Double Post Day! Sorry, but I’m posting twice today. =-/
For those interested, here is some interesting information on Iran. This came about as I was reading concerning another individual’s desire to bomb Iran with regards to their nuclear programm. I can’t help but snicker a little.
The US fiddled about with Iran back in the 1950′s and installed a brutal dictator for 20-25 years called the Shah of Iran, all because he allowed US and British oil interests. Here’s a book review on the “roots of terrorism”, the Shah and the US from the NY Times:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950DEED8143EF933A2575BC0A9659C8B63
The US and other Europeans began a nuclear energy program in Iran in 1957 under the Shah, including the development of nuclear weapons. However, “In addition to the financial and technological assistance from the United States, France and Germany signed several agreements with the Shah to provide Iran with enriched uranium, nuclear reactors and research centers. However, following the 1979 Revolution, Ayatollah Khomeini immediately suspended construction indefinitely at all nuclear facilities in the “Islamic State” because as aforementioned, fundamental Islamic religious and jurisprudential beliefs consider all weapons of mass destruction as immoral. “, emphasis mine.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11634.htm
Even if Iran were to develop peaceful nuclear energy and then divert it into nuclear weapons, is it plausible to think they would use one either on Israel or the US when Israel has hundreds and the US has tens of thousands? If not, could there be other reasons why?
“Rather, it has been posited that Tehran is trying to acquire nuclear capabilities for national defense which could cause a geo-political conflict between Tehran and its neighbors including Israel. Iranian strategists in America, feel that Iran is threatened by the growing non-conventional capabilities of several of their neighbors, as well as the deployment of American troops next to their borders in almost all directions. However, this argument is not fully encountering the religio-political landscape of Iran and thus it must be explicitly posited that due to religio-cultural beliefs, Tehran is not pursuing a nuclear proliferation project. Fundamental Islamic religious and jurisprudential beliefs consider all weapons of mass destruction as immoral and negating the divine sovereignty of the divine. Hence, to counter increased geo-political strife and national security threats, Iran is increasing development and deployment of conventional weapons systems. ”
Even our own analysts on Iran posit that, if anything, Iran would develop nuclear capabilities for their national defense, given the threats surrounding them; despite fundemental Islamic beliefs to the contrary and increasing development of conventional weapons AND a whole lot of business sense in using their only source of national income, oil, for export.
And this, is one reason why I am opposed to meddling with other nation’s politics. It breeds nothing but contempt and distrust on all sides.
I consider all religions a weapon of mass destruction. I’m currently reading Tai Pan, James Clavell’s second novel in his Asia series set in China in 1841. One of the interesting bits is the way the Europeans try to “civilize” the Chinese, mostly by killing people in the name of Jebus. The Chinese seem baffled by this upstart god who is about 8,000 years younger than the ones they already had. Hell must be full of Asians since the xtian religion took so long to teach them the one way into heaven.
[Translate]
I’ve not read that entire book, maybe a quarter of the way through? It seems to be the hallmark of “civilizing” a group of people though. Give them religion; in particular, God, then kill off the people that refuse to accept it.
Happened in the US, happened in the Crusades, happened in China too. It’s mildly disturbing to me. I don’t consider it…normal to kill off a bunch of people in the name of a god they don’t even believe in.
The opposite happened in Japan, when the Tokugawa (I may be a family off sorry) purged christianity from the population by assassinating all christians that refused to leave. They then executed or asked for the seppuku of all samurai who were christian converts but would not recant the religion…mainly because they found the christian ideal to be flawed and hurtful to all those who practiced it.
[Translate]
In answer to an explicit question you asked, yes, I think it’s very plausible that Iran would use nuclear weapons on Israel or the US if they developed them. Chances are they would be low yield “suitcase” type weapons, smuggled in and used in terrorist attacks. Considering that groups active in these countries have no compunction about planning conventional attacks on foreign soil, I think they would jump at the chance to stage nuclear attacks. If they could do it without implicating their country of support, so much the better, but I believe they would be more than willing to trade a few thousand of their own people, or more, to inflict major damage on the “Great Satan.” Let’s face it folks: These folks are not known for peaceful rationality.
Your discussion linking religion seems to imply that religious people are more prone to violence than others. Looking at the histories of how atheist nations treat their citizens, I disagree. In the atheist “paradises” of Soviet Russia and China, millions were murdered and enslaved. A very logical outcome when the philosophy is basically that a person is only worth their output.
Bottom line: Evil people torture, kill, and enslave other people. A lot of times they use God for an excuse, but if they don’t claim belief in God they can certainly come up with others. Conversely, atheists have a much harder time coming up with reasons to do good. For example, church attendance is still the highest predictor of charitable giving, volunteer work, etc. You would be in a much poorer world and society without religious inspired works.
[Translate]
It may be plausible..but I don’t think it’s likely. I could be wrong…I’m okay with that.
Church was also the biggest indicator of a society’s tendency to torture kill and enslave people. That doesn’t much make me feel better about it.
[Translate]
“Church was also the biggest indicator of a society’s tendency to torture kill and enslave people.”
That’s an assertion. Show me some data. I maintain that a lot more people are and were tortured, killed, and enslaved under atheist systems. Take a look at the re-education camps in Southeast Asia, the treatment that Japanese gave to POW’s in WWII, etc. There’s also the soviet gulags, etc.
Take a look at websites, for that matter. If you scan Christian related websites, you will find a lot about evangelism, but you will also find a lot about feeding, housing, volunteering. If you look at the atheist websites, most of what you find will be about countering Christianity. Lots of people do bad things. A Christian is a lot more likely to go out of his way to do good things.
I leave the philosophizing to the philosophers. As an engineer, I’m impressed with what works. You have yet to demonstrate that Christians are more likely to bad. Recent studies published show they are much more likely to do good.
[Translate]
As a somewhat related aside, I recently read on line about a school teacher in California that was making a big deal in his class about there being more rape and murder in the Southern US. He also mentioned that as a large bastion of Christian church goers. True enough, but anyone reasonably educated knows that correlation does not necessarily equal causation. The teacher said that he was not being anti-Christian, that he was simply trying to start conversation. I wonder. Would he have been as willing to point out that the areas that he discussed also had large migrant worker populations, or large percentages of African-Americans? Or how about this – If you were to examine the population of people in prison from those and other groups (regular church goers, migrants, African-American and others) where do you think the strongest correlations would be?
It doesn’t take any courage or brains to insult Christianity. They don’t have advocacy groups that call you out and they don’t threaten violence on a regular basis. Our only defense is Christ, and the facts. That’s more than enough I think.
[Translate]
Data: Human history.
The Crusades, the entire existence of every society (just about) during the birth and maturation of Christianity. The Native American Trail of Tears. I mean these are well understood and well documented things. Christians willingly tortured, killed and enslaved people throughout history. You have a tendency of making it seem like this isn’t true, and that rather (from my perspective at least) it is every other religion in the universe and pagans that are guilty solely of these things…but that’s not entirely accurate. One need only pick up a book to see it is so.
Now, before this turns into a debate (which there really isn’t a reason it should because it’s just true) I am very aware of what pagans have tortured, killed, and enslaved individuals. Slavery was in almost every part of the world in the past an acceptable practice and yes, christians owned slaves. Says so in the bible. The bible in fact says that you’re still a good christian if you don’t beat your slave to death, if he/she dies the next day then that doesn’t count as having beaten your slave to death. Now, last I checked, beating someone to obtain a result is torture. Such as beating someone into obedience. So the bible also condones torture. The bible mentions that one of the apostles returned a slave to his owner. Slavery was perfectly fine then…it’s very recent history (relatively speaking) that slavery has become socially unacceptable. My point is that today christians (large groups of them) still think it’s okay to kill non-christians. They still find non-christians to be ignorant people who will burn in hell (depending on your brand of christianity) for an eternity and still attempt to convert those who are not christians into their fold through fear and doubt. Now it’s more of a psychological game, because torturing someone is against the law and frown upon heavily in our society.
I went to catholic school my whole life…I know how it works, seriously. My child attends a Lutheran school, not my idea…but it’s better he go there than not be associated with a multi-cultural collection of students and I have had to go to the school on multiple occasions to speak to them about what they are teaching my child. My child can choose whatever religion he likes, but teaching a child “with man all things are impossible, with god all things are possible” is subtle brainwashing. Teaching a child that “I will love and worship god for all eternity” is less subtle brainwashing. The school’s charter specifically states that it will not teach rhetoric, but instead teach _about_ the religion…really…this is just typical behavior. I experienced it in catholic school, and I see it in this lutheran school. It’s not new.
Some of our country’s forefathers remarked on this as well..and they were christians themselves. Saying actually that the world saw quite a bit of horrendous acts since the introduction of Christianity. “Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity.” –Thomas Jefferson 1782.
Thomas Jefferson also said the following: “Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear.”
Now, I make a point not to insult Christianity. We all have to seek out our own salvation (Buddha himself said this). It may seem as if I’m grinding an axe with the religion…I don’t have a problem with the religion so much as the majority of the people practicing the religion. I certainly think that’s fair. I find Christianity strange, novel, much like a child finds the flight of a bird interesting and strange. Kind of a “Oh well that’s neat.” sort of thing. I find the people that claim they are christian and look down upon all non-christians (muslims, buddhists, atheists) as less than them in some way because they don’t have the same religion disturbing in a really extreme way.
Man is a Religious Animal. He is the only Religious Animal. He is the only animal that has the True Religion–several of them. He is the only animal that loves his neighbor as himself and cuts his throat if his theology isn’t straight. He has made a graveyard of the globe in trying his honest best to smooth his brother’s path to happiness and heaven….The higher animals have no religion. And we are told that they are going to be left out in the Hereafter. I wonder why? It seems questionable taste.
- “The Lowest Animal” Mark Twain
Interestingly, there is debate about if Buddhism (zen in particular) is actually a religion. We find it interesting that it even matters, at least I do; however, makes one wonder.
So much blood has been shed by the Church because of an omission from the Gospel: “Ye shall be indifferent as to what your neighbor’s religion is.” Not merely tolerant of it, but indifferent to it. Divinity is claimed for many religions; but no religion is great enough or divine enough to add that new law to its code.
- Mark Twain, a Biography
Notably, Buddhists largely have no issue with other religions. I don’t have problems with other religions. I have problems (reservations about the lucidity?) of certain followers of religions that seem very different from what they preach.
My entire outlook on theism can be summed up with (I believe I’ve mentioned this before), The Argument From Evil.
Linkage: http://zencomp.com/greatwisdom/ebud/ebdha068.htm
I believe that one’s being christian is entirely irrelevant to if they are going to do any good at all in the world. Muslims are just as likely to do good as a christian. Same is true for Buddhists or any other semi-religion. India has like two thousand different gods, they should be really rockin’ in the do good department. Taoists…same thing. If you intend to do good in the world, you will do it with or without a deity.
[Translate]
Context – Crusades: Thousands killed on all sides. Despite what you seem to imply, Muslims were not peaceful, innocent victims. They were in their killing with the rest of them. The inquisitions: Thousands killed for religions reasons. Communism – Millions killed by atheists to suppress religion.
When it comes to slaughter of innocents, you can’t beat atheism.
You are very good at making assertions, my friend. The problem is that making assertions does not make them true.
“My point is that today christians (large groups of them) still think it’s okay to kill non-christians.”
Assertion, and either false or lacking in context. I know of no large groups of Christians that believe that killing someone simply because they are non-Christian is fine. Self defense, yes. Wartime, a necessary evil. But strictly because they are non-christian, no. Can you show me MODERN cases where this is true? Can you show me anywhere near the prevalence of the view in Christianity that it is say in Muslim country’s teaching?
To the best of my knowledge, I have never excused anything done by Christians. I have simply called for context. You have a tendency to leave that out in your writings. For example, nowhere does it say that you can beat a slave and still be a good Christian. It states that it is permissible for a Jew to beat a slave under Mosaic law. That there is a distinction between the two seems to elude you, despite your profession that you are well versed in Christianity. As long as you continue to make false assertions, I shall present the correct view. Ignorance is not strength. I am sure Orwell would agree.
You mention torture as being frowned on in our society. To the best of my knowledge, there is not even a universal definition of what torture is. I know that it’s definition changes greatly according to time and location. You claim that Christians use fear and doubt to convert people. To my way of thinking, truth is the best defense. If they present the truth to people and that makes them repent their sins, that can hardly be considered torture. Much more humane that governments of any stripe.
““Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity.”
If you tally the numbers, I think you will find that the overwhelming majority – (99% or more) were incidental and not related to Christianity in any significant way. As I have repeated, when it comes to killing and torturing, you just can’t beat atheism. Jefferson was a great statesman of his day, but I don’t think he or you could dig up data that seriously linked those deaths with Christian doctrine. It had to do with the usual reasons – greed, jealousy, hatred. All parts of the human condition independent of religion.
““Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear.”
He does indeed. That’s why it is a lot easier to find books written by former atheists that set out to disprove the Bible, checked out the facts, and converted rather than former Christians who became atheists after researching.
“I find the people that claim they are christian and look down upon all non-christians (muslims, buddhists, atheists) as less than them in some way because they don’t have the same religion disturbing in a really extreme way.”
In this we agree because the basis of Christianity (common with Judaism) is that all men are equal before God. This is probably the key reason why human rights advance far more quickly in countries that embrace Christianity than those that do not. India, for example, is still stuck in the same caste system they have had for thousands of years.
“He is the only animal that loves his neighbor as himself and cuts his throat if his theology isn’t straight.”
Again true but without context. So little of the violence done by people has anything to do with religion. To read your writing, you would think that was a major contributor. The most overtly violent religion right now is certain segments of Islam, and even that pales compared to non-religious reasons. They only killed about three thousand in one shot. Automobiles in the US kill ten times that each year. Abortions, nothing Christian about that, kill close to a million each year. Despite what you seem to imply religion plays such a small part in the destruction.
“Notably, Buddhists largely have no issue with other religions. ”
Despite that, they don’t seem to have a more peaceful or prosperous society. I’d also be willing to be that just as many Buddhists are guilty of not “practicing what they preach” as any other religion. I understand that people fall short. We’re not perfect. I still find it better to strive to do better by adopting a code with high standards and failing, than adopting a no challenge code and failing anyway.
“I believe that one’s being christian is entirely irrelevant to if they are going to do any good at all in the world. ”
If that’s the case, then I would have to assume that most of the people who have a tendency to do good gravitate toward Christianity. Contrary to what you assert, atheists are stingy, statistically speaking. They don’t volunteer. They don’t give. They tend toward “have the government take care of it” solutions as opposed to actually helping people.
“India has like two thousand different gods, they should be really rockin’ in the do good department. Taoists…same thing. ”
That would be true…if it were just a matter of religion. It takes truth to change a person.
[Translate]
^_^ We’ll just have to agree to disagree. I don’t personally know any true atheists at least Idon’t think., but I can’t see (I could certainly imagine in what ways they could be) how an atheist would be any more prone to slaughter or torture than say a homicidal maniac. If I am a Buddhist, and I am, and I do not believe in any god, and I don’t, am I an atheist? If so…am I then…more likely to obliterate a few people on a whim? Not being funny…I’m kind of curious how you define atheists is all. From my understanding of the word, I can’t be an atheist because I don’t deny the existence of God..I just find god useless for me. Now on the other hand, the synonym for atheist is unbeliever..which is what a believer would call someone that does not beleive correct? I don’t know…maybe I’m tryin’ to decide if I should be insulted or not and come murder you and everyone you’ve ever known? lol Teasing…don’t get upset.
Tell me more, or I can look it up if you don’t wanna type…I can do my own research you don’t have to do it for me…about your view on atheists.
Read this some where…is ths context enough? Not bein’ snotty, I’m asking lol
“On slavery, Concerning family values, in Joel 3:8 God warns that, “I will sell your sons and your daughters to the Judians, and they shall in turn sell them to the Sabeans, to a people far off.” In case you are still unconvinced, try 1 Tim. 6:1-2; “Let slaves regard their masters as worthy of all honor.” Matthew 10:24 and John 13:16 remind us that slaves are never better than their masters. Women take note that in Titus 2:9-10 slaves are ordered to, “Be submissive to your master and give satisfaction in every respect.” Also check Ephesians 6:5 and Colossians 3:22 which say, “Slaves obey your master.” Of the venerated Ten Commandments, numbers four and ten recognize and therefore give tacit approval to slavery. In fact, neither the Old or New Testament contains an outright condemnation of this infamous institution.”
Funnily, the Bible does not anywhere say “slavery is wrong”. The bible was and currently is pretty much a political tool. There was a documentary about this on a site that’s since been taken down, I’ll look around for the video. Basically, it is one man who wanted to know exactly who wrote the bible, and what he came up with was kind of disturbing to him.
If something is true, I don’t think we need to provide context? The sun is hot. It’s raining outside. God is omnipotent, is there some context in which tose things aren’t true? Truth is just truth. For instance, the bible has books that were originally in it, left out purposely by the Vatican. That’s fact, but what isn’t fact is why. What purpose does it serve? If the bible is the word of god through man, then why isn’t it published in its entirety? Something to think about.
Take my assertion that there are large numbers of christians that think it’s okay to kill non-christians. You place a lot of restriction on this. War doesn’t count..because it’s a necessary evil. Wouldn’t be necessary if it hadn’t happened now would it? The past doesn’t count…okay…well how about all of the sermons that have taken place calling anything anti-biblical an enemy? For instance, gays being called the enemies of god. Well if one is an enemy of god, you must smite your enemy correct? Bible said it’s cool to smite god’s enemies. I just have to toss this in, sorry but it paints a good picture I think. The book that christians read to solidify their faith had no problems with destroying entire cities. Children were murdered by the deity. What exactly do you believe christians (or rather more directly what do you) take from that understanding? It implies to me that people who follow this book, think it’s okay to kill off non-christian people or enemies of the christian faith because their holy book says it’s okay. The koran, I’m sure says something akin to this with regards to non-muslims; however, the koran portrays itself as guidance from prophets and places a lot of emphasis on what was politically correct at that times in which it was written and can be easily adapted to current day. Not all of the bible has this in common although some of it does, I do recognize this.
You say that so little of the killing has anything to do with religion. I beg to differ. Your religion at least in christianity and myriad others but you’re a christian so I’ll stick to what you know, are how you live your life. Christians that do wrong knowingly, such as kill another person….torture someone…whatever…do so with a value system coming from their understanding of faith (this is how I understand christian families to function..please correct me if I’m wrong). If that’s not true, then what purpose does christianity serve other than to give you the ability to sleep well at night because you know you’re gonna die one day and go to heaven?
This is how it works for me as a Buddhist. Every breath I take, every move I make (I’ll be watched by some stalker??) every thought which crosses my mind is a buddhist one. I can not act in a way that is not buddhist because I don’t know how to be anything else. I won’t go to war and kill people if drafted….it’s against my existence. I’d rather be jailed. Why don’t christians do this? Why doesn’t any religious individual do this? Because their faith isn’t important to them? I don’t know, but it’s contradictory to what you say christianity is about today. What happens in everyday life, Christains routinely do non-christian things and get to go to church and be absolved of their sins. I’ve seen people go to a strip club every friday or saturday and go to church and be perfectly at peace with themselves. I see people hunting for sport and go to church and be perfectly at peace with themselves.
I’m not saying that christians are bad people by nature…don’t get me wrong. I do say that christians doing good deeds do not make up for the ill deeds that have been done to various elements of people through history and as a result have damaged civilization in some ways up to today. I am aware this is not _all_ christians…..if I’ve ever said otherwise…it was merely misspoken. And I don’t think that Buddhists are necessarily better by nature than any other religion…every person has their little issue…I can only speak about me…so I’ve detailed me and what I see to be true.
Could you detail for me what you mean by buddhists not having peaceful or better societies? Because I’m afraid I don’t quite follow you. I’d just like to be able to more intelligently respond to that.
Do think you christians are all crazy though!
Kidding kidding…deep breaths.
It’s been interesting. ^_^
[Translate]
Let’s start out first by what I mean by “context.” By that I mean you never seem to focus on Christianity on the whole. You concentrate on the negatives. Seldom mention the positives. For example, you constantly harp on “Christians owned slaves.” Very true. Also true that non-Christians owned slaves. There were times when almost everyone who could afford to owned slaves. But look at the other side now. Why is slavery not an accepted practice in modern times? Who were the ones that were pushing for abolition? Look and you will find a long list of names associated with Christianity and clergy. Atheists? No. Other religions? Not a lot which probably has a great deal to do with why slavery in one form or another is still accepted in places such as Sudan, certain quarters of southeast Asia, etc.
To understand why the Bible speaks as it does about slavery, you need to look beyond the plain text to the reasons of the text. What was Christ’s major purpose? Contrary to popular belief, it was not to get people to be “good”. In fact, the message is pretty clear: We can’t be good. It’s not in our nature. Christ came to call people to a relationship with God. It is the power of God working through us that allows us to do good that will last for an eternity. By that, I mean to unite people with God for eternity through a relationship with Christ. Now, God loves us and he is certainly not indifferent to our condition on earth, but some things definitely have a bigger impact on our ability to have a relationship with him than others. If I were a slave, that would be a sad thing for me, but it would not prevent me from having a relationship with God. Chances are that owning slaves would be a lot more likely to interfere with that relationship. It’s difficult for most people to wield that type of power over another without using it for evil.
As kind of a side question, what makes you think that slavery is evil? What resource do you rely on? What is your authority? It has been used in many countries since the dawn of mankind. For a long time it was simply the way things were, so what convinces you that it is evil? Now I believe that it is evil because Christ declared that all men were brothers, and we all had a single father. So us enslaving others goes against that principle. But aside from a Godly standard of what is good, who is really to say what is evil?
You mentioned the idea of torture being frowned on in society. That’s true, but aside from a Godly standard, who is to say what is torture. I heard a story a long time ago about a boy, the son of an ambassador, who vandalized some cars over seas with spray paint. The punishment was being beaten with a cane so many lashes. We would consider that torture. For the people of that country, it was just punishment. Some places they still cut the hands off of thieves. Aside from a universal standard, terms like torture become rather arbitrary.
Your note questioning why some books were left out of the Bible – One of the principle tenets of Christianity is that the word of God is true (at least the brand of Christianity I ascribe to). That means that God will not contradict himself when taken in context. If a person wrote a book that they claimed to inspired by God contradicted the teaching of the other sources, it was regarded as a false teaching. For these kind of reasons, books purported to be written by Judas or Mary Magdalene were not included in the Bible. It was not a question of whether they were actually written by Judas or Mary. The test is whether they were dictated by God. If they contradict another part of the text, then they were judged false. A more modern example is why the Book of Mormon is not accepted by most Christians. Christ said explicitly that there would be no marriage in heaven. The book of Mormon says there is. Since this is a clear contradiction, it is judged false.
Your discussion on war is another good example by what I mean of context. For example, you make the statement that a lot of Christians think it’s alright to kill non-Christians, and you use war as an example. The context issue comes in one form in this way: The way that you state it seems to imply that Christians think it is alright to kill non-Christians, but not Christians. First off, I don’t think of it as “alright” to kill anyone. I think there are certain cases where it is acceptable from a societal standpoint. Self defense is one. Protection of family, or just in defense of human life is another. And by the time a soldier arrives at a war, that’s a lot of what it comes down to. The man in the trenches is defending himself. The man in the bomber is defending his family, his friends, his way of life. It’s not alright. It’s stupid and brutal, but until Christ returns I think we’re stuck with it. But you seem to imply that we think it’s better to kill non-Christians. I certainly don’t. I don’t think the Nazi’s were in any way Christian (though they did try to keep that appearance up somewhat for political purposes). But the average German and Italian in the trenches probably had something of a Christian background. We went after them with the same zeal that we went after the Japanese.
Another point of context – I’m not saying that the past doesn’t count. I’m saying that context demands including both good and the bad, and making a comparison with others. Christians were involved in wars and atrocities just like everyone else. I’ve never denied that. Never will. But look at the balancing side: Who is responsible for setting up more charities, feeding more people, improving the human condition more? You can pick the best person you know, and if you only consider the bad things they have done and make no mention of the good, they will sound like a horrendous person. You point out Christians having slaves, but make no mention of who was responsible for eliminating it. You point out the Crusades, but make no mention of the fact that there were two sides involved in massive killing in those wars. And you make no mention of who is still involved in most of the charitable operations to this day.
Now, you point out that Christians kill and torture with an understanding that it is alright according to their faith. I disagree. Another of the basic tenets of the Christian faith is that we are always failing to live up to the standards. Sometimes we honestly don’t know which is the right way to go. Some times we know, and chose to rebel against God and do what we know is wrong. Here’s the bottom line:
Christianity is not a set of rules or even guidelines. Christianity is a relationship. God sent his son, Jesus, to allow us to have a relationship with him. And by doing that, by offering his son to suffer for our sins, he will accept us as family members. We have access to God through prayer and through the in-dwelling of his Spirit. Now the Bible is important because it is God’s record of what he has done, the reasons he has done it, and what we need to do to improve that relationship. It gives the fundamental guidance for a Godly life.
To an unsaved man, God pretty much takes the approach that you take when you are writing about religion: The standard is perfection. There is no consideration of the good. If you break on law, you are a lawbreaker. Have you ever lied? Then you are a liar. Have you ever stolen? Then you are a thief. And God also is privy to the sins of our hearts. Have you ever wished anyone dead? Then might as well have pulled out a gun and pulled the trigger.
We are all guilty before God. And because we are, none of us can stand before him. A lot of people think that the term “holy” means good or righteous. It doesn’t. It means “set apart.” Because God is without sin, he is set apart from us. And he cannot tolerate our sins. If our spirit leaves us, when we die, it must go somewhere for it was created to be eternal. Without accepting God’s grace, through Christ, we can’t go to be with him. He can’t look upon our sins. So we go to the only other place there is. It’s not through God’s action to send us, but for our refusal to accept Him. Like the bumper sticker says: Christians aren’t perfect. Just forgiven. If we were counting on our own goodness, we would be hip deep in it.
When I say that most killing has little to do with religion, I believe that is a fair statement. Most mass killing is done during wars. Wars generally have to do with land, resources, etc. Religion has been used as a pretext on numerous occasions, but I sincerely believe that’s all that it was. As for the rest of the time, I am only aware of one religious group right now that considers religion a major reason for killing, and it isn’t Christianity. On the other hand, Christianity is involved in preventing countless deaths by operating hospitals, charities, food programs, education, etc. (Context again.)
I will address your other questions soon, but right now I have chores and my typing finger is sore. More later.
[Translate]
Back again…
So, you’re going to let your child decide on their religion when they grow up. That’s what I’d expect. My experience is that parents teach their children to value what they value. The idea of not teaching my children about Christ is inconceivable to my wife and me because we value it. So it goes…
You were asking my definition of atheist. Very simple: I regard an atheist as one who denies the existence of God. That was a major premise for Marxist dictatorships under the Soviet Union and Communist China. I regard an agnostic who believes it is impossible to know one way or another, as in “Maybe there’s something there and maybe there isn’t. I don’t know, and I’m fine with that.”
You say that you don’t regard Christians as any better or worse. Nor do I regard atheists or agnostics as better or worse than Christians. For that matter, I don’t regard Muslims or Taoists or sun-worshippers as any better or worse. The reason I don’t is because God doesn’t. He says that we are all equal and we all need him. It is because of that need that Christians are compelled to spread the word. It was commanded. Some have taken that command in ways it was never intended. I don’t condone it, can’t change it. People do things a lot of times in God’s name for their own reasons. Christ’s message was salvation, to seek and save the lost.
A big part of the problem is that as you said the Bible became a political document. It was never intended for that. It did set up the foundation of the Jewish government, but the gentile Christians were never supposed to have a “Christian” government. The message of Christ was always one on one, the relationship between God and the individual. Lots of people try to use the teachings of Christ as a reason to set up government programs to do this or that. They ignore the direct example. Christ had plenty of opportunities to go to the government, and he passed on all of that. He spoke to individuals. He said “You get it done. You feed the hungry. You take care of each other.” Governments rely on men in power. That has a very bad track record as far as long-term good.
“I’m not saying that christians are bad people by nature…don’t get me wrong. I do say that christians doing good deeds do not make up for the ill deeds that have been done to various elements of people through history and as a result have damaged civilization in some ways up to today.”
Here again comes to the matter of context. You go out of your way many times to mention that it is Christian peoples doing these things. The implication is that they do them more than others. I don’t believe that is the case. And if it is not the case, then why specify “Christian”? If Christians were no more guilty than others of slavery, why bring up that Christians were slaveholders but not Muslims or Taoists or whatever? Why bring up Christians involved in wars but not others?
It is not my claim that good deeds “make up” for evil deeds. I don’t really know of any way that most current evils can be repaired, much less ones through history. I do believe though that Christians are no more guilty of doing evil than any other group, but have a demonstrable trend for doing more overt good. So from that standpoint it seems rather bigoted to constantly be bringing up their shortcomings, particularly when you need to go back hundreds of years to do it while you seem to give a free pass to religions that are blowing up people today.
As for Buddhist societies – Can you tell me how the societies that have embraced Buddhism are more respectful of rights? Less tolerant of torture? More peaceful? More prosperous? Less violent?
You also repeat the claim over and over that Christians are no better or worse. That is both true and not. Certainly from God’s standpoint we are no better, for the only power that we have to do good comes from him. But you seem to be ignoring things. Regular church attenders do report more happiness. They do tend to volunteer more, give more. If there is nothing to God, if churches are simply places where people worship nothing, why would there be a difference? And why would the countries that were so determined to build paradises without God so quick to turn into hell for their citizenry? Why do they insist the government should take care of so much when it works so much better if people take care of each other?
I submit it is because we are all flawed and incapable of long term good on our own. In fact, I think the longer a society goes on, the further away from “good” it gets because a government that ignores God’s principles is doomed from the start. A government that determines to force God’s principles will likely become bad even worse.
Whew! Time for a breather. Take care, my friend.
[Translate]
Here’s another question that just occurred to me: You brought up that you don’t believe that the good Christianity has done cancels the evil. I agreed with the notes as stated above. They were separate cases at separate times, and largely unrelated. Having said that, here is the question:
Whenever anyone points out that Muslims blowing people and things up as part of holy war, you almost as a default action bring up the Crusades or some other action done by Christians. If you don’t have a particular prejudice against Christians, then why do you do that? These too are separate incidents. The fact that Christians made religious war hundreds of years ago in no way makes less evil for what Muslims are doing today. The Christian societies of today resemble very little the Christian societies of the past. There is no tie in. One does not cancel the other. And Christians today are not the ones that did it. So why bring it up? How does it possibly affect the right or wrong of what Muslims are doing today? (And I am talking specifically about the Muslims that are blowing up people and things, not all Muslims.)
[Translate]
No, I didn’t forget to respond to these….I just haven’t had a chance to read them in depth and actually say anything. Since I feel like I owe you at least some consideration of the aforementioned comments, I’ll say the following which is just a quick once over because I _still_ don’t have time to really put a whoel lot of effort into it. I really think they believe I’m some sort of slave labor. I’d like my 40 acres and a mule please? Oh wait..I get a pay check..nvm..I suppose it’s because I’m salary that I don’t feel too much better about it.
Concerning my almost default action of the Crusades or some other christian act of evil (not accusatory, maybe inflammatory but not meant in that regard). I do it, ‘lest we forget’. My point with it is that when someone speaks praises about one thing (ignoring or at least not mentioning , “even though this happened…there is this”) and speak about another instance of some related thing with regards to how bad it is or how prone to bad it may be at this time….it seems pretty hypocritical to not point out that such thing shave happened. They did happen and so long as we’re talking about to pretty closely related things (suffering and people) one best open their mouth and acknowledg the fact, because I’ll continue to do it. Many a scholar have pointed out knowing your past les you repeat it and so I feel it’s important to temper what I believe (wrongly or not) to be ignoring facts that make one no better than the other.
Concerning my child and teaching him values. I do not teach my child rhetoric. I teach my child what I value. I don’t value a deity, so I don’t teach him that. I value buddhist concepts, I teach him those things. The problem you have with this or the issue you’ve overlooked is that I said I’d let him choose his own religion. Buddhism doesn’t necessarily say “there is no god”. Depending on your sect, a god may or may not be a reasonable thing, but that’s your choice. Buddha himself did not bother to comment when asked directly about gods; however India (where he was from) regularly celebrated over 100 gods regularly. Buddha did say something that I put into practice because it is enriching to my life, “We must all work out our own salvation.”
I teach my child every buddhist concept I know. I do not tell my child that he is or must be a buddhist, I do not teach him that there is or is not a god..he can make up his own min dand work out his own salvation. If he asks me if I believe in god I tell him no. If he asks why I tell him why. I am very careful not to tell him that “because I do not believe in this you must not either”, because that would be in my mind evil. Besides that…a deity isn’t a value anyway..it’s either a figment of one’s imagination/focus of one’s believe (idol??)…or it’s source of one’s values..but the deity either way is useless in my mind because one already has the values written down..the deity means nothing.
“As for Buddhist societies – Can you tell me how the societies that have embraced Buddhism are more respectful of rights? Less tolerant of torture? More peaceful? More prosperous? Less violent?”
Thailand is a good test case. Tibet (Nepal) is another. Prosperity has nothing to do with religion. Economics and religion have nothing to do with one another….Japan has a very big and flourishing economy, does that because they are a Shinto society that if I plan to have a prosperous society that I need to be Shinto? No, of course not.
Myanmar is a Buddhist society suppressed by a military regime, so we can’t count them either, but they were once a pretty prosperous little place and a Buddhist society, when called Burma. Malaysia isn’t that bad off and they are a Muslim society with large numbers of Chinese nationals.
I think it’s a little unfair of a question really, because you’re completely ignoring their cultural natures as well which has something to do with one’s prosperity in society as a whole which is affected by the economy which again is a completely separate thing from religion. My religion doesn’t affect my ability to make money here in the US, in fact it’s illegal to base one’s ability to be prosperous as an individual in our society on their religion.
Sorry I can’t be more in depth or touch on anythign I probably (most likely?) missed, but I’m boned for time now.
Later gator!
[Translate]
“I think it’s a little unfair of a question really, because you’re completely ignoring their cultural natures as well which has something to do with one’s prosperity in society as a whole which is affected by the economy which again is a completely separate thing from religion.”
I just discovered your reply.
For my part, I think that it is a very fair question. Far from ignoring cultural natures, for many people, and nations for that matter, religion is part of the national character. In large part, Christian principles of equality and charity have lead to democratic rule, advancement of minorities, etc. Non-Christian countries tend towards caste systems, military dictatorships, monarchies, etc.
The progress is certainly uneven, and their is certainly resistance to change, but take a look overall at the condition of the people and nations that have embraced Islam, Hinduism, Shintoism, Bhuddism, (pick your favorite ‘ism’). Rampant poverty. Monarchies with little or no plans to improve the lot of the people. Under Communism, and the enforced athiesm it demands, situation worse. Virtual slavery. A logical end to the premise that the only value a person has is the labor they will produce for the state.
Continue slamming Christianity if you must. I will continue to point out that no other religion or idealogy has done as much to improve the lives not just of the adherents, but of the world at large. That is why the Christian world is or has been supporting the rest of the world with trade, aid, military support, etc. No other system has produced itself capable.
[Translate]
Hi there! How have you been? Well I hope.
“The progress is certainly uneven, and their is certainly resistance to change, but take a look overall at the condition of the people and nations that have embraced Islam, Hinduism, Shintoism, Bhuddism, (pick your favorite ‘ism’). Rampant poverty. Monarchies with little or no plans to improve the lot of the people. Under Communism, and the enforced athiesm it demands, situation worse. Virtual slavery. A logical end to the premise that the only value a person has is the labor they will produce for the state.”
Maybe uneven, but I believe South Africa was ruled by nice christian people for a long while and to some extent still is today and I’m not sure that worked out so well for the African people. Did it? Not bein’ snotty, but I think it’s a decent counter example. What about the diamond trade in Africa, or the exploitation of the African people during Apartheid. What is/was the religion was brought to Africa and used in tandem with enslaving them and forcing the Africans into lesser roles in their own country?
Communism isn’t forced slavery, that’s really not accurate at all. I’ll leave it as an exercise for you to bone up on Communist and Socialist Theory. Just as true democracy hasn’t been implemented in any society, neither has Communism or Socialism. Communism is the ideal form of social existence, simply because it hasn’t been implemented properly doesn’t make it bad. Democracy could very well work out very well; however, it hasn’t..and neither forms of social construct probably will in the near future.
Japan does not have rampant poverty..so we’ve picked one and gotten that out of the way. *nods solemnly*
China has a lot of poverty, but they also have one of the fastest growing economies and will eclipse the US, as its economy is currently in a state of flux and has I believe the largest debt in the known world. South Korea is a buddhist country and has relatively little poverty and a high standard of living. The christian religion is in decline there and will likely continue to be so for the foreseeable future. South Korea by the way has been a largely Confucian country and was exclusively so for over 500 years and they managed pretty well. Christian societies are not the end all be all no matter what christians say. Before christianity, man got along quite well and when it’s gone people will get along just as well.
“Continue slamming Christianity if you must. I will continue to point out that no other religion or ideology has done as much to improve the lives not just of the adherents, but of the world at large. That is why the Christian world is or has been supporting the rest of the world with trade, aid, military support, etc. No other system has produced itself capable.”
It’s not a matter of must, but I will. Improve lives? Viet Nam didn’t seem to improve much of anything for anyone. The rape of vietnamese women during the conflict for instance. Military support such as selling and using weapons like cluster bombs which kill innocent people and soldiers alike? In the case of the US and the christian attitude you’re espousing, not signing the land mine accord? Nuking a country and killing innocent people in the process without regard for the long term effects on innocent people or the short term for that matter. Vaporizing soldier and civilian alike as well as those that weren’t obliterated initially jumping into bodies of water that were set to boil trying to put the fires out that has been set upon them. Torture that takes place currently, well maybe there’s a technicality because of rendition.
Hope your week goes well!
[Translate]
“Maybe uneven, but I believe South Africa was ruled by nice christian people for a long while and to some extent still is today”
“Communism is the ideal form of social existence, simply because it hasn’t been implemented properly doesn’t make it bad.”
Have you noticed that you employ contradictory methods to favor your own points? You seem to feel that it’s alright to slam Christianity even though it has never been truly implemented in a government form, but you defend
Communism because it hasn’t. South Africa, among other nations, had a government that was made of people that to a large extent were Christian, but were ruling in a secular manner and not applying Christian methods, yet you seem to attach blame to Christianity. On the other hand, the governments of Socialist Russia and China were using the government to ruthlessly pursue communist goals in the most expedient way possible and you seem to write that off as a bad exercise in theory to practice. Nice double standard you have there, and evidence of a significant bias at least against religion if not against Christianity.
“What is/was the religion was brought to Africa and used in tandem with enslaving them and forcing the Africans into lesser roles in their own country?”
I believe the religion was greed. That was certainly the defining motive. It has certainly not been preached as any part of the Christian doctrine. I can say that Christian theology played a big part in cleaning up the mess and returning the land to the Africans. Not that many areas have made good use of it. Lots of warlords, corruption, communist inspired guerillas, etc.
“Japan does not have rampant poverty..so we’ve picked one and gotten that out of the way.”
Quite true. Perhaps you could explain to me how Bhuddism has been a dominant part in leading to their social and economic development? Oh wait! That’s right – They were inspired by the Americans! Following their loss in WWII, they sought to emulate the success of the nations capable of defeating them. They prospered greatly under the American occupation and rebuilding.
“Communism is the ideal form of social existence”
Make me laugh… If it doesn’t work everywhere it’s tried, it sucks.
“China has a lot of poverty, but they also have one of the fastest growing economies”
Again, nothing to do with religion, which I believe is still rigorously suppressed through arrests, prisons, work camps. Tell me, are those Bhudist values? Giving credit where credit is due, the growth is truly amazing, and based on embracing a capitalist model. You mention the US economy is in a state of flux. Quite true. For decades it has diluted capitalism with a more socialist model. That’s a guaranteed ticket to debt and destruction. I hope the course can be reversed.
“Improve lives?”
Yes. Christianity was the major force in eliminating slavery in the developed world. Compare with conditions of slavery and status of women in Muslim countries, lower castes in India, etc. Largest donor group to world relief. Major religion for construction of schools and hospitals. Your great at pointing out the negatives, but when you total the positives, no other group comes close.
“Nuking a country and killing innocent people in the process without regard for the long term effects on innocent people or the short term for that matter.”
With great regard for what was done. Final tally: Approximately 800,000 Japanese (minimum) lives saved and 200,000 Americans saved by achieving an immediate surrender. Japanese government and economy rebuilt with a fraction of damage that a conventional invasion would have caused. Boo-hoo…
“not signing the land mine accord?”
Rather easy for the other countries to do that. For the most part they either send few or none of their own people in harm’s way. They rely on the US to go in and do that. Historically, at least 75% of any “peacekeeping” mission is US. It’s very fine for them to want to limit our options. Let them send a few hundred thousand soldiers out to a desert or jungle and face and enemy, and see how well they like their nice little treaties.
“Torture that takes place currently”
I have no desire to defend torture. Nor will I. I do know that given a choice of a Christian, Muslim, or Communist group I would rather be taken prisoner by. You keep doing what you have to do. I’ll keep pointing out how biased you are.
Have a good week.
[Translate]
BTW – Your “Lest we forget” argument doesn’t really hold water as far as I’m concerned. What it boils down to is you are saying, “Sure Muslims are doing barbaric things in the name of Islam now, but Christians did barbaric things in the name of Christianity hundreds of years ago.” News flash – Muslims did also. The difference is that Christianity moved on. That’s why, despite the protestations of so many, the government in the US and Europe is a largely secular organization. (At least they were until they started bending over backwards to appease Muslims so that they wouldn’t get bombed.) The point of bashing Muslim barbarism is to bash barbarism. It makes no difference who did it in the past. That’s a pseudo-justification used by terrorists. It holds no water. I don’t care what you are blowing people up in the name of. I decried it when Catholics and Protestants were doing it in Ireland. If Christian groups were doing it in the name of religion today, I still would. But they aren’t. That “honor” goes to Islam alone.
Have a nice day.
[Translate]
“Have you noticed that you employ contradictory methods to favor your own points? You seem to feel that it’s alright to slam Christianity even though it has never been truly implemented in a government form, but you defend….”
I think you may have read this wrong or misunderstood something. I haven’t, nor did I anywhere in that entire comment say Christianity hasn’t been tried before. I said Democracy and Communism haven’t….so I’m not sure where you’re goin’ with that. The US is ruled in a secular manner by the way. SA, the same way. And I’m not defending communism. I’m saying that the communism that you’re talking about is not actual Communism, it may be called that…but if you know anything about Communist and Socialist Theory you’d agree whole heartedly that they haven’t been implemented in society..don’t read too much into what I’m sayin’ my man.
You’ll also note that Communist Theory is employed in the US as well (which is not a true democracy). What exactly do you think social security is, and welfare? Those two are ripped right out of the Communist Theory book. You might think I’m kind of ‘not in the know’ about politics, but I’m no slouch.
In Azerbaijan, the fall of the USSR (of which it was a member) created horrible conditions for the all classes of people including the ‘middle class’. Huge food shortages as the transition to free economics and a creation of rampant poverty resulted. People (non-party members even) were living pretty well until the “free economy” came to be and the society collapsed. I’m not just talkin’ out the side of my neck either, that’s spoken out of an immigrant’s mouth to me regarding that country. But even the USSR was not a true socialist state.
Christian societies have been tried, and so have Buddhist and Shinto and Confucian and myriad others. They are functional today, but that is not a political issue. How this conversation started is when you brought up economic stability and political structures with regards to christian belief systems. So erm…okay.
I don’t remember condoning anything Extremists have done. What I do point out is that Christians haven’t been in the past all that different and people shouldn’t demonize Muslims or any other group of people for that matter, such as the gay population etc, etc. What should be said is..”these extremists” not..”these Muslims”. Until that starts happening…you know where this is going. ^_^
Japan is not a Buddhist country by the way. It’s a Shinto country, zen (cha’an) was brought to Japan and integrated into large portions of the population, yes. After world war 2 Buddhism came to the forefront and Shinto took a more peripheral role, but you will be hard pressed to find any japanese person that identified singularly with either or. They incorporate both, but from a purely “Buddhism is a poor religion and thus creates strife in countries” view point as you kind of insinuate, (maybe I misunderstand you), Japan flourished and continues to flourish with Buddhism as the less peripheral religion. So take that for what you will.
I have to admit Gary, I was almost annoyed a little with that bias comment. Why? Because it insinuates that you’re not….and if one has a belief structure (a system of living their life) they will have leanings in that direction. I do things because they are the right thing to do. I don’t do them because I’m afraid of hell or I want to go to heaven or because a deity told me to do them…I find that silly…but that’s not true for you and everything you say or do is colored by that..same for me…that’s just a given. Regardless, I only have this to say about that bias comment that I really truly mean. Pot, meet kettle. ^_^ I’m not bein’ mean, but it’s true and I’m okay with that. You should be too. If you’re not, self examination is in order. I’m comfortable with my place in the world.
Lest we forget and all. No one said you had to agree with me. I don’t require you to do so. I do require you to take that bass out of your voice when you’re talkin’ to me though. Hehe or somethin’ like that…I’m kidding but really I think you get a little riled up sometimes and it helps if you just take a deep breath and realize that sometimes…just once in a while…it really doesn’t matter what you say or I say. It matters what we do (as in you and I).
I don’t think you’re a bad person, a little rabid about your religion maybe but that’s not necessarily bad. Kind of patriotic…but not necessarily bad either. You just have to realize that you aren’t going to come here and tell me what’s what, because I’ve spent my time abroad..I’ve done the back breaking work on my own dime. I’ve been there done that..and I know what I’ve seen and experienced to be true. When’s the last time you spent weeks in a country that didn’t belong to you doing work that half the populace in the US would cry about having to do…..for free? I don’t give to charities…I don’t like the lack of accountability for my dollar….so instead I go do it myself because then I know where my money went, where my charitable act has gone. I may be biased…but only because I’ve been out there and will remain out there doing what I feel as a buddhist (not accountable to any deity) should be doing…improving the conditions around me and the world.
If I have some opinions that don’t quite coincide with yours, I think you get a little upset, maybe the blood pressure goes up some. I’m going to help you with that like a good buddhist should. Promise! ^_^
I’ll try to have a good week. You do the same. I’ll be posting again soon! Like later in the week though. I got my video card replaced (after way too damn long at that). I’m gonna game!
Later gator.
[Translate]
“I think you may have read this wrong or misunderstood something. I haven’t, nor did I anywhere in that entire comment say Christianity hasn’t been tried before.”
Let me be explicit then: You repeatedly bring up past failures, real and perceived, by Christian countries (though as you point out, they are really failures of secular governments with large percentage of Christian populations). You frame your comments as though Christianity has failed, even though it has never truly been implemented on a government level. (I mean Christianity as described in the Bible. Not in the crude manners attempted in England and the early US.) Yet you defend the theory of communism even though every attempt to institute it is at least as harmful to the populace as attempts to institute religious rule. That is bias, pure and simple.
“And I’m not defending communism.”
So when you wrote that “Communism is the ideal form of social existence, simply because it hasn’t been implemented properly doesn’t make it bad,” you weren’t defending it? Sorry, it sure sounded like a defense to me.
“but if you know anything about Communist and Socialist Theory you’d agree whole heartedly that they haven’t been implemented in society.”
I know a lot about socialist theory. As a former member of the military, I basically lived the reality. And while people like you constantly bring up the glories of the theory, it never seems to bother you that every attempt to implement it ends up in wrecked economies and/or slave labor.
“Those two are ripped right out of the Communist Theory book. You might think I’m kind of ‘not in the know’ about politics, but I’m no slouch.”
I know, and they and similar programs are the major sources of the debt that you speak of. The systems are destructive and unsustainable long term. The problem is that politicos with views similar to your’s refuse to accept that and push for expansion in the face of insolvency.
“Huge food shortages as the transition to free economics and a creation of rampant poverty resulted.”
The key word is “transition.” I don’t know of any major system change that can be implemented on a national level. The question becomes, what happens to the economy long term. The answer is that long term no system has produced the wealth for the country matched by capitalism.
So, according to your own statement, Buddism is so peripheral it can hardly be considered a major influence on the culture. A culture by the way that until the American occupation moved from fuedalism to military dictatorship, that did not sign the accords on prisoner treatment and took great relish in killing helpless prisoners in horrible ways. I can see that both of those religions must have had a wonderful effect…
“Why? Because it insinuates that you’re not….and if one has a belief structure (a system of living their life) they will have leanings in that direction.”
I am completely open and honest about my preferences. Check your blogs. You are the one claiming to be a “humanist” implying that you are without bias. And while I have never heard of you condoning a terrorist act, I can’t recall reading a thread starting with you condemning one. The more common opening is condemning Americans and/or Christians for doing something equally bad in the past, which is really irrelevant to the matter at hand. If someone does something barbaric, it deserves condemnation, not a backhanded comment that others are or have been just as bad.
In the same manner, I don’t think you have ever heard me defend an atrocity because the people doing the wrong are Christian or American. Right and wrong are not the province of any one nationality or religion. I get my pique up because you are most likely to condemn America and or Christianity before any other groups.
“I do things because they are the right thing to do.”
Says who? There are countries and cultures right now where I could kill a female relative if she was raped and that would be the “right” thing to do. Absent a universal standard, your claim to do “right” has little meaning.
“What should be said is..”these extremists” not..”these Muslims”. Until that starts happening…you know where this is going. ”
Tell me: How often do you hear of bad acts in the media being attributed to “Muslims” as opposed to “Muslim extremists” or “Islamic terrorists?” If the shoe fits…
“When’s the last time you spent weeks in a country that didn’t belong to you doing work that half the populace in the US would cry about having to do…..for free?”
In a country not my own? I don’t think ever. In my own? Not long at all. Mind you, I contribute to charities (which I trust) working overseas. I work in America as my schedule allows. I see nothing superior about helping someone abroad as opposed to the person down the street. People are people no matter where you go. And no matter where you go, I’d be willing to be there are a lot more Christian organizations pitching in to help than Bhuddist, Muslim, Hindu, etc. And it’s not out of fear. We’ve put that behind us. It’s because we know the source of right and wrong.
And of course I am rabid about my religion. I wouldn’t give a spit about it if I couldn’t be. We were told to be seasoning for the world. You don’t do that by sitting back. And I am perfectly fine that we disagree. I simply will not let what I consider a slur rest unanswered. There are Christians all over the world who know so little about their faith. Their governments won’t let Bibles or study materials go to them. They are besieged by educated classes telling them how foolish they are. And they cry out for those who can to defend them. In this matter, I will do what I can. There is no hostility toward you, but you will know where I stand.
[Translate]
BTW – Did you read the analysis in the Washington Post (definitely not a conservative paper) which concluded that Bush did not lie with regards to the intelligence evaluation prior to invading Iraq?
[Translate]
BTW Again – I very much respect your work overseas to make people’s lives better. How about putting some of that Bhuddist indignation into slamming the governments that run the systems in those countries that prevent people from prospering? Mexico comes to mind…
[Translate]
See and here I thought you just liked fighting with me. I’m sad..I really like being the center of attention Gary, stop stealing my thunder.
There are a lot of _other_ people in _other_ religions that don’t know up from down in their religion/lifestyle/etc. It casts a bad light, because those individuals tend to be very very vocal.
I’ll go look at that Washington Post article today. Odd that it didn’t show up in my links on google. I blame Google for depriving me of this particular piece. Or maybe I missed it because I only have 5 displaying rather than 8 because I added another section.
You know, Gary, you bring up a good point. I have an occasion to take some time to direct some efforts elsewhere as traveling overseas is becoming cost prohibitive for me. And Mexico is a good place to have a gander. Along with areas further south as well, like Chile. I hear Bolivia (and I’m kind sketchy on the details) has a more socialist minded president now and is attempting to raise a lot of their poor’s standards of living. He used to be a farmer I believe. I wonder how _that’s_ working out. I’d be interested to read more about those places further to the south.
You know who I find questionable? Hugo Chavez. I’m not sure what I think of that man yet.
[Translate]
The more I read about Mr. Chavez, the more I am convinced that they have a populist thug masquerading as a man of the people. My understanding of the situation down there is that since he began nationalizing, the revenues have dropped by ridiculous amounts and will soon reach a point where even the high price of oil will not be able to cover the losses and keep the system going.
Mexico is kind of a hard spot for me. We have a lot of immigrants from Mexico in the area. I assume we have a mixture of legal and illegal. Anyway, I run into Mexican immigrants regularly. For the most part they strike me as hardworking, friendly, and (at least as much as anyone else) intelligent people. And I have to ask the question: Why do so many hardworking, friendly, intelligent people think it is worth so much risk to leave their own country (often paying exorbitant fees to smugglers) to come to a strange land. The only answer I can come up with is that there own government, which is largely socialist and corrupt (though I do not necessarily relate the two) has made it impossible for them to prosper in their own country.
So it goes…
[Translate]
I’ve made note of Mr. Chavez in that regard. I agree with a lot of that. He’s a bit of a strong arm, and however well meaning his intentions are (what he says he stands for) his actions come off at the very least as seeming selfish. At worst, exactly as you describe, a thug.
Mexico is an interesting case in deed, and the people I know in a peripheral sense from California have a huge disdain for Mexicans, as if California is one big “little Mexico” state or something. I would have thought more of that of Texas, where the bias seems to be much less against the Mexicans. Any how, I’d have to agree with you on that as well. The Mexican government (the police force in particular I understand) is very corrupt and they make it very difficult if not impossible for people to there to prosper.
I read somewhere that Mexico has large swaths of impoverished people that lack even basic education. I understand that way back when, a lot of businesses moved into Mexico because of how weak the Mexican peso was.
[Translate]