|
Post by Archangel_Dream on Sept 4, 2003 4:44:22 GMT -5
WHAT?! Which quote? The first one's from the book Tuesdays with Morrie!
|
|
Fibby
Anime Fanatic
"In this world, we stand on the roof of hell, gazing at flowers."
Posts: 324
|
Post by Fibby on Sept 4, 2003 21:29:08 GMT -5
That's the first I've heard. You should read some texts from the late nineteenth century
That's why they were written in the late nineteenth century. in the past. Yeesh. It doesn't apply now. At least, not in the Catholic religion. Sure, you can give me a lot of historical events supporting your assertions. But people should know that the Catholic Church admits to not being perfect. (I learned that in theology.)
Go to Church --> Join in church activities --> friends.
Don't go to church --> don't join in church activities --> no time together to socialize --> NOT friends. So what say you to that?
There are other ways to socialize you know. It's not like all Christians are locked up in a convent or something.
I come from the philippines. I should know what you're trying to say. yeesh. the spaniards colonized my country through religion, for pete's sake.
and getting an example from South Park isn't really necesarry, not valid as well. sure it tells the truth. but not directly. that's why it's a parody. If i follow your logic, then i'd be assuming that all Canadians are motherfuckers and that the US army really places all the black soldiers on the front line or something to that effect. (not a great example but anyway..)
Again, you are moving with history.
We are taught to share our faith. Our analogy is, when you love someone, you can't help but talk about that person. It's the same for God. The problem in the situation you gave me is not in the Christian belief of sharing their faith. What I see is you reacting to what he is saying as if he is trying to convert you (and if he is, as you seem to think, let's add this) and him not being sensitive enough to see that.
Why highlight the Catholic Church for objecting to all those things? There are lots of other groups that are actively objecting to a variety of stuff. What is questionable is: why is the government listening to them? The problem is in the people, not in the belief.
crap, i hafta go. laterz. sorry i didn't explain more.
|
|
Yomi
Amateur Otaku
Posts: 129
|
Post by Yomi on Sept 4, 2003 23:31:49 GMT -5
The more things change, the more they stay the same? The way I see it is that the Church has been FORCED to change because of people's greater faith in science and technology. If it hadn't been for the renaissance or the age of reasoning, you don't actually think for one instance that the Church would have adopted this more flexible, genteel image do you? Throughout the course of history, Christianity has destroyed many smaller religions in order to gather more followers - because it is inherently internationalist in character. Hence its fundamental aims and objectives are aggressive towards other religions because if they didn't, they wouldn't be able to have a larger following. The church I see today still doesn't accept women in the clergy, still denies gay people the communion, still sees sex between two men/women as unnatural, still considers contraception to be wrong, still protects pedophiles who sexually abuse choir and altar boys and still goes to the poorest, most desperate parts of the world bearing food and the bible.
Has the leopard really changed its spots? Given those facts, it's up to you to decide. I think the Church was just more blatant in the old days whereas today, it has to do things more tacitly to the point where some people like Fibby think that to send missionaries and to convert a people with their own established religions is not intolerant and disrespectful behaviour.
Please don't put words in my mouth. You have just twisted my expression and deliberately misinterpreted my words so that you could mock them. Do you really want to turn this thread into a -see-who-can-ridicule-the-other-the-most thread? Because that's where you are heading with these sorts of comments.
Of course there are other ways to socialize: you could have dinner in a nice restaurant, go see the movies, go to a nice cafe for lunch. But it's you going with a group of Christian youths who'll be asking you: do you believe in their god? Why not? Would you like to come to Church a few times to see if you like it or not? What god do you believe in? Have you considered my god?
perhaps you're optimistic and think that surely they wouldn't be carrying on about 'god' all the time - but when you're the odd one out, and these people just 'have to share their faith with you,' it's no different to peer pressure.
I don't think you can speak on this matter because you don't seem to have any experience on this subject. I have. My sister has. She's got a neat group of devout Christian friends whom she told she was Buddhist, but they still kept on asking her to go to Church with them. Why is that? Why continue to push your faith onto others when they've already said they believe in something else? Because you think yours is more wonderful? Because you think your god has more to offer? Because you think that we have believed the wrong religion? --> yes to any of those answers = offensive disrespect and intolerance.
I'm speaking from the viewpoint of a non-christian subject to constant pressure from Christian 'friends' to go to their Church and other religious social activity all the time. Are you Fibby? How can you profess to be able to see from MY side and how I regard this sort of behaviour if you're on the other side of the fence?
|
|
Yomi
Amateur Otaku
Posts: 129
|
Post by Yomi on Sept 5, 2003 0:00:06 GMT -5
(they cut my original reply coz it was too long - hence 2 posts)
I have no idea what you're trying to say in the first few sentences. It's truth (that missionaries use other 'persuasive means' to convert people), but it isn't direct (they don't hold a gun to people's heads), and it's a parody (?? so what?) but it isn't valid?!
I also thought that you would have been smart enough to see the underlying messages in the South Park episodes rather than to take the literal approach to them - or did you do that so you could ridicule my example once again? The message isn't that American Army places all the Blacks on the front line - it was to demonstrate that there is (might be, could be) a disposition in the American Military to see black men as more dispensible than white men. To confirm or invalidate this argument, you need statistics and figures of deployment and stationing, which is impossible because it's confidential information.
Likewise, the nun in Ethiopia episode was to show that the Church specifically targets desperate and needy people to convert. The Ethiopians already have their own religion and customary rituals - but the moment the nun hands out food, she bestows upon them Christian names (watch a few world vision adds - half the children have christian names) - which is to enroach and derogate the people's language and customs to substitute with your own. Then, a church is erected - I mean, they couldn't hand out food from a normal building - they had to get the message across to uneducated, illiterate people that gifts come from their particular god. Do you have any idea how malleable desperate, starving, uneducated and illiterate people are?
Oh, but I never said that your god ever pretended to be sensitive. Christianity is an expansionist religion, constantly in search of new followers. Like the nun, I think you've been brainwashed into doing the Church's dirty work. Will you continue to love someone if they don't want to share your faith? Will you actually change your faith if your loved one shared their's with you? Will you continue to 'share' your faith with someone who has already declared that they have another faith?
That missionary I saw in Christmas: he was targetting Asians specifically - because most Chinese are Buddhist, and Buddhism is the most internal, genteel religion which is not organized. He saw us as EASY TARGETS. I would have LOVED to see him go up to an Arab and said that Allah was just a prophet of his god. But he wouldn't do that, because he knew he would have been decked, right there, in the streets. I wouldn't have felt sorry for him. Because his 'enthusiasm' in 'sharing' his faith was so great, he went as far as to denegrate my god and my beliefs - and you think that that action alone is not offensive and disrespectful?
How do you convert someone who already has another faith? By making them 'see the light', that your god is the one with the truth? That Jesus died for my sins, hence I owe him allegiance? That you also want me to know that your god loves me too? --> either of these are still disrespectful, especially if the other person has already said that they don't believe in your god.
I'm against actively aggressive religions - I'm in favour of religions who leave their doors open to let people go in as they please.
It's great that you feel like sharing - but just as you have a right to preach, others have a right NOT to be preached to. A lot of Christians don't understand the latter concept and keep on forcibly 'sharing', denouncing other people's beliefs by, e.g, standing in the streets with a microphone proclaiming your god to be the only one.
The road to hell is often paved with good intentions. Really, you think you have something wonderful that you want to share.
But don't share it if the others don't want it.
I haven't singled out the Catholic Church - you did that. In fact, I believe I made reference to fundamentalist Islam a few times and mentioned jihad along with the crusades. But please, raising the "they're doing it too" line doesn't help your argument in either way.
Politics is (tries to be) separated from religion. But you also have to understand that belief shapes people and their character. If a belief urges you to publically denounce a politician as a murderer for being pro-abortion, that's your belief shaping the YOU speaking. Mr Hill, who was executed by the US yesterday, was one such man who killed an abortionist-doctor because his belief and religion was against abortions. If he didn't have that religion, he wouldn't have killed the doctor. Furthermore, if you look into the history which you keep on trying to dismiss, you'll see that the Church has always had extensive involvement in politics. It is only of late that the state has tried to separate it, but the Church still considers itself to be the 'moral compass' of the government. They are the moral compass, if the entire population were Christian, like they were IN THE PAST, but since the population is religiously diverse these days, they no longer have this mandate to dictate morality. HOWEVER, a lot of the clergy still go around preaching and harping on as if they carry the book of universal morality, like what YOU suggested the other day Fibby (which I see you have no response to because it is detrimental to your argument and image), hence I think the Church is STILL caught up in a lot of OLD mentality - the same past that you're tying to forget. If this old mentality is so hard to shake off, it leads me to the logical conclusion that they still don't harbour much respect or tolerance for other religions as they continue to send missionaries to 3rd world countries to convert the people.
All of the above is merely my opinion and interpretation of the facts which occur on a daily basis around me.
Anyone is welcome to their own opinions; I just respect some more than others because some opinions are obviously not as well reasoned than others.
Yomi
|
|
Fibby
Anime Fanatic
"In this world, we stand on the roof of hell, gazing at flowers."
Posts: 324
|
Post by Fibby on Sept 5, 2003 21:14:13 GMT -5
Look, I'm not trying to ridicule you. When I answered, I wanted it to be short as possible because I had a class in ten minutes. ^^; Not that it justifies anything. (But I wanted to answer right away bcoz I did say I will when I get home. But I wasn't able to. And I didn't want to delay it even more than I already have.) But then, I wasn't planning on leaving it at that. I would have explained some more later on.
About my example. I did say it wasn't a good example. And I am completely aware with everything you said (it not being literal.) But now that I am able to understand your use of that South Park example, I realize it's merely a way for you to emphasize your point. Not really trying to validate or prove it.
Why is that? Why continue to push your faith onto others when they've already said they believe in something else? Because you think yours is more wonderful? Because you think your god has more to offer? Because you think that we have believed the wrong religion? I'm not trying to justify their reasons for it. Again, it is in the people. But then, not all Christians are insensitive to other people's religion (not that I'm saying you are generalizing.) Just curious. Are they Catholics? Or from another sector of Christianity? There are those who will respect you and not force their religion on you. And the answer is no to all the questions (but this is my answer. I'm still studying Theology so I might be able to come up with the Church's answer to this later on.)
I can't help but be optimistic. ^^; Even though I'm living in a practically chaotic country. Look, I'm not claiming that I know your side. If you noticed, I always try to explain why those people are constantly talking about our God.
Are you Fibby? How can you profess to be able to see from MY side and how I regard this sort of behaviour if you're on the other side of the fence? You're wrong. I did experience something like that. But the memory is faint. They were trying to convert me to another sector of Christianity. But I guess the impact wasn't that hard coz we believe in essentially the same God, only in different ways. Some sectors differ greatly from ours though.
Oh, but I never said that your god ever pretended to be sensitive. Um... I wasn't talking about God. I was talking about that missionary guy. He was not sensitive enough to realize you do not want to hear his preachings.
I don't think I expressed myself well enough. If you think I'm trying to convert you, you're wrong. I thought you would have liked to see my point of view --- as someone who is from the other side of the fence. It sure enlightened me seeing yours and I really appreciate it.
Will you continue to love someone if they don't want to share your faith? Yes. Why let that difference hinder a relationship with another human being?
Will you actually change your faith if your loved one shared their's with you? Will you continue to 'share' your faith with someone who has already declared that they have another faith? No to both. People are entitled to their own belief (as you are to yours and i am to mine.)
I'm against actively aggressive religions - I'm in favour of religions who leave their doors open to let people go in as they please. People would only enter if they know what they are getting into. Hence, the word must be spread about the religion (evangelize, in my religion.) How can people go somewhere if they didn't know it existed? I do agree that being aggressive is disrespectful and unethical. But not all missionaries are like that. I've said this time and again --- it depends on the person.
But please, raising the "they're doing it too" line doesn't help your argument in either way. Not what I meant. I just noticed that you keep on highlighting the way the Church always meddle with political affairs. I realize that I can't speak for the Church on this particular subject. Which is why I can't come up with an answer as to why they do that. But I do know this. There is a debate about this going on within the Church. There are those who are caught up with the past, there are those who see the need for change.
I'm not really expecting you to understand my religion. As they say in Theology, reason alone cannot help you understand. It must be reason enlightened with faith. But even just an inkling, I hope you'd see where we're coming from. Among all religions, Christianity is probably the most targeted.
People like to generalize. (This way, they'd think they know everything about the world.) Thus, misunderstandings arise. And conflicts spark. And things like this happen.
|
|
Yomi
Amateur Otaku
Posts: 129
|
Post by Yomi on Sept 5, 2003 22:12:11 GMT -5
No....it sounded like you didn't give it a lot of thought because you were more intent on disagreeing with me. When I raised South Park, that should have been an obvious indication that I'm only taking this matter half seriously. For goodness sakes - I'm bringing up SOUTH PARK - but then and again, your literal interpretation and inability to read between the lines to find the underlying message did surprise me. Hmm....there is no proof or invalidation - I'm sorry if I used those particular words anywhere in this thread and made to sound like I'm setting out to prove myself right and you wrong (I don't think I've used invalidate...that was in another discussion). Unlike fanfics in which language is technical and there are clearly things which are wrong and right (bad grammar, no respect for spelling, no clear indication of plot, Mary Sues), I recognize religion to be a highly opinionated area thus I'm only drawing on examples to show you how and why I formulate my opinions. Like I said in my last post - anyone is free to diverge on the interpretation of facts. I only point out that you specifically used the word "truth" --> could that be evidence that you accepted the episode as proof of my view then? Because "Truth" invariably sounds a lot stronger and firm than mere 'emphasis'. Go back and edit your post. *shudders* See, you don't even know what you're doing. Ok, lets get this straight once and for all: why do you want to share YOUR faith with someone? So that they will join your faith - you had good intentions behind that I'm sure, but UNDERSTAND that by doing so, you're actively seeking to convert. Which is good for you - because you think your faith is something wonderful to be shared. BUT - you WOULDN'T want to share in someone else's faith, YET you EXPECT it of others whom you preach to. Hmmm...what conclusion can I draw from that? Um...you could have brochures inside? You know, information pamphlets to let people shop around? If people decide they want to join a religion, they'll actively seek out the information themselves. Evangelizing is only a form of marketing (marketing!) and the things which evangelists say are offensive. ?? Have you NOT been reading what I've been saying or are you only selectively reading? The missionary I met in Christmas was a VERY polite man and undeniably friendly. Did he ever abuse my belief outright? No - but he spoke in a way (and we're looking at the CONTENTS of his words here) which belittled my belief. He meant well, I'm sure of that, but to evangelize to someone who already has a faith is OFFENSIVE and DISRESPECTFUL because the purpose of evangelizing is to spread your god's word so that I would abandon my faith to join yours. How is that not despicable? By aggressive - I mean to promote and spread the religion - you're once again interpreting some sort of physical force behind this. Don't. I'm no longer talking about violent means, but a more subtler type which is just as menacing. Get this point: if a religion is to spread, it needs to make SPACE (aka find more people), and whilst there is space, that space might be occupied (by another faith). Hence - how is the religion supposed to spread and gain in number then in this new (but occupied) space. You know the answer - I've been harping on about it for 5 posts already. Umm...because this thread is about Religion? What, so I'm going to start ranting on about small focus groups like animal rights activists and environmentalists? What's this got to do with the thread? And those focus groups hold their beliefs on reasons OTHER than religion. They come to their beliefs through reason and logic - which I see as infinitely more substantial than something that comes out of an outdated book. I'm not expecting you to understand my viewpoint either because it requires that you be free of your tainted teachings and the unshakable bias conviction that your faith instills so that you're equipped with the objectivity and impartiality to truly see what you're REALLY saying and doing. I've used 'disrespectful' over a dozen times already, and I clearly see that my examples have failed to leave an impression on you even though I've gone to great lengths to describe in what ways and respects the words and attitude of the Church and its missionaries are offensive. I thought I had backed it up pretty well, but you know, dismiss the reasoning - it's all in the blind faith and your good intentions. Um...because your religion has been the most successful in wiping out (whether tacitly or by physical force) a lot of smaller religions all over the world and now it's payback time? I personally can't wait to see Christianity in America collapse as the sins of the Church have finally caught up to it: its pedophile priests whom they've protected for so long will all go to jail (one of them has been killed by an inmate already - I salute him) and the bishops and cardinals who concealed their crimes will be persecuted for perverting the course of justice. Oh - what a thinly veiled attack against me Fibby. Unfortunately for you, I haven't been generalizing because the concept of conversion, preaching and evangelizing to peoples who have determined their faith (or lack of it) is disgustingly offensive. This can hardly be called a 'conflict' because you've offered me no counter-reasoning other than blind faith. I guess that if you have faith in your god, evangelizing is all right. In that case, if you believe in the fundamentalist version of Allah, crashing a plane into a building would also be all right. Don't base the correctness of your actions on faith, or the time worn excuse "it's in the name of god" --> because Peter Hill did that when he shot an abortion doctor and his bodyguard and that got him convicted and executed by the state. He did it, in the name of your god, and now other Christians have vowed and threatened to carry on what he did - that is - take out doctors who perform abortions. They think they're right, make no mistake, they believe they have the best intentions in the world because they're performing god's will --> BUT because of their inability to truly and impartially assess what they're saying and doing, they don't know they ARE in the wrong. Suicide bombers who blow up nightclubs and popular hangouts with good intentions and good faith are also wrong. They share your commonality Fibby - they think they're doing good because that's what they've been taught. You see how weak and fraught your argument based on faith is. I don't think you'll read this without your faith in the way. Whislt I've acknowledged on many occasions that what you do and say is done with good intentions, it IS nevertheless, offensive and intolerant. Why else do you think you're such targets? Why is it just Christian missionaries who go to 3rd world countries and not Muslim or Hindu or Jewish missionaries --> until you can give an answer to this question without hiding behind your god, you'll probably never understand. Do you need to understand? Of course not - but when you ask why people target your faith, don't say I didn't try to explain: you just didn't want to accept it. Yomi
|
|
Fibby
Anime Fanatic
"In this world, we stand on the roof of hell, gazing at flowers."
Posts: 324
|
Post by Fibby on Sept 6, 2003 11:25:19 GMT -5
All misunderstandings, I guess. I recognize religion to be a highly opinionated area thus I'm only drawing on examples to show you how and why I formulate my opinions. Like I said in my last post - anyone is free to diverge on the interpretation of facts.Oh, so that's why you were giving all those examples! (forgive me for being so slow.) It's just that giving all those examples and events made it seem like you were trying to prove your point about Christianity or something like that. I guess I read between the lines at all the wrong times. ^^; *shudders* See, you don't even know what you're doing. Ok, lets get this straight once and for all: why do you want to share YOUR faith with someone? So that they will join your faith - you had good intentions behind that I'm sure, but UNDERSTAND that by doing so, you're actively seeking to convert. Which is good for you - because you think your faith is something wonderful to be shared. BUT - you WOULDN'T want to share in someone else's faith, YET you EXPECT it of others whom you preach to. Hmmm...what conclusion can I draw from that?Did I really say anything like that? About not wanting to share in someone else's faith? For one thing, I agree with the way of life of Buddhists and Taoists simply because they are good for those who are following it. I guess I phrased it all wrong. Or rather, i answered your question all wrong and didn't explain more concretely my answer to your question. What I meant is: I won't convert to another religion just because of someone I love, but I will still share their faith as long as it doesn't come in conflict with mine. (converting to another religion is a whole different thing from simply agreeing with some of the beliefs other people have.) You can't have two conflicting beliefs at the same time right? It'll confuse you. ^^; And that's logical, faith aside. Um...you could have brochures inside?Brochures?! (um, or r you joking? i might be reading this all wrong again.) This may be my faith talking but it's a religion. It's like selling your God to the people or something. Quote:I do agree that being aggressive is disrespectful and unethical. But not all missionaries are like that. I've said this time and again --- it depends on the person.um, but I was using your definition of aggressive. not the physical one. I may be slow but i'm not that stupid. And I did say the missionary guy just wasn't sensitive enough to see that you didn't want to be preached to. That's all I'm saying. I phrased things all wrong again, didn't I? Umm...because this thread is about Religion? What, so I'm going to start ranting on about small focus groups like animal rights activists and environmentalists? What's this got to do with the thread?I was merely pointing it out. I guess I was seriously getting defensive before i knew it. but to evangelize to someone who already has a faith is OFFENSIVE and DISRESPECTFUL because the purpose of evangelizing is to spread your god's word so that I would abandon my faith to join yours. How is that not despicable?I was also repeating this over and over again. It's the people --- they are the problem (and by this I am specifically referring to those in my own religion.) Yes, it is offensive and unethical --- when the same person keeps on forcing his/her belief on you, blatantly or tactfully. Evangelization is not the direct culprit (in fact, it actually did some good if my memory serves me right. I'm not good with history so i can't cite examples,) but i admit that it may have a hand in it. Without this belief, the missionaries would not go off to preach in the first place. But the way the missionaries handled the situation they were put in is the problem. In your own example, the missionary guy was not sensitive enough to see that you are not interested and did not want to be preached to. And you found that intolerable. Did i get my point through? Or am i as inarticulate as ever? ^^; I get your point with evangelizing as a means of marketing (but brochures is definitely not an option. so we are stuck to evangelizing.) [Hehe. Just so you know you're words didn't go to waste. ^^;] I think it's not really the spreading the word thing you are having a problem with. It's how the missionaries go about in spreading it. Do you think i'm trying to convert you!? Or were you just being general? Because converting was not my intention at all. Sure, as you said, my faith was in the way. But I'm not trying to convert you. I respect the Buddhist way of life. I'm telling you that now. Maybe I was just being defensive to what you were saying, unconsciously trying to justify (although not succesfully) why some ppl in my religion do the things they do. Hmm.. This thought popped out from nowhere. I don't think I attacked any other religion in my whole 'argument,' or did i? (um, okay. i do admit i am a bit prejudiced with some other sectors of Christianity.) By the way, you didn't answer my question. From what sector were they? Your sister's friends? and the missionary guy? or they didn't tell you? I personally can't wait to see Christianity in America collapse as the sins of the Church have finally caught up to it: its pedophile priests whom they've protected for so long will all go to jail (one of them has been killed by an inmate already - I salute him) and the bishops and cardinals who concealed their crimes will be persecuted for perverting the course of justice.I'm not blind to this reality. But again, those are all people we are talking about (priests, bishops, etc.) --- the ones whom i see as the main problem in the first place. What i see wrong, among all the teachings in my religion, is the infallibility given to those people. Bishops, cardinals, etc. (it gives people an impression that they represent the whole Christian community --- one of the reasons why Christianity divided in the first place, thus a lot of sectors.) But then again, this infallibility only applies to the stuff being taught in our religion (at least i think it does.) When they commit sin (or crimes rather,) then they'd best pay. I don't know how the Church explains all that concealing stuff though. Maybe it's political or something. I don't know. When a singled out person in the Church did something wrong, they'd lose the people's trust. But not mine though. I am aware in the first place that people are not perfect. I don't require them to be perfect for me to believe. If what they are saying parallels with my own convictions, then i have no problem with their teachings. And that last sentence was not meant as an insult. That was a statement of my general opinion, not just in religion. But I guess how i phrased it along with the timing of when i stated it was all wrong and you took it as something offensive. I'm truly sorry if I keep saying things that seem offensive, or if i seem like i'm trying to ridicule you. (And you know what. Honestly, i think you overestimate me. I'm not good at stuff like that. I'm usually direct and most of the time, not articulate of what i'm really trying to say. ^^; I'm quite sure you noticed that.) But judging from what you think of missionaries, I don't think you've ever met a missionary who was sensitive to cultural/social/religious differences. Am i correct? Then just allow this: be open to the idea that a missionary like that could exist. Just the idea. I'm not saying that you should believe in what he will say. People are quite unpredictable so there is always an odd one out among millions. oh, but i do understand why they target my faith. a bit too well i think. um, i really didn't ask you why we were being targeted. ^^; But thanks for letting me see your opinion about it. It kinda parallels the reasons that i feel other ppl have against my religion. btw, i think you said something about me saying the word "truth" in my argument? (or didn't you?) Anyway, I don't see the need to edit my post on that bcoz i really didn't use the word. ^^; I checked. Two times. If i did, please tell me where in the thread so i can see it. ;D Oh!!! I found it! ;D "sure it tells the truth. but not directly." um, we were talking about South Park right? i did say "not directly." hmm, maybe i shouldn't have used the word. what, it emphasizes the things left unsaid or something? honestly, i really don't know how to phrase it better. but i think you get what i meant by it. i think. you only reacted to the use of the word. right?
|
|
Yomi
Amateur Otaku
Posts: 129
|
Post by Yomi on Sept 6, 2003 23:01:53 GMT -5
Right....like I am really going to be able to concretely prove a point by relying things like SOUTH PARK in my argument. No - how many times have I said this - your religion is an internationalist one; it is an aggressive one; it is in constant search for more followers. People aren't the problem: the fact that you feel this compulsion to 'spread the word' is in itself criminal enough. What society does not have their own rituals and religion? Probably none - as is the case, humans always find some need to explain phenomenon that they don't understand, hence there are always going to be some kind of deity, spirits or god in any society to explain the things which happen. That being the case, each society "already has their word" --> and to spread your word, REGARDLESS of the way you do it, is in itself offensive. Don't blame this on your people. As I've said in my previous post, it's the fundamental NATURE of your religion - it's need to PUSH SALE - which bears the hallmarks of disrespect and intolerance. --> the fact that you had good intentions (e.g. you love someone therefore you would like the 'share') is evidently irrelevant. I was NEVER talking about people - because people ARE the pawns of their religion and belief, and their method of executing their belief is even more damnable. Ouch...to me, that sounds like there AREN'T any examples, or that these examples weren't strong enough to leave an impression in your memory. Are you SURE that some good has come? And how do you define "GOOD" anyway - you mean: that people have decided to join your faith because of evangelization? I'm sure you know how I feel about this already. We are at the crux of my argument. I continually dismiss your argument that "it's the people's fault, not religion" because I think that preaching to people who already have their own faith (or active decision to NOT have a faith) is despicable in itself. Not the people - but the act in itself. If someone already has a faith - they don't want to be preached to, NOMATTER how sensitive the person tries to be, because INVARIABLY, to preach is to promote one's faith above another. If you understand this point, you'll see why I have consistently ignored your so-called 'defence' or 'justification' because I don't see it as a people issue. In what instances would anyone BE interested? If your accept my earlier hypothesis that everyone society/country already has their own faith, WHEN would they ever be interested in abandoning it and joining another? --> that's what I was going on about by SPACE - in particular unoccupied space - as in: societies with no faith: and because there aren't any, to preach is therfore in itself offensive. Yes - spreading the word IS the problem - that's why Christian missionaries who go off to muslim countries get bashed, or worse, killed, for it - because everyone already HAS a faith - so how does your church propose to gain more followers OTEHR THAN to enroach on another belief by ridiculing or belittling or dismissing it? It can't, and you don't seem to have anything to say to THIS point specifically - all you do is blame people. People aren't the problem - belief/religion shapes people and their actions. Yes. Question: when you share your faith with someone, what do you expect? Preferably - that they'd join in your faith. Therefore you have a subconscious expectation that they'd join the faith you share with them. Yet you wouldn't join in another faith if it has been shared to you. So you expect people to join yours, yet you won't even consider joining anothers. Do I sense aggressiveness in this sort of mentality? Disrespect and intolerance? No - you answered the question beautifully and truthfully, but now that you realised that you've provided me with abundant ammunition against your opinion, you're trying to take back your words. Go edit your post. I never even asked you that far: when you share your faith with someone, you have the expectations that they'd join in fully with yours: I'm sure your Church isn't too happy about a follower who'd only selectively accept some parts of the bible and rely on other parts of the Koran. Or perhaps it's so desperate for followers these days that it's making exceptions? Well well, that rather depends on what YOU mean by 'sharing'. Sorry Fibby, but you don't realize how pathetic that sounds. I understand - you yourself have confessed to being defensive on this issue, so I can entirely expect you to become irrationally hot headed about the matter and attack me personally. I see it all the time, but that's what happens in the face of cold reasoning. I've had people tell me that I sound overly arrogant - but I wouldn't be participating in this discussion if I weren't familiar with all my cards and expressions. I completely understand - 'coincidence' or no, I expected a personal attack some time soon. I asked you this question two posts ago, and you still haven't come up with a credible explanation for your particular choice of words. I'm thinking that perhaps there aren't any? You even used the word "parody", which again, you haven't explained. It doesn't matter - like I said, South Park was just a humorous example of how people perceive the actions of your Church without being 'enlightened' by faith. Make note Fibby: your faith is probably a good one which teaches people to lead a good way of life. I'm not attacking the values of your faith, if that's what you're getting upset about. I'm attacking the character of faiths which have this need to continuously expand - which I see as embodied in preaching, evangelization and missionaries. Your FAITH is NOT on trial here, in case that's what you were worrying about. Yomi
|
|
Yomi
Amateur Otaku
Posts: 129
|
Post by Yomi on Sept 6, 2003 23:09:34 GMT -5
missed something....
Sorry - I start to use the second person "you" in funny ways: sometimes, I'm talking to 'you' directly; sometimes, it's the indirect 'you' (you get up and what do you find - that kind of usage), but I thought that should have been apparent in the context of my words. Thank you for pointing it out - I think I do it in my fics sometimes.
And I congratulate you: you haven't been attacking other religions because this is not what this thread has turned out to be.
Is an answer to that question actually relevant? Or is it just going to be your "it's them not us" argument again? To tell the truth: I don't know, and I couldn't possibly care less.
Yomi
|
|
Fibby
Anime Fanatic
"In this world, we stand on the roof of hell, gazing at flowers."
Posts: 324
|
Post by Fibby on Sept 7, 2003 1:01:28 GMT -5
Ouch...to me, that sounds like there AREN'T any examples, or that these examples weren't strong enough to leave an impression in your memory. Are you SURE that some good has come? And how do you define "GOOD" anyway - you mean: that people have decided to join your faith because of evangelization? I'm sure you know how I feel about this alreadyYes, i do. ;D about the examples. when i said i'm bad at history, i'm not kidding. i can't even remember the date of my country's independence! heck, even my own personal family background. @_@ So i really can't provide you with anything. Maybe someone else could, but not me. ^^; I mean, when i'm asked who discovered the Philippines?, I can only gape, think for a long while and answer indecisively, "Um... Magellan?" I suck at history. I can only remember vague things, not specific events. "Good." No, it was not "good" simply bcoz they joined our faith. By "good" i mean there are those who were converted in such a way that their old traditions/ practices that unknowingly violate human morality were abolished (and i'm going to be clear on this --- the killing of people, etc. not abortion, divorce, etc. i'm sure we both agree that killing isn't good, right? ) I guess we differ greatly in opinion on this: While I blame it on the people, you blame it on the act itself. But then you should know that i did admit it has a hand in it. Though I still think that the people should be blamed. hehe. So you expect people to join yours, yet you won't even consider joining anothers. Do I sense aggressiveness in this sort of mentality? Disrespect and intolerance?I'd consider it. But only if I could see something in the religion that I'd want to base my life on. (Not just because a loved one has this religion.) That's what i meant. I guess my explanation came up short or something. No - you answered the question beautifully and truthfully, but now that you realised that you've provided me with abundant ammunition against your opinion, you're trying to take back your words. Go edit your post.I think I i did answer your question wrong. What i thought you asked was if i'd change my religion if someone i love has another religion. Now do you see why I answered that way? If you don't believe me, that's okay too. Since I know I'm telling the truth, I won't say anything more --- i honestly thought you were asking that. (in fact, in my experience, the question i thought you asked is often asked by those who do not have the same religion as I. (Well, if anyone is going to ask that, they now know my answer. ^_~) In what instances would anyone BE interested? If your accept my earlier hypothesis that everyone society/country already has their own faith, WHEN would they ever be interested in abandoning it and joining another?Easy. When the time comes that they see something they do not quite agree with in their religion (the one they grew up with: whether it was bcoz of something that happened to them or something they realized suddenly) and see another religion that would more effectively help them become the best person that they could be. That's when they could be interested. And I guess since you are quite happy with your current belief, i don't think you'd ever be interested to join another religion. understandably so. But other people might. I asked you this question two posts ago, and you still haven't come up with a credible explanation for your particular choice of words. I'm thinking that perhaps there aren't any?nope. none. i just used the wrong word. and yeah, its not relevant. ;D Sorry Fibby, but you don't realize how pathetic that sounds.I guess i don't. i mean, really. i don't see why it sounded pathetic --- bcoz i really meant what i said. what you read is what i say, given that i understood what is being asked. Is an answer to that question actually relevant? Or is it just going to be your "it's them not us" argument again? To tell the truth: I don't know, and I couldn't possibly care less.I was just curious. I'm not going to start pointing at them or something. I just wanted to know what stuff they are preaching to you. The sectors differ in some teachings and it could get really confusing, believe me. Your FAITH is NOT on trial here, in case that's what you were worrying about.We BOTH know that. but how about the people reading this thread? (hm... but i guess now they do since it was officially declared. ^-^)
|
|
Yomi
Amateur Otaku
Posts: 129
|
Post by Yomi on Sept 7, 2003 2:27:32 GMT -5
Again with the arrogance - you proclaim that your faith embodies human morality?! Lets look at what attitude your faith has had towards killings: in the past, your Church certainly had no qualms about killing people with different opinions and ideas - burning heretics at the stake, launching the crusades. That sound human morality? No - that's a UN convention on human rights which is devoid of religious connotations. Most countries in this world have murder as a crime - C-R-I-M-E, not sin - it is an offence against the state because it repulses society, not because it offends a religious value. Thus your faith has had no role in bringing old traditions to modernity - it's the UN with all its treaties and conventions which try to pressure its respective signatories to comply with modern standards which are, I repeat, devoid of religious conotations and values. Oh - I also want to say that you have no idea how nineteenth century your example sounds. "We're bringing civilization to a barbarous culture" --> you actually buy that?! They used those kinds of words when they enslaved the natives and made colonies of foreign countries. I thought you want to dismiss your past? You're wholly entitled to your opinion. Excuse me whilst I don't respect it because it's unfounded and ignorant as it cannot address the crux of my main argument - that the act of preaching and evangelizing to a society who already has their own faith is offensive. As you choose to ignore this and avoid it, I have nothing else to add except resist the urge to say: case proved. Leave the doors open - people who are consciously seeking an alternative will seek one. You don't need to have people on the streets targeting each and everyone. Or was your faith hoping that there would be a lot of confused people on the streets questioning their own faith? So does your faith therefore close in on people when they're most vulnerable? Sorry, that's one of the sickest acts I've ever seen. And what of the missionaries sent to third world countries - are those people really in need to believe something that could make them a better person, or are they just desperate for material goods to make their lives better? That's a gross distinction - you're alleviating a social condition in return for belief in a faith, RATHER than providing an answer to the internal problems of the person. I don't know if there are any viable alternative perspectives on these actions other than to say 'bribe'. Again - another sick and disgusting act, targeting people when they're weak and desperate. Oh - the arrogance as well - so your faith presumes to make a 'better person' (whatever that means - are you judging people according to the standards of YOUR faith now?) than another religion. Must....resist....urge....to say....case proved! Oh...nothing much really, it's just that your 'defence' of 'coincidence' came at a time where...lets see here: in that same thread, you accuse me of generalizing about the nature of missionaries, but when you realized that you didn't really have much to refute what I say, your vindictive opinion of me was a "know all" - I mean, it's just all these same ideas in the one train of thought led me to conclude that you obviously targeted the insult at me. Which is fine, really, I only expect that of people who become frustrated when they have trouble over and over again with what they want to say. But to just blame "coincidence" --> if I were three, yes, I would accept that. But read your own post Fibby - read the tone - you yourself admitted to becoming increasingly defensive, and this: People like to generalize. (This way, they'd think they know everything about the world.) Um...who ELSE could you have been talking to? Some imaginary third party in this disucssion? Or what about: Thus, misunderstandings arise. And conflicts spark. And things like this happen. And so what are the underlined words supposed to be referring to, apart from THIS then?! Coincidence....riiiight. Please - it's OK, I understand you were frustrated and defensive. So you played a little dirty, but I shake dirt off well. It's Ok. Sorry, I don't see how people could see that. In fact, the only way people could have seen that would be if I had been saying things like: ur religioux sux. christ is dumb. mine is better - which I think we've clearly managed to avoid. We can congratulate ourselves on that, but you need to seriously look at your inferiority complex issues - I don't even know enough to truly damage the character of your faith and already, you've gone defensive. Take care. And be a bit more critical of your own faith sometimes ok, even if your theology teacher is against it. Or if you do question it, you're obviously not asking the really hard questions. Why question your faith? Because then you can shrug off claims that you've merely got blind faith. The fact that you cannot answer my two most crucial arguments: - preaching to society with its own faith is disrespectful; and
- taking advantage of illiterate, uneducated and starving people in third world countries is sick
leaves me open to a myriad of negative conclusions which you obviously wouldn't want me to think of your faith. Take care. Yomi Yomi
|
|
Yumiko
Anime Fanatic
MoOOooo!!
Posts: 491
|
Post by Yumiko on Sept 7, 2003 6:29:18 GMT -5
oh god all these posts are so long ^^;; are we having some kind of religion disagreement between Buddhsim and Catholic? *looks around* ahem.. *backs away*
|
|
Fibby
Anime Fanatic
"In this world, we stand on the roof of hell, gazing at flowers."
Posts: 324
|
Post by Fibby on Sept 7, 2003 12:25:17 GMT -5
Yumiko: No, we're not. Just a healthy discussion. Yomi: Man, it's like your attaching underlying meaning to everything i say. Oh, never mind it. I'm used to being misunderstood anyways. Again with the arrogance - you proclaim that your faith embodies human moralityI didn't specifically use the word "embodies." Oh - the arrogance as well - so your faith presumes to make a 'better person' (whatever that means - are you judging people according to the standards of YOUR faith now?) than another religion. Must....resist....urge....to say....case proved!Um, did you actually see me specifically use the name of my religion anywhere in the paragraph? I don't think so. It was general --- applies to ALL religions. (Taoist to Buddhist, Protestant to Catholic, Christian to Islam, etc. you name it.) The decision is really up to the person --- in his/her opinion, what religion do they think would help them be the best person that they could be? Anyways, I guess my argument was weak. Faith in the way. But I think I tried to explain myself to the best of my ability (given that I'm inarticulate and bad at history.) ;D preaching to society with its own faith is disrespectful; andthis is purely my personal opinion: i don't mind being preached to as long as they are not too pushy. This leads me to believe that maybe there are other people out there that may feel the same way as i do. But then, you'd say, what would i know? my religion is the only one that feels this great need to expand. Well, hypothetically, if someone from another religion preached to me, i wouldn't mind so much because of the said mentality. ^^ (why do i get this feeling that you'd think i'm being sarcastic or something? hmm... ooh, maybe its paranoia. ) taking advantage of illiterate, uneducated and starving people in third world countries is sicki can't answer to this because i will only answer as someone who is optimistic, believing that it is possible not to have ulterior motives. I'm as naive as Gon, probably. ;D Anyway, it was nice having the discussion with you, Yomi-san. ;D You take care, too! Now, getting back to academics... and training. >_< *sigh* Till next time! ;D
|
|
Yomi
Amateur Otaku
Posts: 129
|
Post by Yomi on Sept 8, 2003 0:01:00 GMT -5
*scratches head* underlying meaning is the same as implication which is derived from your particular choice of words and the context in which you said those words. Because people often don't put much time and thought into forum posts, the underlying meaning comes out more clearly and it is thus easier to see what the post was actually saying.
You want to play dumb? That's fine with me - words and context - implications are not something you can hide unless you choose your words carefully, but you only choose them carefully when you want to hide your implications.
Like I said: it's ok and I understand your feelings.
Of course! But we're ALSO talking about evangelization and missionaries no? And don't they go around preaching that they know what constitutes a good person? There - just to do so is disrespect. I'm back to the square one. Look at your own words: see another religion that would more effectively help them become the best person that they could be. That's when they could be interested. That was said in context with evangelization - that to evangelize is to help people who are uncertain become the 'good' person.
Sorry, I'm not going to play dumb with you and waste my time repeating myself. If you cannot understand the implications of your own words or choose to close your eyes to them, this discussion will go nowhere.
Thank you. I just extracted the confession I needed. Because you yourself realize that you need to expand, this 'expansion' has supposedly made you think that it's tolerable to preach to societies that already have their own faith (to put one's belief above another). You're not sarcastic here, just exceptionally honest for once and at last.
No, that's pitiful, unfortunate and sad. Furthermore, it's highly unsatisfactory (the reason is 'I believe' - oookaay). It's also because of this self-same attitude of wilful blindness that your bishops and cardinals had about their pedophile priests which allowed them to commit sexual abuse over the decades ruining the lives of many thousands of people. Not because you can't answer, it's because you don't want to.
And you say your faith is trying to change and reform. With that kind of attitude - *shakes head*
You should have said this outright to exhaust the argument. Took a bit of courage to admit that sort of blind faith doesn't it - and because you hesitated in saying so, it probably means you know it's silly. That being the case, if it's silly, why continue to rely on it? If the answer depends on adding more faith....*shakes head*
Sorry, I just pity the unquestioning blind faith that you have and find it tragic.
But then, Buddhism has always said that life is about pain, so it probably lessens the pain by NOT dealing with the problems. Oh wait - but the law catches up with you one day on the 'problems' that you might choose to ignore --> should I say that you bought it all upon yourselves?
No - the argument has been exhausted. I'll let you pick up the remaining pieces of your pride.
Take care
Yomi
|
|
Fibby
Anime Fanatic
"In this world, we stand on the roof of hell, gazing at flowers."
Posts: 324
|
Post by Fibby on Sept 8, 2003 4:31:51 GMT -5
okay, argument closed then. ;D sorry if this is off-topic but... Just curious, do you really think that people don't usually mean what they say and that they have implications behind their words? Because honestly, if that opinion holds true, that would mean that one has to be constantly on guard or something. And if I follow that way of thinking, it would make me miserable. Really miserable. I'd die early if I think like that. ^^; if it's silly, why continue to rely on it? If the answer depends on adding more faith...Not really. I continue to 'rely' on it simply because my religion has done quite a number of good things for me. I live a fairly good life, you see. even though I encountered quite a number of tribulations along the way. ^^; But life is good. ;D It's just that I'm psychologically imbalanced (or maybe that's why I think I'm so happy with life. hope not, for my sake. ^^; )
|
|