolerant and not afflicted with some
of the logical difficulties, like the problem of evil, that plague
Christianity. But Buddhism is not without its own logical difficulties,
for if we take away the concept of a supreme deity as responsible for
creating the universe, and the notion that humans have free will,
Buddhist explanations for why man, the world and the cosmos exist don't
at all seem to me to be very convincing. And Christians would
certainly want to argue that their religion deserves special prominance
because of the resurrection from the dead of Jesus Christ. But
Buddhists might simply reply that really that is not such a big deal
given the Buddhist belief in the ultimate reincarnation of all people.
I was originally only going to jot a few notes down in this thread but
discussions on religion can become complex (and time-consuming) very
quickly. My replies to the HIV and other threads will need to wait
another night!
Regards,
John Dunstan
chang
"pooyai" <loveb...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>chang <cy...@np.edu.sg> wrote in message news:387dbd0c.0@nsuxnews...
>>
>> "pooyai" <loveb...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> >Sorry, but I don't agree with you at all and for several reasons.>
>> >First, while Christianity is present in Thailand...I have visited a few
>> >Catholic Churches there, the percentage of the population that considers
>> >itself Christian is so miniscule to even hint that Christianity is a
>> >significant aspect of Thai culture.
>>
>> No offence to Catholic churches (who are doing a great job
>> in their service to the community), but perhaps you may wish
>> to visit the charismatic/Pentecostal churches, where the
>> church is dynamic, flourishing and growing by leaps and
>> bounds. In your next visit to Thailand, try visiting the
>> Hope of Bangkok church in Bangkok, near Klawng Toey, here
>> you can see Thais from all walks of life practising their
>> faith with such passion, earnestness and joy that will put
>> many who call themselves Christians but do not walk a holy
>> life pleasing to God, to shame. Or try visiting the many
>> Christian hospitals/churches/communities in the provinces and you can
>> see many lepers, though deformed and their bodies tortured
>> in pain, yet joyfully praising God and thanking Him for
>> their daily bread and salvation.
>>
>> And during the Christmas season, you can see many youths
>> in Siam Square and near the skytrain stations, distributing
>> brochures and doing street evangelism.
>>
>> As I said before, it is not purely a "numbers" game but
>> the quality of the way of life, the values and beliefs
>> which a particular group of people hold dear. Say what
>> you like, I love the Thai "brand" of Christianity and it
>> has acquired a trademark ring about it.
>
>In a sense, what we were originally debating is a numbers game, because we
>were talking about where Christianity is representative of Thai culture.
>Give me a number. Of the 7-8 million people of Bangkok, what percentage do
>you think are Christian? Keep in mind that whatever your answer, the
>percentage will be far less in the countryside.
Let's not get paranoid over numbers. Take Singapore, for
example, it is a multi-racial, multi--cultural, multi-
religious country. About 60-65% are a mixture of Confucianists/
Buddhists/Taoists, Christians make up about 15% of the
population. It would be straining credulity to suggest that
since the predominant religion is Confucianism/Buddhism/
Taoism, it would then not be legitimate to speak of Christianity
as being part of the culture of Singapore (since Christians
are in the minority). The same goes for Malaysia where
despite the huge number of Muslims, it is legitimate to
talk of Christianity as part of Malaysian culture, the same
for Indonesia. What's so different about Thailand? You see,
we are a multi-cultural society. Culture is not a singular
but a composite thing. I would disagree with you, "numbers"
is not the sole criterion for determining whether something
is representative of a country's culture. Next thing you
know, we would be arguing over mathematical ratios and
fractions in the ascertainment of culture. What nonsense!
And in China, a vast country with a humongous population,
it too has many minority groups. If you divide such minority
groups over the total population, it will be 0.00....%
Yet China has repeatedly stressed that the cultures of
these various specks of minority groups form part of
the Chinese culture. In fact, in a certain county in China,
it's being recognised that the women folk speak a special
dialect unknown to the rest of the county folk. They form a
very insignificant percentage of the population, yet China
has no qualms of proclaiming it as part of Chinese culture
and heritage. The fact of there being one predominant
cultural group does not negate the fact and existence of
other cultural groups even if they are minority groups.
Thus no one can deny the numerous diverse and colourful
cultural dimensions of multi-cultural China as can be
vouched by many who have visited that country.
>> We thank the Western missionaries for bringing the
>> Christian faith to South-East Asia and now some say, Asia
>> will be the "Antioch of the East" bringing the faith back
>> to the West and repaying the favour.
>>
>It always interests me that in the third world Christian missionaries target
>the poor, the less well educated, and the sick...easy prey.
Please do not generalize and stereotype. Get your facts
straight. Singapore, Malaysia, Brunei, etc (countries
in South-East Asia) are not 3rd world countries. Perhaps
you may not feel it, but your sweeping statement is
extremely insulting. The innuendos are worse. It says a lot
about who you are and where you're coming from.
Take Singapore for example, the 2nd Deputy Prime Minister,
various Cabinet Ministers, the Chief Justice, several Court
of Appeal Judges, successful entrepreneurs, bankers, etc
are Christians. These are the people who helped the
country (which has no natural resources to rely on) survive
and prosper. Oh yes, I forgot, these are the less educated
folk and of course, easy prey. I think there's no need for
me to traverse the other South-East Asian countries to
establish the point.
And in the same breath, you've also insulted your Amercian
Presidents: George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, George
Bush, many other eminent Christian personages in the entire
Christian world. And these are the less discriminating
folks. I find your fallacious reasoning extremely
deplorable and your calumny utterly unjustified.
>> >Second, just because something occurs in a country does not mean it is
>> >representative of the country's culture. There are probably more
>> >prostitutes in Thailand than Christians, yet I would doubt you would say
>> >that prostitution represents Thai culture.
>>
>> Without commenting on the validity of this, there are many
>> who do not share your doubt. I fully support the Tourism
>> Authority of Thailand in removing whatever negative
>> connotations (whether arising erroneously or otherwise) as
>> far as the country's image is concerned and of construing
>> "Amazing Thailand" in the proper sense of the expression.
>
>So reality is unimportant to you? Probably so....after all God works in
>mysterious ways.
Far from it, there is such a thing as deviant cultures and
prostitution is one of them. Of course, that could be a
subset of the larger cultural whole.
>> your notion of culture and thus should be
>> eradicated. You have pigeon-holed and strait-jacketed it to
>> the point of breathlessness and have rendered it bereft of
>> any practical usefulness and value.
>>
>My goodness, you win the award...most impressive way of saying nothing.
Kindly do me a favour. Do not hide behind pretensions and
feigned ignorance. And do not dish out dubious awards, you
may wish to reserve them for yourself. Far from nothing, it
says exactly what it means and means exactly what it says.
If you've missed it the first time round and would want me
to perpetuate and highlight your reasoning fallacy which
you seem quite fond of, I'll do it again for your sake.
3 words - reductio ad absurdum.
Good day.
chang
bunn...@my-deja.com wrote:
>In article <0nmt7ss0o7iphbudk...@4ax.com>,> noo...@cwcom.net wrote:
>> On Fri, 14 Jan 2000 02:51:00 GMT, bunn...@my-deja.com wrote:
>>
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> Have you ever thought that all the falang expatriates might be falang
>> expatriates partly because they are trying to escape from a culture
>> where it's considered ok to attempt to force your views upon others?
>>
>> Perhpas they've falang expatriates because they've already had an
>> encounter with the Living God and they've decided they don't like
>> proselytising very much.
>When I said an encounter, I meant an encounter with God Himself. I am
>not talking about an encounter with "religious " people. What a lot of
>people do not know yet is they can truly know the God of the universe,
>not just hear stories ABOUT Him..... as for the rest, I do not cram
>things down peoples' throats, as that is STUPID. I do , however, take
>great pleasure in introducing people to the most wonderful Person I
>He is just as real in Thailand as He is anywhere else. At least Thai
>people have an understanding that there are beings in the spirit
>realm....many Westerners are educated fools who hold on to a false
>materialistic view of reality to their detriment.
>Reject Jesus if you choose to-that is your right- but at least don't do
>it out of ignorance. Know WHO it really is that you are
>rejecting.....you might just be surprised!
>
>Cordially,
>Bunnyfire
>Speak the truth, but leave immediately after.
> --Slovenian Proverb
Amen. Well said, Bunnyfire. You words bring a glow to my heart.
"A word aptly spoken
is like apples in settings of silver.
Like the coolness of snow at harvest time
is a trustworthy messenger to those who send him;
he refreshes the spirit of his masters"
Prov 25:11,13
How wonderful are the feet of those who bring good news.
Joyfully
Chang
Rum...@pobox.com
John Dunstan wrote:
> Rumpel was implying that involvement with
> religion is, in itself, a sign of feeble mindedness.
correct! With some of the more extreme cults Moon in Korea, heavens gate,
Jim Jones in Guyana it is pretty obvious. For the big and old ones, prime
example catholic church: One of their trick is peer pressure - if half my
village/town goes to this house and perform this rites it must be ok or?
If today someone came along and would tell all the X-tian preachers talk of
(the angels, the devil, the walk on water, the virgin with baby) we would
laugh him out of town.
Because it's around so long people (the more feeble minded ones) still give
it some credit,
totally ignorant folks believe the stuff word for word.
regards
Rumpel
pooyai
chang <cy...@np.edu.sg> wrote in message news:38859b75.0@nsuxnews...
>
> "pooyai" <loveb...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >>chang <cy...@np.edu.sg> wrote in message news:387dbd0c.0@nsuxnews...
> >>
> >> "pooyai" <loveb...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >>
> >In a sense, what we were originally debating is a numbers game, because
we
> >were talking about where Christianity is representative of Thai culture.
> >Give me a number. Of the 7-8 million people of Bangkok, what percentage
do
> >you think are Christian? Keep in mind that whatever your answer, the
> >percentage will be far less in the countryside.
>
> Let's not get paranoid over numbers.
It's not being paranoid. It's saying that before you can describe something
as being "representative" of a culture, it has to have some signicance in
terms of data. I noticed you never answered the question.
> Take Singapore, for
> example, it is a multi-racial, multi--cultural, multi-
> religious country. About 60-65% are a mixture of Confucianists/
> Buddhists/Taoists, Christians make up about 15% of the
> population. It would be straining credulity to suggest that
> since the predominant religion is Confucianism/Buddhism/
> Taoism, it would then not be legitimate to speak of Christianity
> as being part of the culture of Singapore (since Christians
> are in the minority). The same goes for Malaysia where
> despite the huge number of Muslims, it is legitimate to
> talk of Christianity as part of Malaysian culture, the same
> for Indonesia. What's so different about Thailand? You see,
> we are a multi-cultural society. Culture is not a singular
> but a composite thing. I would disagree with you, "numbers"
> is not the sole criterion for determining whether something
> is representative of a country's culture. Next thing you
> know, we would be arguing over mathematical ratios and
> fractions in the ascertainment of culture. What nonsense!
I'm not talking about Singapore or Malaysia, I'm talking about Thailand.
The percentage of the population in those two countries who are Christian is
significantly higher than in Thailand.
In your above parpagraph you almost said what I am saying...you mentioned,
"being part of the culture", which is inherently different than being
representative of the culuture.
> >It always interests me that in the third world Christian missionaries
target
> >the poor, the less well educated, and the sick...easy prey.
>
> Please do not generalize and stereotype. Get your facts
> straight. Singapore, Malaysia, Brunei, etc (countries
> in South-East Asia) are not 3rd world countries. Perhaps
> you may not feel it, but your sweeping statement is
> extremely insulting. The innuendos are worse. It says a lot
> about who you are and where you're coming from.
I talked about third world countries. I did not say Thailand was a third
world country. Technically, it's a "rapidly industrializing nation". I
also never said Singapore, Malaysia, Brunei or any other SE Asian nation was
"third world", although there are third world countries in SE Asia. Do not
put words into my mouth. Stop jumping to conclusions...just read what I
actually say.
>
> Take Singapore for example, the 2nd Deputy Prime Minister,
> various Cabinet Ministers, the Chief Justice, several Court
> of Appeal Judges, successful entrepreneurs, bankers, etc
> are Christians. These are the people who helped the
> country (which has no natural resources to rely on) survive
> and prosper. Oh yes, I forgot, these are the less educated
> folk and of course, easy prey. I think there's no need for
> me to traverse the other South-East Asian countries to
> establish the point.
You have no point since this was never any part of my discussion.
>
> And in the same breath, you've also insulted your Amercian
> Presidents: George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, George
> Bush, many other eminent Christian personages in the entire
> Christian world. And these are the less discriminating
> folks. I find your fallacious reasoning extremely
> deplorable and your calumny utterly unjustified.
And how did I do that? There was no third world concept in Washington's or
Lincoln's time, and George Bush was not a missionary. Again, stop putting
words in other people's mouth.
> Far from it, there is such a thing as deviant cultures and
> prostitution is one of them. Of course, that could be a
> subset of the larger cultural whole.
Wait a minute, you say that since there are Christians in Thailand it is
representative of the culture. Therefore, by the same logic -- yours, not
mine -- since there are prostitutes in Thailand that is representative of
the culture. You can't have it both ways.
bunn...@my-deja.com
Thanks for the kind words...
It's always nice to be able to discuss amiably even if we don't
agree....so many around here seem to lack that ability :-)
I must say tho that I disagree that religion could be called
"superfluous"-unless your belief in the purpose of faith is "what can it
do for me" instead of "there is a Supreme Being out there that I must
acknowledge"....(yes, I know some religions don't hold to the belief in
a Supreme Being)......so logically only one belief system can be true,
all the rest false-and of course there are some that hold that all are
false!-
Anyhow my point is that it is critical to determine which if any belief
system is true....as it has a direct impact on one's life and
afterlife....
Now I do know that most people, even Christians, look at their faith or
belief as something to benefit them, make life go better, etc.
My belief is that my purpose in life is to please God. Now as a
byproduct, I feel my life IS better-but if I lived in a country that
persecuted Christians, my temporal life would not be better because of
my faith, but rather worse....but there are people who suffer for their
faith in this world and count it a privilege.....because their purpose
in life is to please God.
Cheers,
Bunnyfire
ps Welcome back!
> Hi Bunny,
>
> Wise words, as always. Although I hold it that you are mistaken, I
think
> highly of you. You know that, don't you? Hey, some of my best friends
are
> religious ;-)
>
> More seriously, I think we agree more than it seems. Most of my
criticism
> is much more directed at churches than at religious thought.
>
> Still, I honestly believe that if you are able to think for yourself,
you
> don't need religion. So in my view religion may not necessarily have
to be
> bad, but I certainly hold it for superfluous...
>
> Cheers,
> Joris
>
>
--
Speak the truth, but leave immediately after.
--Slovenian Proverb
bunn...@my-deja.com
all the private flak I get on my Deja mail :-)
I wonder just how many Christians actually lurk or post to this NG....I
wonder if I should do a survey?
(While I am at it , it would be interesting to see how many
atheists,Buddhists, Muslims etc. are out there-what do you think?)
Cordially,
Bunnyfire
> Amen. Well said, Bunnyfire. You words bring a glow to my heart.
>
> "A word aptly spoken
> is like apples in settings of silver.
>
> Like the coolness of snow at harvest time
> is a trustworthy messenger to those who send him;
> he refreshes the spirit of his masters"
>
> Prov 25:11,13
>
> How wonderful are the feet of those who bring good news.
>
> Joyfully
> Chang
>
--
John Dunstan
bunn...@my-deja.com wrote:
> I must say tho that I disagree that religion could be called
> "superfluous"-unless your belief in the purpose of faith is "what can
> it do for me" instead of "there is a Supreme Being out there that I
> must acknowledge"....(yes, I know some religions don't hold to the
> belief in a Supreme Being)......so logically only one belief system
> can be true, all the rest false-and of course there are some that hold
> that all are false!-
Bunny, belief systems of religions encompass many different elements so
it is not correct to argue that only one belief system can be true and
all the rest false. It may well be the case that some religions are
closer to the truth on some elements in their belief systems but further
away on others.
As examples, it may be the case that the Buddhist notion of
reincarnation turns out to be closer to the truth than the Christian
concept of life-after-death. On the other hand, it may be the case that
the Christian belief in a supreme deity turns out to be closer to the
truth than the Buddhist belief which fails to acknowledge such a deity.
It may also turn out that the supreme deity does not behave strictly
according to Christian beliefs in that he does not reveal himself solely
to Christians but leaves different clues in different religions
regarding the mysteries of the universe including man and his
overall place in the cosmos. On such a scenario then, no one religion
would have a monopoly on truth and understanding. An understanding of
man, the world and the cosmos would then require a study of many
religions, philosophies and science, and would no doubt turn out to be
an ongoing, evolutionary enterprise (in contrast to the frozen absolutes
that seem to plague religions of most persuasions).
> Anyhow my point is that it is critical to determine which if any
> belief system is true....as it has a direct impact on one's life and
> afterlife....
It may not be as critical as you believe to determine which, if any,
belief system is true (even if that were possible). If God is, as you
believe, all powerful and supremely good, then it would not make much
sense for him to punish humans in the afterlife for errors of judgement
they might make in picking the wrong religion in this life.
Regards,
John Dunstan
bunn...@my-deja.com
Thanks for the defense....it's okay, Rumpel is actually pretty mild-you
should see my Deja email :-)
By the way, where have you been? And how is your mother-in-law?
Cordially,
Mrs B
>
> I do not believe in the man made church, But I am man enough to
> respect other peoples beliefs. I have noticed that Mrs. B does not
> force her beliefs down peoples throats, though she does reciprocate
> when people push the issue, she can be very verbal. Each to their own
> brother.
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
chang
"pooyai" <loveb...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>chang <cy...@np.edu.sg> wrote in message news:38859b75.0@nsuxnews...
>>
>> "pooyai" <loveb...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> >>chang <cy...@np.edu.sg> wrote in message news:387dbd0c.0@nsuxnews...
>> >>
>> >> "pooyai" <loveb...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> >>
>>>
>> Let's not get paranoid over numbers.
>
>as being "representative" of a culture, it has to have some signicance in
>terms of data. I noticed you never answered the question.
If "representative" means being a "major" representation
of Thai culture, I have never championed the fact that
Christianity in Thailand has achieved that. The fact
however remains that it is still a legitimate
representation, albeit a minor representation of Thai
culture.
Culture comprises history and represents a part of who we
are. I do not want to bore you with details of the genesis
of the Christian movement in Thailand in the last century
viz. Overseas Inland Mission, Overseas Christian Fellowship
and the early Thai Christians, but these folks have done
significant work in Thailand (eg establishing hospitals,
doing community work, etc) under the auspices and in
collaboration with the Thai government and have gained
much respect and recognition in the country.
Although no match in terms of quantity when compared with
the Buddhists, but in terms of "qualitative significance",
they have shined in terms of their service and evangelism/
church work. Christian Thai folks are very proud of their
Christian culture, heritage and history. It tells others
who they are and reflects an aspect of Thai culture. And
that culture has the recognition and respect of others.
Rather than measuring culture in terms of quantity per se,
"qualitative significance" should be the yardstick in the
determination of culture.
>> Take Singapore, for
>> example, it is a multi-racial, multi--cultural, multi-
>> religious country. About 60-65% are a mixture of Confucianists/
>> Buddhists/Taoists, Christians make up about 15% of the
>> population. It would be straining credulity to suggest that
>> since the predominant religion is Confucianism/Buddhism/
>> Taoism, it would then not be legitimate to speak of Christianity
>> as being part of the culture of Singapore (since Christians
>> are in the minority). The same goes for Malaysia where
>> despite the huge number of Muslims, it is legitimate to
>> talk of Christianity as part of Malaysian culture, the same
>> for Indonesia. What's so different about Thailand? You see,
>> we are a multi-cultural society. Culture is not a singular
>> but a composite thing. I would disagree with you, "numbers"
>> is not the sole criterion for determining whether something
>> is representative of a country's culture. Next thing you
>> know, we would be arguing over mathematical ratios and
>> fractions in the ascertainment of culture. What nonsense!
>
>I'm not talking about Singapore or Malaysia, I'm talking about Thailand.
>The percentage of the population in those two countries who are Christian is
>significantly higher than in Thailand.
So if 15% of the Christian population in Singapore could be
representative (whether major or otherwise) of Singapore
culture, where do we draw the line then in the case of
Thailand? 12%? 10%? 8%? 5%? 3%? It borders on ludicrousness
and artificialness to engage in this form of mathematical
exercise.
>In your above parpagraph you almost said what I am saying...you mentioned,
>"being part of the culture", which is inherently different than being
>representative of the culuture.
That is strange. The other time you have sought vigorously
to prevent me from posting Christian comments/articles on
this NG on the ground that they have absolutely nothing to
do with Thai culture.
It seems that you are now conceding that Christianity is
a part of Thai culture but not "representative" of it.
A U-turn?
Well, so long as it is part of Thai culture, I will
continue posting and would not waste enery proving
inessentials, viz that it is a predominant aspect of Thai
culture. I have never argued for that position.
Again, your argument will cut more ice if this NG were
soc.predominant-culture.thai.
Bottom-line: Whatever you say will not affect my freedom of
expression in MULTI-CULTURAL Thailand.
>> >It always interests me that in the third world Christian missionaries
>target
>> >the poor, the less well educated, and the sick...easy prey.
>>
>> Please do not generalize and stereotype. Get your facts
>> straight. Singapore, Malaysia, Brunei, etc (countries
>> in South-East Asia) are not 3rd world countries. Perhaps
>> you may not feel it, but your sweeping statement is
>> extremely insulting. The innuendos are worse. It says a lot
>> about who you are and where you're coming from.
>
>I talked about third world countries. I did not say Thailand was a third
>world country. Technically, it's a "rapidly industrializing nation". I
>also never said Singapore, Malaysia, Brunei or any other SE Asian nation was
>"third world", although there are third world countries in SE Asia. Do not
>put words into my mouth. Stop jumping to conclusions...just read what I
>actually say.
"U-turn" must indeed be your middle name.
You have cleverly sought to mislead by going on a snipping
spree and by truncating passages and paragraphs. Please,
read words in their proper CONTEXT.
Your above statement was in direct response to my
foregoing statement, which I now reproduce:
"We thank the Western missionaries for bringing the
Christian faith to South-East Asia and now some say, Asia
will be the "Antioch of the East" bringing the faith back
to the West and repaying the favour."
Which countries are the missionaries "targetting"?
South-East Asia of course. The focus is on the missionary
work of these missionaries and the response of the
"beneficiary" countries.
You then apendded my statement and replied:
"It always interests me that in the third world Christian
missionaries target the poor, the less well educated, and
the sick...easy prey."
Which area are you referring to, which you described
as 3rd world in the light of the foregoing missionary
activity and reciprocation? Read in context, it must be
South-East Asia.
You have insulted us in South-East Asia and glibly subsumed
all of us in South-East Asia as 3rd world. You have not
said that Singapore and Thailand are 3rd world countries,
but you have clearly implied it. You have tarred all of
us with the same brush. (Indeed you have even said
that there are 3rd world countries in South-East Asia)
You have implied that we have been manipulated by the
missionaries such that we are now even involved in the
business of repaying favours.
Your statement, taken in isolation, may very well refer to
3rd world countries per se, but taken in context, has a
totally different ring about it.
Even on the assumption that you are talking about 3rd
world countries, the stigma of your insult remains
regardless of which 3rd world country you may be referring
to. A sweeping statement, all the same.
>> Take Singapore for example, the 2nd Deputy Prime Minister,
>> various Cabinet Ministers, the Chief Justice, several Court
>> of Appeal Judges, successful entrepreneurs, bankers, etc
>> are Christians. These are the people who helped the
>> country (which has no natural resources to rely on) survive
>> and prosper. Oh yes, I forgot, these are the less educated
>> folk and of course, easy prey. I think there's no need for
>> me to traverse the other South-East Asian countries to
>> establish the point.
>
>You have no point since this was never any part of my discussion.
Another U-turn.
What is worse is your implication that people could not
resist the Christian gospel because they are less well-
educated. Thus if they are well-educated enough, they would
be schooled in the art of sophistication and would have the
necessary powers of discrimination to detect any alleged
manipulation by the Christian missionary/evangelist.
Don't me modest. Yours is not a statement limited to the
3rd world but one capable of universal application. You
are saying that if we are well-educated and discerning
enough, we would not be Christians. That has to be, whether
in a 3rd world, developing or developed country. The
thrust of your logic cuts right through. It cannot be right
in one context but wrong in another!
My point remains.
>> And in the same breath, you've also insulted your Amercian
>> Presidents: George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, George
>> Bush, many other eminent Christian personages in the entire
>> Christian world. And these are the less discriminating
>> folks. I find your fallacious reasoning extremely
>> deplorable and your calumny utterly unjustified.
>
>And how did I do that? There was no third world concept in Washington's or
>Lincoln's time, and George Bush was not a missionary. Again, stop putting
>words in other people's mouth.
It does not really matter. Pse see the above. The
qualifications of "3rd world" and "missionary" are
irrelevant.
You have a bunch of Presidents who are/were not well-
educated and discerning enough, and are/were preyed upon
(whether easily or otherwise) by missionaries/evangelists
(of superior intellect) in their respective periods in
history.
Well not your exact words, but unequivocally implied by
the drift of your arguments.
And "prey" - what an awful word! It connotes the idea of
one being approached by someone with bad intentions and
made subject to bad treatment and are harmed thereby.
And not just "prey", it is even "easy prey".
One should avoid it like the plague at all costs unless
absolutely necessary.
>> Far from it, there is such a thing as deviant cultures and
>> prostitution is one of them. Of course, that could be a
>> subset of the larger cultural whole.
>
>Wait a minute, you say that since there are Christians in Thailand it is
>representative of the culture. Therefore, by the same logic -- yours, not
>mine -- since there are prostitutes in Thailand that is representative of
>the culture. You can't have it both ways.
>
Ask the hundreds of people in this NG posting messages
like "Question of sex tourists", "Prostitution in Thailand,
Patpong, Pattaya, etc", "Poverty is not an excuse for
prostitution", etc, etc, etc - ad nauseam, ad infinitum on
whether prostitution is representative of Thai culture.
They are the best persons to answer your query since why on
earth would they want to talk of such subjects on a
newsgroup like soc.culture.thai unless ....
Rhetorical question?
Or are such posts to be banned on account of your
original notion of culture?
Rgds
chang
"Joris Goetschalckx" <joris.goe...@skynet.be> wrote:
>
>
>More seriously, I think we agree more than it seems. Most of my criticism
>is much more directed at churches than at religious thought.
>
>Still, I honestly believe that if you are able to think for yourself, you
>don't need religion. So in my view religion may not necessarily have to be
>bad, but I certainly hold it for superfluous...
>
>Cheers,
>Joris
Khun Joris,
Interesting post. I'm just curious, when you mentioned
"religion", are you referring to a relationship with "God"
(whether addressed as a supreme being or by any other
corresponding appellations)or a system of beliefs?
If it is the former, then if you were in a plane which
experienced turbulence and if the plane makes a sudden
steep crashing descent, would you cry instinctively to God
for help?
Cheers & Rgds
pooyai
chang <cy...@np.edu.sg> wrote in message news:38870523.0@nsuxnews...
>
> >It's not being paranoid. It's saying that before you can describe
something
> >as being "representative" of a culture, it has to have some signicance in
> >terms of data. I noticed you never answered the question.
>
> If "representative" means being a "major" representation
> of Thai culture, I have never championed the fact that
> Christianity in Thailand has achieved that. The fact
> however remains that it is still a legitimate
> representation, albeit a minor representation of Thai
> culture.
There are two basic definitions of representative. One of course relates to
someone who represents others, such as in a government. The other, which is
valid in this case is: "typical of others in the same class". Christianity
is present but not typical in Thailand. Buddhism is present but not typical
in America. I am Buddhist but in America, but I would never say that
Buddhism is representative of American culture.
> Culture comprises history and represents a part of who we
> are. I do not want to bore you with details of the genesis
> of the Christian movement in Thailand in the last century
> viz.
Thank you for realizing it would be truly boring.
> Although no match in terms of quantity when compared with
> the Buddhists, but in terms of "qualitative significance",
> they have shined in terms of their service and evangelism/
> church work. Christian Thai folks are very proud of their
> Christian culture, heritage and history.
And well they should be.
> It tells others
> who they are and reflects an aspect of Thai culture.
If that's how you want to define Thai culture, then I can think of millions
of things that represent Thai culture, inlcuding much that is horrid.
> Rather than measuring culture in terms of quantity per se,
> "qualitative significance" should be the yardstick in the
> determination of culture.
You are certainly welcome to use that definition, but I will continue to
disagree with it because it is not the generally accepted way of defining
what represents a culture.
Now, if you were to say Thai culture allows freedom of religion, I would say
that is representative of the nation.
> >I'm not talking about Singapore or Malaysia, I'm talking about Thailand.
> >The percentage of the population in those two countries who are Christian
is
> >significantly higher than in Thailand.
>
> So if 15% of the Christian population in Singapore could be
> representative (whether major or otherwise) of Singapore
> culture, where do we draw the line then in the case of
> Thailand? 12%? 10%? 8%? 5%? 3%? It borders on ludicrousness
> and artificialness to engage in this form of mathematical
> exercise.
>
Mathmatical significance is not "ludicrous", and in the case of Singapore
there is no one religion in which almost 95% of the population professes
belief. No religion dominates in Singapore.
> >In your above parpagraph you almost said what I am saying...you
mentioned,
> >"being part of the culture", which is inherently different than being
> >representative of the culuture.
>
> That is strange. The other time you have sought vigorously
> to prevent me from posting Christian comments/articles on
> this NG on the ground that they have absolutely nothing to
> do with Thai culture.
No one can prevent anyone from posting any topic in a newsgroup. But I can
say that virtually no one (I hope you understand the term virtually) goes to
the soc.culture. thai newsgroup with the intent of learning about
Christianity.
>
> It seems that you are now conceding that Christianity is
> a part of Thai culture but not "representative" of it.
>
Nope. No U-turn...you just choose to look at it that way. AIDS is
certainly something that is found as a part of Thai culture, but not
representative of it. If I wanted to learn about AIDS I would look for a
newsgroup on AIDS. If I specifically wanted to learn about AIDS in
Thailand, then I might bring up the topic in this group.
> Bottom-line: Whatever you say will not affect my freedom of
> expression in MULTI-CULTURAL Thailand.
>
Naturally, nor prevent me from saying it's not what the intent of the
newsgroup is.
> >> >It always interests me that in the third world Christian missionaries
> >target
> >> >the poor, the less well educated, and the sick...easy prey.
> >>
> >> Please do not generalize and stereotype. Get your facts
> >> straight. Singapore, Malaysia, Brunei, etc (countries
> >> in South-East Asia) are not 3rd world countries. Perhaps
> >> you may not feel it, but your sweeping statement is
> >> extremely insulting. The innuendos are worse. It says a lot
> >> about who you are and where you're coming from.
> >
> >I talked about third world countries. I did not say Thailand was a third
> >world country. Technically, it's a "rapidly industrializing nation". I
> >also never said Singapore, Malaysia, Brunei or any other SE Asian nation
was
> >"third world", although there are third world countries in SE Asia. Do
not
> >put words into my mouth. Stop jumping to conclusions...just read what I
> >actually say.
>
> "U-turn" must indeed be your middle name.
Not at all. Read on.
>
> You have cleverly sought to mislead by going on a snipping
> spree and by truncating passages and paragraphs. Please,
> read words in their proper CONTEXT.
I snip no more than you and furthermore, there are limits to how much quoted
material can be processed by some newsreaders.
>
> Your above statement was in direct response to my
> foregoing statement, which I now reproduce:
>
> "We thank the Western missionaries for bringing the
> Christian faith to South-East Asia and now some say, Asia
> will be the "Antioch of the East" bringing the faith back
> to the West and repaying the favour."
>
> Which countries are the missionaries "targetting"?
> South-East Asia of course. The focus is on the missionary
> work of these missionaries and the response of the
> "beneficiary" countries.
>
> You then apendded my statement and replied:
>
> "It always interests me that in the third world Christian
> missionaries target the poor, the less well educated, and
> the sick...easy prey."
>
> Which area are you referring to, which you described
> as 3rd world in the light of the foregoing missionary
> activity and reciprocation? Read in context, it must be
> South-East Asia.
When Christian missionaries began coming to SE Asia, Thailand was a third
world country. It remained a third world country until sometime in the
60's.
>
> You have insulted us in South-East Asia and glibly subsumed
> all of us in South-East Asia as 3rd world. You have not
> said that Singapore and Thailand are 3rd world countries,
> but you have clearly implied it. You have tarred all of
> us with the same brush. (Indeed you have even said
> that there are 3rd world countries in South-East Asia)
There are...certainly Burma and Laos...two of the poorest nations on the
face of the earth...are legitimately third world.
> You have implied that we have been manipulated by the
> missionaries such that we are now even involved in the
> business of repaying favours.
I never said that. Again, you put words in my mouth. In fact the only
thing that was said about repaying the favor, as I believe you phrased it,
was you. Although, the typical Christian -- the representative Christian --
believe it is his responsibility to prostelitze (pardon the spelling).
> Your statement, taken in isolation, may very well refer to
> 3rd world countries per se, but taken in context, has a
> totally different ring about it.
That's how you chose to read it.
>
> Even on the assumption that you are talking about 3rd
> world countries, the stigma of your insult remains
> regardless of which 3rd world country you may be referring
> to. A sweeping statement, all the same.
Frankly, I could care less if a country is defined as third world by the
world community and someone doesn't like it. If the shoe fits, wear it. I
personally don't read into "third world" something bad. I define Lao as
being third world, but I think they have an interesting culture and I have
met many wonderful Lao people. Their economy -- in this case that their
government has chosen -- is what makes them third world.
>
> What is worse is your implication that people could not
> resist the Christian gospel because they are less well-
> educated. Thus if they are well-educated enough, they would
> be schooled in the art of sophistication and would have the
> necessary powers of discrimination to detect any alleged
> manipulation by the Christian missionary/evangelist.
As I said, missionaries rarely target the middle class and virtually never
the rich. In fact, if a missionaries goal is to erect a hospital to care
for the ill, why bring religion into it? If a missionaries true goal is to
feed the poor, why bring religion into it? It's their price for the
service. They don't charge money, they charge gentle indoctrination.
>
> Don't me modest. Yours is not a statement limited to the
> 3rd world but one capable of universal application. You
> are saying that if we are well-educated and discerning
> enough, we would not be Christians.
Nope, not at all. I never said that. Most people in the world are born
into a particular relgion.
> And "prey" - what an awful word! It connotes the idea of
> one being approached by someone with bad intentions and
> made subject to bad treatment and are harmed thereby.
I chose it intentionally and stand by it.
>
> One should avoid it like the plague at all costs unless
> absolutely necessary.
No, that's not what I believe. If a Thai person who is probably either
Buddhist or Muslim decides on his own to seek the truth, and he decides that
truth is Christianity, great. No problem with that at all. If the "truth"
is pushed on to him, then I condemn it.
And if YOU want to talk about respecting people, then I have to say that
your respect is the ultimate disrespect because if you truly believe in the
often stated and official belief of every Christian church, if a person does
not believe in Christ as the redeemer they go to hell. Now that is what I
call the ultimate disrespect of other people -- if you don't believe what I
believe you will go to hell.
>
> >> Far from it, there is such a thing as deviant cultures and
> >> prostitution is one of them. Of course, that could be a
> >> subset of the larger cultural whole.
Ah yes...the common Christian belief...if it is not what I believe in, then
it's deviant.
> >
> Or are such posts to be banned on account of your
> original notion of culture?
I never said anything should be banned, but I will continue to say it may
not be what the newsgroup is about.
>
> Rgds
>
Regards? Yeah right. Empty words on your part.
Ron & Ree
1) Why does anything exist?
2) What happens when I die?
Some religions invented a God to explain existence. But that really does
not solve the problem, it only moves it to a different level. They say
everything we see had to come from somewhere so there had to be a supreme
being to create it. So where did this supreme being come from? How was it
brought into existence? Was there another God that created this God? On
into infinity.
We don't like death, so we invent things that could happen after we die.
Isn't it just as easy to believe that when you die you no longer exist? Our
thoughts are Electro-chemical reactions, when those reactions cease so do
we.
Ron Williams
"John Dunstan" <john_d...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:866bq7$gfo$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Ron & Ree
the fact that we do exist. Monks I have talked to believe that our universe
goes through cycles of expansion and contraction. The universe is currently
expanding but will eventually collapse back and then start the expansion
again, sort of like the big bang theory but it keeps repeating.
Then they have the belief that life is suffering, basically that this is
hell and we should try to get out of it. In order to leave this life and
cease existing you must lead a perfect life. So as long as you do bad acts
you will keep on being reborn and suffering. I told the monks if this is
true, I will always be just a little bad so I can keep coming back.
Ron Williams
"Joris Goetschalckx" <joris.goe...@skynet.be> wrote in message
news:868c0r$m11$2...@news0.skynet.be...
> John Dunstan <john_d...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > I doubt that many religious people would accept that the sole or major
> > utility of religion is "to help canalise the thoughts (and acts) of
> > those who are too stupid to think for themselves". The major function
> > of religion for most, as I see it, is to provide guidance in the moral
> > sphere and answers to questions relating to why man, the world and the
> > cosmos exist.
>
> John, I am afraid that you are saying the same thing, but only with
> friendlier words... You are a master in circumlocutions, as we all know
> ;-)
>
> > Buddhism (let's start to move this thread back on topic!)
> Good idea...
>
> > has appeal to many Westerners (who have rejected Christianity) for
> > appearing in some ways to be more tolerant and not afflicted with some
> > of the logical difficulties, like the problem of evil, that plague
> > Christianity. But Buddhism is not without its own logical difficulties,
> > for if we take away the concept of a supreme deity as responsible for
> > creating the universe, and the notion that humans have free will,
> > Buddhist explanations for why man, the world and the cosmos exist don't
> > at all seem to me to be very convincing.
>
> Hmm. To a Christian educated mind that is. Frankly I see no reason why we
> should ask these questions. To me they are "nicht fraglich" (don't have to
> be asked). It makes sense to ask *how* the world evolves (what are the
> mechanisms governing this evolution), but here is no use whatsoever in
> asking *why* there is a "world"... It's just there, I'd say... The
> relative indifference with which Buddhism treats cosmological causality is
> in my eyes a sign of healthy no-nonsense thinking...
>
> Regards,
> Joris
>
>
>
>
Joris Goetschalckx
> Interesting post. I'm just curious, when you mentioned
> "religion", are you referring to a relationship with "God"
> (whether addressed as a supreme being or by any other
> corresponding appellations)or a system of beliefs?
Hi Chang,
Yes, when I talked about religious thought I meant something like people
chosing to believe that there would be a god or so...
> If it is the former, then if you were in a plane which
> experienced turbulence and if the plane makes a sudden
> steep crashing descent, would you cry instinctively to God
> for help?
No, because I know there is no god that can help me. I would remain silent
and hope that the pilot would be able to get back in control of the
situation. I have more trust in human pilots than in made-up old men with
white beards sitting on a cloud watching and judging us... ;-)
Let me ask you a question too: for your Christmas presents, do you rely on
Santa Claus, or on your wife and kids (or your parents if you're still
living at home)?
Cheers,
Joris
Joris Goetschalckx
> Anyhow my point is that it is critical to determine which if any belief
> system is true....as it has a direct impact on one's life and
> afterlife....
Hmm, excuse me, but there is no such thing as afterlife... When you're
dead you're dead, sorry. ;-)
And to come back to your main proposition: I'm afraid that any *belief*
system is false by definition. If things are true only because you
*believe* them to be true, how are you going to argue with believers of
other systems? Or did I misunderstand you?
> ps Welcome back!
Thanks.
Regards,
Joris
Joris Goetschalckx
> I doubt that many religious people would accept that the sole or major
> utility of religion is "to help canalise the thoughts (and acts) of
> those who are too stupid to think for themselves". The major function
> of religion for most, as I see it, is to provide guidance in the moral
> sphere and answers to questions relating to why man, the world and the
> cosmos exist.
John, I am afraid that you are saying the same thing, but only with
friendlier words... You are a master in circumlocutions, as we all know
;-)
> Buddhism (let's start to move this thread back on topic!)
Good idea...
> has appeal to many Westerners (who have rejected Christianity) for
> appearing in some ways to be more tolerant and not afflicted with some
> of the logical difficulties, like the problem of evil, that plague
> Christianity. But Buddhism is not without its own logical difficulties,
> for if we take away the concept of a supreme deity as responsible for
> creating the universe, and the notion that humans have free will,
> Buddhist explanations for why man, the world and the cosmos exist don't
> at all seem to me to be very convincing.
Hmm. To a Christian educated mind that is. Frankly I see no reason why we
Joris Goetschalckx
> she wasn't impressed with everybody, but you definitely made her list.
> The absence of a local lady at your side (that night) must have helped
;-)
Why did you have to add the words "(that night)"? ;-)
> Too bad we couldn't meet a second time. Well, next December, the REAL
> Millenium SCT Party, right?
Yeah right! The REAL millennium party will be on Saturday 16 December
2000.
Ugh!
Cheers,
Joris
Joris Goetschalckx
> I think all religions stem from 2 basic questions.
> 1) Why does anything exist?
> 2) What happens when I die?
> Some religions invented a God to explain existence. But that really
> does not solve the problem, it only moves it to a different level.
> They say everything we see had to come from somewhere so there had to
> be a supreme being to create it. So where did this supreme being
> come from? How was it brought into existence? Was there another God
> that created this God? On into infinity.
> We don't like death, so we invent things that could happen after we die.
> Isn't it just as easy to believe that when you die you no longer exist?
> Our thoughts are Electro-chemical reactions, when those reactions cease
> so do we.
Hi Ron,
I like your no-nonsense approach...
Joris
PS: I know it is bad etiquette to quote a dozen of lines and then add only
one line, so I'll add a few lines more ;-)
line
line
line
line
line
line
line
line
line
line
line
line
chang
Thank you for your very frank and candid response. I
appreciate it.
As regards your question, I do not have faith in Santa
Claus who has so commercialised the Christmas season.
He obscures the true meaning of Christmas. Unlike
Jesus, he did not die on the Cross for our sins. I've
discussed this issue in an earlier post "Christmas Myths".
The main person in my life is Jesus Christ. I rely and
depend on Him for the provision of all of my needs and
those of my family. I do work very hard (I hope smartly too)
with my hands and the faculties which God has given me to
put food on the table but it is the Lord who makes all
these possible. For which, I'm grateful and thankful.
The Scriptures says: "Do not be anxious about anything,
but in everything by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving,
present your requests to God. And the peace of God, which
transcends all understanding, will guard your hearts and
your minds in Christ Jesus."
Philippians 4:6,7
Furthermore Jesus says:
"But seek first His kingdom and his righteousness and all
these things will be given to you as well. Therefore do
not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about
itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own."
Matt 6:33,34
And King Solomon, an ancestor of the Lord Jesus said:
"Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your
own understanding; in all your ways acknowledge Him and He
will make your paths straight."
I agree with Bunnyfire that the Christian life is sometimes
not an easy and smooth-sailing experience. For we read in
Hebrews of how some were tortured for the faith:
"...Others were tortured and refused to be released, so
that they might gain a better resurrection. Some faced
jeers and flogging, while still others were chained and
put in prison. They were stoned, they were sawed in two;
they were put to death by the sword. They went about in
sheepskins and goatskins, destitute, persecuted and
mistreated - the world was not worthy of them. They
wandered in deserts and mountains, and in caves and holes
in the ground..."
Hebrews 11:35-38
But I also know this:
"Who shall separate us from the love of Christ?
Shall trouble or hardship or persecution or famine or
nakedness or danger or sword? As it is written: "For
your sake we face death all day long, we are considered
as sheep to be slaughtered," No, in all these things,
we are more than conquerors through Him who loved us.
For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither
angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future,
nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything
else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the
love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord."
Romans 8:35-39
So wrote the Apostle Paul.
Who can measure the wondrous love of the Lord? For He so
loved me that He came and died for my sins. And for the
sins of others too.
Khun Joris, I know you may not be a believer but thank you
for reading this which basically explains my reliance on
my Saviour and His fabulous love for me.
Thanks once again for your response.
Cheers
Have a wonderful day!
Chang
bunn...@my-deja.com
>
> Hmm, excuse me, but there is no such thing as afterlife... When you're
> dead you're dead, sorry. ;-)
Am I to take that on faith? ;-)
If things are true only because you
> *believe* them to be true, how are you going to argue with believers
of
> other systems? Or did I misunderstand you?
>
I think you misunderstood me....I am one who believes in the concept of
absolute truth. I believe I have found it. But in things of the Spirit,
obviously you can't use the scientific method to prove it that
way....only people who want Him will find Him, generally.
But in my case, I can say that my choice was dictated by a desire to
find truth, not a desire to find a belief system that i was comfortable
with-it's not like shopping for clothes, after all!
Cordially,
bunnyfire
Speak the truth, but leave immediately after.
--Slovenian Proverb
bunn...@my-deja.com
person has reached perfection? And who or what decides what a perfect
life is? Who or what sets the standard of what a good or an evil act is?
Cordially,
Bunnyfire
"Ron & Ree" <ron...@northcoast.com> wrote:
> Buddhism doesn't look to solve the problem of why we exist, it just
accepts
> the fact that we do exist. Monks I have talked to believe that our
universe
> goes through cycles of expansion and contraction. The universe is
currently
> expanding but will eventually collapse back and then start the
expansion
> again, sort of like the big bang theory but it keeps repeating.
> Then they have the belief that life is suffering, basically that this
is
> hell and we should try to get out of it. In order to leave this life
and
> cease existing you must lead a perfect life. So as long as you do bad
acts
> you will keep on being reborn and suffering. I told the monks if this
is
> true, I will always be just a little bad so I can keep coming back.
>
> Ron Williams
>
> "Joris Goetschalckx" <joris.goe...@skynet.be> wrote in message
> news:868c0r$m11$2...@news0.skynet.be...
> > John Dunstan <john_d...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > I doubt that many religious people would accept that the sole or
major
> > > utility of religion is "to help canalise the thoughts (and acts)
of
> > > those who are too stupid to think for themselves". The major
function
> > > of religion for most, as I see it, is to provide guidance in the
moral
> > > sphere and answers to questions relating to why man, the world and
the
> > > cosmos exist.
> >
> > John, I am afraid that you are saying the same thing, but only with
> > friendlier words... You are a master in circumlocutions, as we all
know
> > ;-)
> >
> > > Buddhism (let's start to move this thread back on topic!)
> > Good idea...
> >
> > > has appeal to many Westerners (who have rejected Christianity) for
> > > appearing in some ways to be more tolerant and not afflicted with
some
> > > of the logical difficulties, like the problem of evil, that plague
> > > Christianity. But Buddhism is not without its own logical
difficulties,
> > > for if we take away the concept of a supreme deity as responsible
for
> > > creating the universe, and the notion that humans have free will,
> > > Buddhist explanations for why man, the world and the cosmos exist
don't
> > > at all seem to me to be very convincing.
> >
> > Hmm. To a Christian educated mind that is. Frankly I see no reason
why we
> > should ask these questions. To me they are "nicht fraglich" (don't
have to
> > be asked). It makes sense to ask *how* the world evolves (what are
the
> > mechanisms governing this evolution), but here is no use whatsoever
in
> > asking *why* there is a "world"... It's just there, I'd say... The
> > relative indifference with which Buddhism treats cosmological
causality is
> > in my eyes a sign of healthy no-nonsense thinking...
> >
> > Regards,
> > Joris
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
--
Speak the truth, but leave immediately after.
--Slovenian Proverb
noo...@cwcom.net
<o-spamaw...@loxinfo.co.th> wrote:
>Could somebody please spell Christmas right?
Don't you know???!!! In Thailand it's spelt 'Kitma' :-)
>
>Thanks,
>
>Roscoe
>
>"Robert White" <ric...@samart.co.th> wrote in message
>news:387f09ad...@news.samart.co.th...
>> "pooyai" <loveb...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> ><bunn...@my-deja.com> wrote
>> >>.anyhow if I ever have the privilege of living
>> >> in Thailand I might just target all the falang expatriates-from what I
>> >> read on this newsgroup they REALLY need an encounter with the Living
>> >> God....
>> >>
>> >Perhaps they prefer Buddha.
>>
>> Gotama Buddha is just another Guy! Didn't you get that in
>> comparative religion or something?
>> Personally I'm a cheerful happy practicing Buddhist which is just
>> fine with my God. I'm a Jew so what I have to deal with is God the
>> Father (the jealous, wrathful, hard-nosed,, ect ect. ) which these
>> born gain newbies who think Faith and choice has something to do with
>> religion don't need to deal with. Jehovah owns my genetic ass and
>> Jesus is a cousin.
>> But anyway Bunny can target anybody she likes, and maybe
>> consecrate some sextourist-bargirl marriages or something which might
>> do some good. Buddha would say, "up to you".
>>
>>
>> Rob
>> RICHLY TRAVEL CENTRE Next to the Train Station! - Bangkok
>> Tours Tickets Trekking for Thailand
>> http://richlybangkok.com/
>
Rum...@pobox.com
bunn...@my-deja.com wrote:
> who or what decides when a person has reached perfection?
> And who or what decides what a perfect life is?
> Who or what sets the standard of what a good or an evil act is?
I do
Rumpel
pooyai
<bunn...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:86a8np$ctf$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> I have a question....in Buddhist thought, who or what decides when a
> person has reached perfection? And who or what decides what a perfect
> life is? Who or what sets the standard of what a good or an evil act is?
>
god.
Ron & Ree
needed is to do as you are told. But in a man-centered religion like
Buddhism, to know what is right and wrong, you have to develop a deep
self-awareness and self understanding.
So to know what is right and wrong, the Buddhist looks at three things - the
intention, the effect the act will have upon oneself and the effect it will
upon others.
Hope this helps, Ron Williams (I'm not a Buddhist either)
<bunn...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:86a8np$ctf$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> I have a question....in Buddhist thought, who or what decides when a
> person has reached perfection? And who or what decides what a perfect
> life is? Who or what sets the standard of what a good or an evil act is?
>
> Cordially,
> Bunnyfire
>
>
pooyai
Ron & Ree <ron...@northcoast.com> wrote in message
news:s8hrqrr...@corp.supernews.com...
> To know what is right and wrong in god-centered religions, all that is
> needed is to do as you are told. But in a man-centered religion like
> Buddhism, to know what is right and wrong, you have to develop a deep
> self-awareness and self understanding.
> So to know what is right and wrong, the Buddhist looks at three things -
the
> intention, the effect the act will have upon oneself and the effect it
will
> upon others.
>
> Hope this helps, Ron Williams (I'm not a Buddhist either)
Very well written.
John Dunstan
>
>If it is the former, then if you were in a plane which
>experienced turbulence and if the plane makes a sudden
>steep crashing descent, would you cry instinctively to God
>for help?
Just out of curiosity, do you think it could change the situation to
cry to God or do you just regard it is something someone might do
instinctively? (the theological implications would seem quite
different).
Regards,
John Dunstan
John Dunstan
>Buddhism doesn't look to solve the problem of why we exist, it just accepts
>the fact that we do exist. Monks I have talked to believe that our universe
>goes through cycles of expansion and contraction. The universe is currently
>expanding but will eventually collapse back and then start the expansion
>again, sort of like the big bang theory but it keeps repeating.
Very strong parallels here between what the monks are saying and
modern scientific theory.
>Then they have the belief that life is suffering, basically that this is
>hell and we should try to get out of it.
There are actually hells and heavens in the Buddhist cosmology which
are not part of the Earth.
>In order to leave this life and
>cease existing you must lead a perfect life.
I believe the Buddhist view is that after you lead a perfect life, you
don't cease existing but finally enter Nirvana.
>So as long as you do bad acts
>you will keep on being reborn and suffering. I told the monks if this is
>true, I will always be just a little bad so I can keep coming back.
Yeh, I think I'm going to be coming back many times!
Regards,
John Dunstan
pooyai
John Dunstan <jo...@alphalink.com.au> wrote in message
news:388b0b10...@news.alphalink.com.au...
In fact, I doubt that in any plane crash that there were not a majority of
passangers that cried out to god for help...yet the planes still crashed.
Ron & Ree
> There are actually hells and heavens in the Buddhist cosmology which
> are not part of the Earth.
>
I know does not believe in different hells and heavens.
> I believe the Buddhist view is that after you lead a perfect life, you
> don't cease existing but finally enter Nirvana.
>
In Nirvana, there is no time or space, no concept of self or not-self, no
movement.
With no concept of self, I call that ceasing to exist. You no longer have
an identity.
Ron Williams
OM
A THERMODYNAMICS PROFESSOR HAD WRITTEN A TAKE HOME EXAM FOR HIS GRADUATE
STUDENTS.
IT HAD ONE QUESTION:
"IS HELL EXOTHERMIC (GIVES OFF HEAT) OR ENDOTHERMIC (ABSORBS HEAT)? SUPPORT
YOUR ANSWER WITH A PROOF."
MOST OF THE STUDENTS WROTE PROOFS OF THEIR BELIEFS USING BOYLE'S LAW (GAS
COOLS OFF WHEN IT EXPANDS AND HEATS UP WHEN IT IS COMPRESSED) OR SOME
VARIANT.
ONE STUDENT, HOWEVER, WROTE THE FOLLOWING:
"FIRST, WE NEED TO KNOW HOW THE MASS OF HELL IS CHANGING IN TIME. SO, WE
NEED TO KNOW THE RATE THAT SOULS ARE MOVING INTO HELL AND THE RATE THEY ARE
LEAVING. I THINK THAT WE CAN SAFELY ASSUME THAT ONCE A SOUL GETS TO HELL, IT
WILL NOT LEAVE. THEREFORE, NO SOULS ARE LEAVING. AS FOR HOW MANY SOULS ARE
ENTERING HELL, LET'S LOOK AT THE DIFFERENT RELIGIONS THAT EXIST IN THE WORLD
TODAY. SOME OF THESE RELIGIONS STATE THAT IF YOU ARE NOT A MEMBER OF THEIR
RELIGION, YOU WILL GO TO HELL. SINCE THERE ARE MORE THAN ONE OF THESE
RELIGIONS AND SINCE PEOPLE DO NOT BELONG TO MORE THAN ONE RELIGION, WE CAN
PROJECT THAT ALL PEOPLE AND ALL SOULS GO TO HELL. WITH BIRTH AND DEATH RATES
AS THEY ARE, WE CAN EXPECT THE NUMBER OF SOULS IN HELL TO INCREASE
EXPONENTIALLY. NOW, WE LOOK AT THE RATE OF CHANGE OF THE VOLUME IN HELL
BECAUSE BOYLE'S LAW STATES THAT IN ORDER FOR THE TEMPERATURE AND PRESSURE IN
HELL TO STAY THE SAME, THE VOLUME OF HELL HAS TO EXPAND AS SOULS ARE ADDED.
THIS GIVES TWO POSSIBILITIES:
1. IF HELL IS EXPANDING AT A SLOWER RATE THAN THE RATE AT WHICH SOULS ENTER
HELL, THEN THE TEMPERATURE AND PRESSURE IN HELL WILL INCREASE UNTIL ALL HELL
BREAKS LOOSE.
2. OF COURSE, IF HELL IS EXPANDING AT A RATE FASTER THAN THE INCREASE OF
SOULS IN HELL, THEN THE TEMPERATURE AND PRESSURE WILL DROP UNTIL HELL
FREEZES OVER.
SO WHICH IS IT? IF WE ACCEPT THE POSTULATE GIVEN TO ME BY MS. THERESE BANYAN
DURING MY FRESHMAN YEAR, 'THAT IT WILL BE A COLD NIGHT IN HELL BEFORE I
SLEEP WITH YOU', AND TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE FACT THAT I STILL HAVE NOT
SUCCEEDED IN HAVING SEXUAL RELATIONS WITH HER, THEN 2 CANNOT BE TRUE, AND SO
HELL IS EXOTHERMIC."
THIS STUDENT GOT THE ONLY A.
John Dunstan
<ron...@northcoast.com> wrote:
>I think all religions stem from 2 basic questions.
> 1) Why does anything exist?
> 2) What happens when I die?
>
>Some religions invented a God to explain existence. But that really does
>not solve the problem, it only moves it to a different level. They say
>everything we see had to come from somewhere so there had to be a supreme
>being to create it. So where did this supreme being come from? How was it
>brought into existence? Was there another God that created this God? On
>into infinity.
>
>We don't like death, so we invent things that could happen after we die.
>Isn't it just as easy to believe that when you die you no longer exist? Our
>thoughts are Electro-chemical reactions, when those reactions cease so do
>we.
Ron, I don't disagree with the logic of your first argument. Arguing
for the existence of God solely on the basis that everything had to
come from somewhere does only seem to be moving the problem on to
another level, but perhaps a thesist might argue that at the next
level we are really getting beyond the capabilities of human
understanding anyway.
My purpose has not been to put forward any knock-down proofs for the
existence of God but rather to try and show that belief in God is not
in itself unreasonable. And from that, if there really is a Supreme
Deity who created the man, the world and the cosmos, what could we
expect the result to be?
With regard to your two basic questions the really interesting one
that I find is not "Why does anything exist?" but "Why does anything
intelligent exist?" Life itself seems to be the biggest mystery for
which we have no real explanation. Inert life-less chemicals react
together to eventually evolve into complex organisms that reproduce,
have hopes, wants, dreams and desires, and have the capacity to
self-reflect on themselves and their place in the universe. It
doesn't seem very satisfying intellectually, to me at least, that
there is fundamentally no real difference between a rock and thinking
being - both being simply products of matter that have evolved in
different ways.
And even though thoughts might be caused by electro-chemical reactions
I don't see how they could simply be equated with electro-chemical
reactions - but that's an ongoing complex philosophical issue that we
may not want to get into here.
Regarding inventing things that happen after we die, there is some
empirical evidence that death may not be the end of existence if we
take the reports of near-death experiences seriously. And as to the
question you pose "Isn't it just as easy to believe that when you die
you no longer exist?", the really difficult thing, as I see, is not to
believe that when you die you no longer exist, but to explain how it
is that you come to exist at all.
Regards,
John Dunstan
John Dunstan
<joris.goe...@skynet.be> wrote:
>John Dunstan <john_d...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> I doubt that many religious people would accept that the sole or major
>> utility of religion is "to help canalise the thoughts (and acts) of
>> those who are too stupid to think for themselves". The major function
>> of religion for most, as I see it, is to provide guidance in the moral
>> sphere and answers to questions relating to why man, the world and the
>> cosmos exist.
>
>John, I am afraid that you are saying the same thing, but only with
>friendlier words...
I thought I was saying the opposite!
>You are a master in circumlocutions, as we all know
>;-)
What does that mean? I hope it's not too negative ;-).
>> Buddhism (let's start to move this thread back on topic!)
>Good idea...
>
>> has appeal to many Westerners (who have rejected Christianity) for
>> appearing in some ways to be more tolerant and not afflicted with some
>> of the logical difficulties, like the problem of evil, that plague
>> Christianity. But Buddhism is not without its own logical difficulties,
>> for if we take away the concept of a supreme deity as responsible for
>> creating the universe, and the notion that humans have free will,
>> Buddhist explanations for why man, the world and the cosmos exist don't
>> at all seem to me to be very convincing.
>
>Hmm. To a Christian educated mind that is. Frankly I see no reason why we
>should ask these questions. To me they are "nicht fraglich" (don't have to
>be asked). It makes sense to ask *how* the world evolves (what are the
>mechanisms governing this evolution), but here is no use whatsoever in
>asking *why* there is a "world"... It's just there, I'd say... The
>relative indifference with which Buddhism treats cosmological causality is
>in my eyes a sign of healthy no-nonsense thinking...
It is probably a feature of the Western scientific mind that questions
regarding "why" have been asked, and continue to be asked, since the
time of the early Greek philosophers.
I don't know about Buddhism treating cosmological causality with
relative indifference. I would have thought that Buddhism puts
forward a fairly concrete and deterministic view of some aspects of
cosmological causality that revolve around the concept of "karma",
which is indicative of anything but indifference. But if karma, that
is cosmic retribution, is what leads to man's position in the world
and the cosmos, how and why is karma a property of the cosmos?
Regards,
John Dunstan
chang
>>
>> >
>> >If it is the former, then if you were in a plane which
>> >experienced turbulence and if the plane makes a sudden
>> >steep crashing descent, would you cry instinctively to God
>> >for help?
>>
>> Just out of curiosity, do you think it could change the situation to
>> cry to God or do you just regard it is something someone might do
>> instinctively? (the theological implications would seem quite
>> different).
It is the latter that I was thinking of. For I believe that
in every human "heart", there is a "God-shaped vacuum" that
could only be filled by God Himself. And wasn't it George
Bernard Shaw who said: "I'm an atheist, and I thank God
for it." (no comment on the other atheists)
The former goes into some complex issues on God's
sovereignty/human responsibility and other related
antinomies that I may not wish to comment on.
Rgds
Ron & Ree
"Little Green Martian" <squib(nospampleasewearemartian)@btinternet.com>
wrote in message news:86j52g$39h$1...@uranium.btinternet.com...
> Who said that???
>
> --
> Little Green Martian
Who said what?
If you mean that there is no concept of self after achieving perfection, the
monks I have spoken to. Here is a link to a site that explains it:
http://www.buddhanet.net/ans22.htm
Ron Williams
OM
OM
John Dunstan wrote in message <388cf20d...@news.alphalink.com.au>...
>Ron, I think most Buddhists would want to say that Nirvana is not the
>end of existence, but merely the end of existence as we experience it
>in the external world. Existence goes on but the worries, pain and
>desires that characterise life on Earth are extinguished in Nirvana.
John Dunstan
<ron...@northcoast.com> wrote:
>
>"John Dunstan" <jo...@alphalink.com.au> wrote in message
>news:388b10d0...@news.alphalink.com.au...
>> There are actually hells and heavens in the Buddhist cosmology which
>> are not part of the Earth.
>>
>There are many different sects of Buddhism, but Theravada Buddhism as far as
>I know does not believe in different hells and heavens.
Ron,
Khun Wisarut recently posted to this newsgroup which described in
great detail the hells and heavens that exist in the Buddhist
cosmology. I presume that he was referring to Theravada Buddhism.
Further you can see pictures of Buddhist hells painted as murals on
various Thai temples around the country - Wat Haripunchai in Lamphun
is one that immediately comes to my mind - which suggests to me that
belief in hells and heavens is part of the Theravada Buddhist beliefs.
>> I believe the Buddhist view is that after you lead a perfect life, you
>> don't cease existing but finally enter Nirvana.
>>
>In Nirvana, there is no time or space, no concept of self or not-self, no
>movement.
>With no concept of self, I call that ceasing to exist. You no longer have
>an identity.
Ron, I think most Buddhists would want to say that Nirvana is not the
end of existence, but merely the end of existence as we experience it
in the external world. Existence goes on but the worries, pain and
desires that characterise life on Earth are extinguished in Nirvana.
Regards,
John Dunstan
Little Green Martian
Ron & Ree <ron...@northcoast.com> wrote in message
news:s8nn5ua...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "John Dunstan" <jo...@alphalink.com.au> wrote in message
> news:388b10d0...@news.alphalink.com.au...
> > There are actually hells and heavens in the Buddhist cosmology which
> > are not part of the Earth.
> >
> There are many different sects of Buddhism, but Theravada Buddhism as far
as
> I know does not believe in different hells and heavens.
>
> > don't cease existing but finally enter Nirvana.
> >
> In Nirvana, there is no time or space, no concept of self or not-self, no
> movement.
> With no concept of self, I call that ceasing to exist. You no longer
have
> an identity.
>
Little Green Martian
--
Little Green Martian
OM <lepp...@loxinfo.co.ht> wrote in message
news:86hleu$16s$1...@news.loxinfo.co.th...
> This doesn't really apply to this thread, but what the "hell"......
>
> A THERMODYNAMICS PROFESSOR HAD WRITTEN A TAKE HOME EXAM FOR HIS GRADUATE
> STUDENTS.
> IT HAD ONE QUESTION:
>
> "IS HELL EXOTHERMIC (GIVES OFF HEAT) OR ENDOTHERMIC (ABSORBS HEAT)?
SUPPORT
> YOUR ANSWER WITH A PROOF."
>
> snip
Robert White
>bunn...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>> who or what decides when a person has reached perfection?
>> And who or what decides what a perfect life is?
>> Who or what sets the standard of what a good or an evil act is?
>
>Rumpel
Well,,,,, we do :-)
you should become a Buddhist too, bf, anybody with a sense of humor
can play :-)
bunn...@my-deja.com
Rumpel? :-)
Bunnyfire
>
> Well,,,,, we do :-)
> you should become a Buddhist too, bf, anybody with a sense of humor
> can play :-)
>
> Rob
> RICHLY TRAVEL CENTRE Next to the Train Station! - Bangkok
> Tours Tickets Trekking for Thailand
> http://richlybangkok.com/
>
--
Little Green Martian
--
Little Green Martian
Ron & Ree <ron...@northcoast.com> wrote in message
news:s8qaqet...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Little Green Martian" <squib(nospampleasewearemartian)@btinternet.com>
> wrote in message news:86j52g$39h$1...@uranium.btinternet.com...
> > Who said that???
> >
> > --
> > Little Green Martian
>
chang
John Dunstan <john_d...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> > In article <387FF907...@pobox.com>,
>> > Rum...@pobox.com wrote:
>> >
>> > > Once and for all: Religion is a crutch for feeble minded people,
>> >
>> > Some of the greatest thinkers in the history of mankind have been
>> > religious people, so it's hard to see how their existence would
>> > support this argument.
>> Faulty logic here. I believe he is saying that feeble minded people
>> often rely on superstition and religion. That is not to say that
>> intelligent people cannot also believe in religion, perhaps for
>> totally different reasons.
>
>Yes, I would agree if that is all that he is saying. But, if so, his
>statement would then seem to be an argument IN FAVOUR of the utility of
>religion, ie it assists (acts as a crutch for) feeble minded people cope
>with the problems of life.
>
John Dunstan
"Every single college, it seems, has the campus atheist who
says, "Christianity is for the weaklings; it is just a
crutch."
Karl Marx's famous line, "Religion is the opiate of the
masses," is still a common view of many. Those who call
themselves Christians are seen as people who need something
to enable them to cope with the problems of life. Some
people use alcohol, some drugs, others Christianity to
get themselves through this difficult world.
The fact of the matter is we all DO need a crutch to get
by in this world. We are all crippled in some sense and
down deep inside there is a desire for something to sustain
us. The real issue is: "Is this crutch we call Christianity
true, or is it something on the same level as drugs or
alcohol, invented to meet an admitted need?"
There are definite psychological needs, fear of danger,
disease or death, that might prompt us to invent God so
that we could feel secure. However there are also
psychological needs that might lead us to deny that God
exists. The agnostic or atheist may be using his agnosticism
as a crutch to avoid the responsibility of God's demands.
The God of the Bible is awesome and a threat to mankind.
A God who is all-powerful, all-knowing, righteous, holy and
just, and who is going to judge the world for its sin, is an
extremely imposing figure. Thus it is only fair to point
out that some need the crutch of denying God's existence
in order to live their lives as they please without fear of
judgment.
Aldous Huxley articulated this in "Ends and Means":
"For myself, the philosophy of meaningless was essentially
an instrument of liberation, sexual and political".
The truth of the Christian faith is not based upon
psychological needs for or against God. Yes, it is possible
that Christianity could have started because people need
something to lean on, but the question is not how it COULD
have started but how it did start.
We are again brought back to the real issue, which is the
person of Jesus Christ. Does mankind need to lean on Him or
can we lean on something else?
Jesus made the issue very clear, "Therefore whosoever
heareth these sayings of mine and doeth them, I will liken
him to a wise man, which built his house on a rock: And
the rain descended and the floods came and the winds blew,
and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was
founded upon a rock.
And everyone that heareth these sayings of mine and
doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man,
which built his house upon the sand: And the rain descended
and the floods came and the winds blew, and beat upon that
house and it fell: and great was the fall of it."
Matthew 7:24-27
One could also state it this way. A crutch presupposes two
things:
(1) that there is a disease, sickness or hurt, and
(2) that a person has been given some type of a remedy
(this is why he has the crutch).
Two questions immediately arise. First, what is this disease?
Is it real or imagined? And second, is the remedy the correct
one for the disease?
With Christianity, God clearly states that the disease is
sin, and that the disease is real. It is not a psychological,
imaginary hang-up in need of a religious fix as Marx would
propound. Rather, the remedy instead of being a religious
crutch, is a relationship with Jesus Christ.
Therefore, Christianity in one sense is a crutch. But it
is more than a crutch; it is the sure foundation, the truth
of life.
If Jesus Christ be God and died on the Cross for our sins
and created us to be in fellowship with God the Father
through Him, then to call Him a crutch would be like a
light bulb saying to an electrical socket: "You are my
crutch." As a light bulb was created to function properly
when inserted into a socket, so we have been created to
function properly in a personal relationship with God
through Jesus Christ."
[An extract from an article by Josh McDowell]
chang
John Dunstan <john_d...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>In article <865kc2$du$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,> bunn...@my-deja.com wrote:
>It may not be as critical as you believe to determine which, if any,
>belief system is true (even if that were possible). If God is, as you
>believe, all powerful and supremely good, then it would not make much
>sense for him to punish humans in the afterlife for errors of judgement
>they might make in picking the wrong religion in this life.
As much as God is powerful, loving and good, He is also at
the same time, a holy and just God. Rather than being punished
for errors of judgment in picking the wrong religion, humans
are punished basically because of their sin. Sin is a serious
issue with God.
The Scriptures say: "There is no difference, for all have
sinned and fall short of the glory of God..."
Romans 3:23
"For the wages of sin is death..." Romans 6:23
"Death' therefore is a result of SIN itself, though in a
sense, it is true that choosing Jesus means choosing
life and therefore being justified freely by His grace
through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus and having
this gift of God which is eternal life in Him.
The bad news is: there's no escaping, we are all
accountable for our sins.
"Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what
he sows." Galatians 6:7
And the good news is....there's a Saviour.
Cheers
John Sharman
[..]
>"For the wages of sin is death..." Romans 6:23
"... but the hours are good"
--
Regards,
John Sharman
Tel/Fax: [+44] (0)1603 452142
Ron & Ree
"chang" <cy...@np.edu.sg> wrote in message news:38915162.0@nsuxnews...
> The fact of the matter is we all DO need a crutch to get
> by in this world. We are all crippled in some sense and
> down deep inside there is a desire for something to sustain
> us. The real issue is: "Is this crutch we call Christianity
> true, or is it something on the same level as drugs or
> alcohol, invented to meet an admitted need?"
>
need one shows that you are weak minded.
> The God of the Bible is awesome and a threat to mankind.
> A God who is all-powerful, all-knowing, righteous, holy and
> just, and who is going to judge the world for its sin, is an
> extremely imposing figure. Thus it is only fair to point
> out that some need the crutch of denying God's existence
> in order to live their lives as they please without fear of
> judgment.
>
The God of the bible is a man made figment of our imaginations with as much
relevance to us as Zeus. The bible is not the word of God, it is the word
of men.
No one has ever seen God or heard him. If there was a God he should kill me
right now so I can't finish this and send it. Darn it, I'm still alive.
> We are again brought back to the real issue, which is the
> person of Jesus Christ. Does mankind need to lean on Him or
> can we lean on something else?
>
Here you go again. STAND on your own. You don't need anything to help you.
Ron Williams
Rum...@pobox.com
chang wrote:
> God is powerful, loving and good, He is also at
> the same time, a holy and just God.
God is so powerful that he never interfered with human misery for the last
2,000 years
he's so loving to let us slaughter one another, die in agony from horrible
diseases.
He's so holy and just that he allows people to rape, plunder and kill in his
name.
> Rather than being punished for errors of judgment in picking the wrong
> religion, humans
> are punished basically because of their sin. Sin is a serious issue with
> God.
I thought you land in hell for picking the wrong religion and since the
followers of islam say the same you surely will land in hell too.
first you say:
> "For the wages of sin is death..." Romans 6:23
then you state:
> ...choosing Jesus means choosing life
now what if someone had chosen Jesus but then slipped and sinned?
> God cannot be mocked.
watch me
> And the good news is....there's a Saviour.
The news would be better if you could at least spell savior right
Rumpel
bunn...@my-deja.com
>
> now what if someone had chosen Jesus but then slipped and sinned?
It happens....Jesus knows how to pick us up when we slip....if we let
HIM.
>
> > And the good news is....there's a Saviour.
>
> The news would be better if you could at least spell savior right
>
He did.....it's the British English spelling, silly!
Rumpel, if God were to do things the way you think He should, then both
our sorry butts would have been in Hell from day one. To remove evil
your way would have condemnned us all with no hope of reprieve, because
we are the ones who brought evil into what should have been a perfect
world.We are the ones who start wars, mankind is guilty of all kinds of
sin from the smallest lie to the most heinous crimes....you
underestimate greatly what Jesus did when he died that agonizing death
for our as-previously-mentioned sorry butts.
WE DIDN'T DESERVE IT!!!!!!!!!!!
(but He did it anyway cause He loves us.)
I apologise if I offended anyone by my way of explaining this-but I felt
the need to be blunt.....
Bunnyfire
bunn...@my-deja.com
> >
> Here you go again. STAND on your own. You don't need anything to
help you.
>
> Ron Williams
Dear heart, the name for that attitude is..............pride.
Nigel Evans
>> And the good news is....there's a Saviour.
>
>The news would be better if you could at least spell savior right
"Red rag" and "bull". Please tell me that God is not an
American.
--
Nigel Evans
pooyai
human teacher (as were others, including Buddha).
> The truth of the Christian faith is not based upon
> psychological needs for or against God. Yes, it is possible
> that Christianity could have started because people need
> something to lean on, but the question is not how it COULD
> have started but how it did start.
Here is where your argument falls apart. You can believe in god and christ
if you want to. Fine. It's your belief. But you say the Christian faith
is the "truth". No, it's a view, an opinion, a belief system.
>
> Jesus made the issue very clear, "Therefore whosoever
> heareth these sayings of mine and doeth them, I will liken
> him to a wise man, which built his house on a rock: And
> the rain descended and the floods came and the winds blew,
> and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was
> founded upon a rock.
You have no evidence that these sayings (and others you quote) were spoken
by Jesus. Someone else wrote the book. Not Jesus.
> With Christianity, God clearly states...
No, god does not clearly state that. A book says god said that.
> Therefore, Christianity in one sense is a crutch. But it
> is more than a crutch; it is the sure foundation, the truth
> of life.
No, it is your belief, not a "sure foundation" or "the truth of life". You
have no more evidence for it than any other religious person has for their
faith, whether it be the Muslim or an animist.
pooyai
chang <cy...@np.edu.sg> wrote in message news:38915e33.0@nsuxnews...
>
> As much as God is powerful, loving and good, He is also at
> the same time, a holy and just God. Rather than being punished
> for errors of judgment in picking the wrong religion, humans
> are punished basically because of their sin. Sin is a serious
> issue with God.
He is also the god who gives families babies with birth defects (or are only
the perfect babies a gift from god), the one who created Pol Pot and Hitler,
and the god who gave scientists the knowledge to create atom bombs and germ
warfare.
>
> And the good news is....there's a Saviour.
>
A nice belief, but not a fact.
Rum...@pobox.com
Jesus never existed, the story (son of god, send by dad to save the earth,
non human yet human, died/resurrected and similar crap) was stolen from an
Egyptian superstitious believe system pre dating the jesus lie 400 years.
At least in it's earlier version jesus was somewhat more believable: He had
siblings, he was married, had children etc.
X-tians often insist that the buy-bull is of divine origin and was there -
word for word - since beginning of time. Nothing is further from the truth,
the dogma developed, things got introduced and thrown out, changed and so
the whole sorry mess evolved:
Prayers for the dead were introduced in 310 the lighting of candles in 320
the worship of saints about 375 The mass was adopted in 394 The worship of
Mary began to develop about 432 Priests began to assume distinctive robes in
500 The doctrine of purgatory was introduced in 593 Worship in Latin (since
repealed) was mandated in 600 Claims to Papal Supremacy took firm foot in
606 Feasts in honor of the Virgin Mary began in 650 The custom of kissing
the pope's foot was introduced in 709 The worship of images and relics was
authorized in 788 The invention of holy water was about 850 The canonization
of saints was formalized in 993 Feasts for the dead were introduced in 1003
The celibacy of the priesthood was declared In 1074 the dogma of Papal
infallibility was announced in 1076 Prayer beads were introduced in 1090 the
doctrine that there are seven sacraments was introduced in 1140 the sale of
indulgences began in 1190 The wafer was substituted for the loaf in 1200 The
dogma of transubstantiation was adopted in 1215 Confession was instituted in
1215 The adoration of the Wafer began in 1220 The Ave Maria was introduced
in 1316 The cup was taken from the laity in 1415 Purgatory was officially
decreed in 1439 Roman tradition was placed on the same level as Scripture in
1546 The Apocrypha was received into the Canon in 1546 The immaculate
conception of the Virgin Mary was announced in 1854 The doctrine of the
temporal power of the Pope proclaimed in 1864 The personal corporeal
presence of the Virgin in heaven in 1950
bunnyfirebrand wrote:
> you underestimate greatly what Jesus did [...] He loves us.
I saw this sticker on a car not long ago: Jesus loves you - everybody else
thinks you're an asshole.
I live in the US, one of the unpleasant things here are this constant
references to that darn christian god - hardly a day goes by where not some
fool on TV thanks god for something - quite an ordeal for an atheist like
me.
One perk of spending time in Thailand: One is left alone with this crap.
btw: I don't understand enough Thai to regularly watch the news there, I
wonder if there are such references in buddhism - but I doubt it.
Sound too far fetched - Lady in front of her burning house: "thanks buddha
we got out in time",
or guy in hospital with kid on life support: "All we can do now is pray do
buddha".
I find this thanks-to-god speeches quite offensive to the dedicated medical
teams, police and fire fighters - this people should thank them instead.
Rumpel
bunn...@my-deja.com
God meant for it all to seem that outlandish,you will never find Him by
the intellect, only by the heart. It would rock your little world to
believe, because you would have to acknowledge your sin. Just like I had
to. Just like everyone who comes to Him has to.
Or you can keep on pretending there is no God.......
.....i don't recommend it............
bunn...@my-deja.com
bunnyfire
>
> "Red rag" and "bull". Please tell me that God is not an
> American.
> --
> Nigel Evans
>
--
bunn...@my-deja.com
Bunnyfire
--
Robert White
> "Red rag" and "bull". Please tell me that God is not an
>American.
Oh quite right, welsh, isn't He? :-)
Atheos
> Rumpel,
> God meant for it all to seem that outlandish,you will never find Him by
> the intellect, only by the heart. It would rock your little world to
> believe, because you would have to acknowledge your sin. Just like I had
> to. Just like everyone who comes to Him has to.
> Or you can keep on pretending there is no God.......
> .....i don't recommend it............
More insane gibberish . . .
Love,
Atheos