PDA

View Full Version : Proselytizing: Freedon of Religion or Religious Imperialism


Volcana
Sep 9th, 2007, 12:24 AM
In a Sept. 5 op-ed piece in The New York Times, the Indian writer Chitrita Banerji noted that Mother Teresa’s charity toward the dying in Calcutta was often accompanied by last-minute pressure to convert to Christianity. Are such efforts really an expression of our cherished freedom of conscience, or are they a form of religious imperialism directed toward those who are so poor in this world that their only hope lies in the next world?
Interesting. Discuss.

SunriseSunset
Sep 9th, 2007, 01:25 AM
I can't stand being forced to do something. For example, Tom Cruise setting up his Scientology tents stopping people as they walked past. Or Madonna trying to convert African children to Kabballah when they gave them treatment. Why not just supply good in a charitable way and leave it at that? It's like they had ulterior motives. Let them die and leave them alone. Why hassle them at that moment? If you want to give them comfort, then hold their hand and talk to them as they die. Or better yet, help them out before they even get sick.

Darop.
Sep 9th, 2007, 01:36 AM
I once remember a South Park episode of "missionaries" forcing christianity upon starving africans who were so hungry they'd try to eat the bibles :lol:



I may be sort of OT and banal, but people who try to recruit the poor into their religion in exchange for food/help are just pathetic. These people don't even know what they're going to be eating at their next meal, I don't think they really care about religion or if god exists, and forcing a religion on them in just like mindless recruiting, as most of them probably don't even have the mental capability of critical thinking :shrug:

Volcana
Sep 9th, 2007, 02:40 AM
I was an atheist most of my life. It wouldn't be honest to even say I'm an agnostic now. I'm just not convinced there's no god. Having said that, if you BELIEVE that it makes a difference if somebody converts to your religion before they die, how can you NOT try to convert them?

Whitehead's Boy
Sep 9th, 2007, 03:57 AM
From what I understand, according to some people, Mother Theresa was to be far from perfect, to put it mildly.

The problem is, if you need to convince other people your religion is true, then your religion is most certainly a lie. If there would be a true religion, there would be no need to convince other people, it would be obvious to all of us.

One of the - conscious or not - motivation of religious people to help the poor is to convert them, no doubt about it.

Lord Nelson
Sep 9th, 2007, 03:01 PM
Of course mother theresa would try to have the young convert to Christianity, she is a Chrisitan nun!

volcana sometimes you amaze me.

meyerpl
Sep 9th, 2007, 06:20 PM
I was an atheist most of my life. It wouldn't be honest to even say I'm an agnostic now. I'm just not convinced there's no god. Having said that, if you BELIEVE that it makes a difference if somebody converts to your religion before they die, how can you NOT try to convert them?

How about out of respect? How about because one's faith is highly personal and nobody elses business? How about because nobody appreciates anyone trying to impose their beliefs on them, even by subtle means?

meyerpl
Sep 9th, 2007, 06:32 PM
Of course mother theresa would try to have the young convert to Christianity, she is a Chrisitan nun!

volcana sometimes you amaze me.
Being a Christian nun doesn't excuse obnoxious behavior. Anyone trying to convert me to their religion is being obnoxious. Anyone trying to convert one of my children to their religion is beyond obnoxious, it's an unacceptable imposition. I don't give a rat's ass what kind of head-gear or collar a person is wearing or what they think their calling is, if they start trying to indoctrinate my children they'll find they've bitten off more than they can chew. It's no better than me pulling a devout Christian's child aside and saying, "Oh, by the way, there is no God, it's made-up bullshit, just like the Easter Bunny." It's no better, no worse. It's extremely inappropriate. You don't fuck with someone's child. You might find yourself trying to pick your teeth up off the ground with broken fingers.

Lord Nelson
Sep 9th, 2007, 06:50 PM
Being a Christian nun doesn't excuse obnoxious behavior. Anyone trying to convert me to their religion is being obnoxious. Anyone trying to convert one of my children to their religion is beyond obnoxious, it's an unacceptable imposition. I don't give a rat's ass what kind of head-gear or collar a person is wearing or what they think their calling is, if they start trying to indoctrinate my children they'll find they've bitten off more than they can chew. It's no better than me pulling a devout Christian's child aside and saying, "Oh, by the way, there is no God, it's made-up bullshit, just like the Easter Bunny." It's no better, no worse. It's extremely inappropriate. You don't fuck with someone's child. You might find yourself trying to pick your teeth up off the ground with broken fingers.

There is nothing obnoxious in trying to convert people. The brand of religion should be tame though.

Yes there is no God, so what???? Religion is like a club where you have to adhere to a code of values. Communists did not care about religionand their system collapsed. Where communism has survived like in North Korea, the Kims have invented their own religion where the leader is a living God. :devil:

meyerpl
Sep 9th, 2007, 07:03 PM
There is nothing obnoxious in trying to convert people. The brand of religion should be tame though.

Yes there is no God, so what???? Religion is like a club where you have to adhere to a code of values. Communists did not care about religionand their system collapsed. Where communism has survived like in North Korea, the Kims have invented their own religion where the leader is a living God. :devil:
So, there would be nothing obnoxious about me hanging around in front of churches, synagogues and mosques trying to "convert" the faithful to atheism? It's perfectly acceptable for me to "convert" other people's children to atheism?

There can be no double standard here and still be fair minded. You can't have it both ways.

meyerpl
Sep 9th, 2007, 07:09 PM
There is nothing obnoxious in trying to convert people. The brand of religion should be tame though.

Yes there is no God, so what???? Religion is like a club where you have to adhere to a code of values. Communists did not care about religionand their system collapsed. Where communism has survived like in North Korea, the Kims have invented their own religion where the leader is a living God. :devil:
Sort of a sawed-off God with a bad haircut!

Whitehead's Boy
Sep 9th, 2007, 09:24 PM
There is nothing obnoxious in trying to convert people.

Worst than that, taking advantage of people who are ill, poor (in other words, without hope) to pressure them to convert to your religion is morally repulsive.

Whitehead's Boy
Sep 9th, 2007, 09:38 PM
Yes there is no God, so what???? Religion is like a club where you have to adhere to a code of values.

There is no God, so what, you say. Well, if there is no God, then Christianity, Islam and Judaism are lies, and their entire system (including code of values), completely fall apart. So it extremely matters if there is a God or not.

Apoleb
Sep 9th, 2007, 09:49 PM
There's a big difference between exposing people to other views (whether it's about religion or whatever) and pressuring them, especially in situations like when helping the poor. It's actually almost immorant IMO.

kiwifan
Sep 9th, 2007, 10:09 PM
depends on who's doing it and how their doing it.

I know if my friends knew the secret to "eternal life" or "heaven" or "nirvana" or whatever, I might expect them to share the secret with me.

Of course if I show no interest in the secret, they should then leave me alone about the secret.

And contrary to popular believe the overwhelming majority of Christians are like that. If you tell them to get lost, they'll leave you alone unless you feel that getting Christmas cards or a "G-d Bless you" after you sneeze is religious imperialism.

But I tend to think that's a lack of tolerance on the atheists' part, a little Anti-Religious Imperialism ;)

meyerpl
Sep 9th, 2007, 10:24 PM
depends on who's doing it and how their doing it.

I know if my friends knew the secret to "eternal life" or "heaven" or "nirvana" or whatever, I might expect them to share the secret with me.

Of course if I show no interest in the secret, they should then leave me alone about the secret.

And contrary to popular believe the overwhelming majority of Christians are like that. If you tell them to get lost, they'll leave you alone unless you feel that getting Christmas cards or a "G-d Bless you" after you sneeze is religious imperialism.

But I tend to think that's a lack of tolerance on the atheists' part, a little Anti-Religious Imperialism ;)
How much "tolerence" do you think the religious community would have for atheists organizing under the pretext of helping poor children and, while they're at it, sharing "the word" with the kiddies that there is no God?

kiwifan
Sep 9th, 2007, 11:35 PM
How much "tolerence" do you think the religious community would have for atheists organizing under the pretext of helping poor children and, while they're at it, sharing "the word" with the kiddies that there is no God?

its not a pretext if they actually help poor children...

...and last time I checked they did actually help. ;)

so under your "pretext" hypothesis, even I would be outraged and I don't give a shit about people's personal religious choices. :angel:

kiwifan
Sep 9th, 2007, 11:37 PM
How much "tolerence" do you think the religious community would have for atheists organizing under the pretext of helping poor children and, while they're at it, sharing "the word" with the kiddies that there is no God?

its not a pretext if they actually help poor children...

...and last time I checked they did actually help. ;)

so under your "pretext" hypothesis, even I would be outraged and I don't give a shit about people's personal religious choices. :angel:

Whitehead's Boy
Sep 9th, 2007, 11:51 PM
If you're agonizing in an hospital, or are extremely poor, are you in a position to tell people who pressure you to convert to Christianity to fuck off? Especially when those people actually happen to help you.

It's a vicious form of spreading religion. I have absolutely no problem with Christians who help the poor and talk about their faith, but there is a huge difference between simply talking about your faith and putting pressure on people.

meyerpl
Sep 10th, 2007, 12:58 AM
its not a pretext if they actually help poor children...

...and last time I checked they did actually help. ;)

so under your "pretext" hypothesis, even I would be outraged and I don't give a shit about people's personal religious choices. :angel:
You're dodging the question. O.K. We won't try to look into their hearts to see their true motivation.

How much tolerence do you think the religious community would have if atheists organized and actually helped poor children and, while they were at it, shared the word that there is no God with the little kiddies?

Lord Nelson
Sep 10th, 2007, 09:20 PM
There is no God, so what, you say. Well, if there is no God, then Christianity, Islam and Judaism are lies, and their entire system (including code of values), completely fall apart. So it extremely matters if there is a God or not.
I would include all the religions and sects you mentioned like Scientology, wiccanism etc....
Yes they are not true according to me, so what?? Many people want to believe in something. Let them. Many of us belive in things that are not tangible, maybe you too such as ghosts or whatever.

Lord Nelson
Sep 10th, 2007, 09:23 PM
So, there would be nothing obnoxious about me hanging around in front of churches, synagogues and mosques trying to "convert" the faithful to atheism? It's perfectly acceptable for me to "convert" other people's children to atheism?

There can be no double standard here and still be fair minded. You can't have it both ways.
Good luck in you trying to convert Muslims to atheism in front of mosques. RIP meyer I guess. ;)

CooCooCachoo
Sep 11th, 2007, 07:13 AM
Yes, this is a form of religious imperialism.

Scotso
Sep 11th, 2007, 07:35 AM
Of course they would try to convert them to Christianity. They think that it will save their souls. From their point of view, it's very important and very much the right thing to do.

If a private group launches a charity and actually helps people - why should it matter what they teach? People on these boards say in one thread that people should be able to say whatever they want, then go to another and criticize people for believing something or another and for trying to encourage others to adopt that belief. You either have freedom of speech for all, or you don't have freedom of speech. This was not forced on anyone, they had the option to refuse assistance.

In my opinion it's extremely pathetic to sit on your ass behind a computer doing nothing for the poor and sick while frowning upon such a minor part of what these people do. They help people, the people are infinitely better off for that help. So what is better, people that help people while trying to teach them something you don't agree with, or people that try to teach that teaching people something you don't agree with is wrong while not helping anyone but yourself?

Scotso
Sep 11th, 2007, 07:36 AM
How much tolerence do you think the religious community would have if atheists organized and actually helped poor children and, while they were at it, shared the word that there is no God with the little kiddies?

So their intolerance justifies your own?

Scotso
Sep 11th, 2007, 07:40 AM
If you're agonizing in an hospital, or are extremely poor, are you in a position to tell people who pressure you to convert to Christianity to fuck off? Especially when those people actually happen to help you.

You are in a position to make a choice. Deny help, or accept help knowing there are strings attached. If you make the latter choice, you have no room to complain.

It goes back to the old adage, there's no such thing as a free lunch. Everyone has an agenda.

Scotso
Sep 11th, 2007, 07:42 AM
The problem is, if you need to convince other people your religion is true, then your religion is most certainly a lie. If there would be a true religion, there would be no need to convince other people, it would be obvious to all of us.

Right, because when the truth is revealed to people they always accept it without hesitation. :rolleyes:

Scotso
Sep 11th, 2007, 07:45 AM
There is no God, so what, you say. Well, if there is no God, then Christianity, Islam and Judaism are lies, and their entire system (including code of values), completely fall apart. So it extremely matters if there is a God or not.

I'm sure you heard of the placebo effect. If someone believes in something that helps them endure life's suffering, why does it matter if it's "true" or "false."

Whitehead's Boy
Sep 11th, 2007, 07:47 AM
I would include all the religions and sects you mentioned like Scientology, wiccanism etc....
Yes they are not true according to me, so what?? Many people want to believe in something. Let them. Many of us belive in things that are not tangible, maybe you too such as ghosts or whatever.

What a non sequitur. We are letting people believe what they want to believe.

I happen to care about truth, so I find the sentence "who cares if there is no God" to be silly, so I commented on that. Or maybe you meant to say: "I don't care that there is no God", in which case I don't have a problem with it.

Whitehead's Boy
Sep 11th, 2007, 07:50 AM
Of course they would try to convert them to Christianity. They think that it will save their souls. From their point of view, it's very important and very much the right thing to do.

If a private group launches a charity and actually helps people - why should it matter what they teach? People on these boards say in one thread that people should be able to say whatever they want, then go to another and criticize people for believing something or another and for trying to encourage others to adopt that belief. You either have freedom of speech for all, or you don't have freedom of speech. This was not forced on anyone, they had the option to refuse assistance.

In my opinion it's extremely pathetic to sit on your ass behind a computer doing nothing for the poor and sick while frowning upon such a minor part of what these people do. They help people, the people are infinitely better off for that help. So what is better, people that help people while trying to teach them something you don't agree with, or people that try to teach that teaching people something you don't agree with is wrong while not helping anyone but yourself?

You obviously missed the point of the thread, which is about when people PRESSURE people to convert to their religion.

Whitehead's Boy
Sep 11th, 2007, 07:56 AM
I'm sure you heard of the placebo effect. If someone believes in something that helps them endure life's suffering, why does it matter if it's "true" or "false."

It matters because truth matters. I don't oppose religion tolerence, but people are pushing it way too far by claiming it doesn't matter if religions are not true. It does matter.

Scotso
Sep 11th, 2007, 08:04 AM
And why does it matter to you?

Scotso
Sep 11th, 2007, 08:05 AM
You obviously missed the point of the thread, which is about when people PRESSURE people to convert to their religion.

People put pressure on other people in many ways and about many things on a daily basis. The problem you have with this is not that people are being pressured, but that you don't like religion. That's fine, that's your choice, but you don't have the right to make that choice for others.

Whitehead's Boy
Sep 11th, 2007, 08:06 AM
Right, because when the truth is revealed to people they always accept it without hesitation. :rolleyes:

You're missing the point. If an all-knowing, all-powerful, all-good entity would exist, he would make his existence obvious enough to every rational people (and not make them rely on the assault of reason known as "faith" - rolling eyes), and most importantly he would make his teachings clear enough instead of obscure bullshit theologians need centuries to decipher. :rolleyes: Now, would some people reject it, yes probably, but who cares. At least every rational person would have the rational truth accessible.

There would no need for the Mother Theresa of the world who perniciously take advantage of the poor and the sick to spread the good news. :tape: :rolleyes: :help:

CooCooCachoo
Sep 11th, 2007, 08:08 AM
Of course they would try to convert them to Christianity. They think that it will save their souls. From their point of view, it's very important and very much the right thing to do.

If a private group launches a charity and actually helps people - why should it matter what they teach? People on these boards say in one thread that people should be able to say whatever they want, then go to another and criticize people for believing something or another and for trying to encourage others to adopt that belief. You either have freedom of speech for all, or you don't have freedom of speech. This was not forced on anyone, they had the option to refuse assistance.

In my opinion it's extremely pathetic to sit on your ass behind a computer doing nothing for the poor and sick while frowning upon such a minor part of what these people do. They help people, the people are infinitely better off for that help. So what is better, people that help people while trying to teach them something you don't agree with, or people that try to teach that teaching people something you don't agree with is wrong while not helping anyone but yourself?

You make it sound as if they were being offered candy if they converted to Christianity. In such a case, it would be right to speak of a choice, or a possibility to refuse assistance. It becomes a tit for tat kind of thing.

In a situation such as the one depicted in the first post, however, this is simply not the case. It is my belief that when someone is dying, it is your duty to help them regardless of their religion, skin colour, sexuality, gender, political views et cetera. The strings attached in this case create a kind of idealized, distorted reciprocity where one's life is being bartered with. Sure, we will help you to stay alive, if only you change your entire outlook on life. To me, this is not assistance; it is one of the lowest forms of indoctrination.

I know it's a long stretch, but your argumentation almost makes it seem as if the Christian missionaries that were sent throughout the world were also offering assistance.

Whitehead's Boy
Sep 11th, 2007, 08:11 AM
People put pressure on other people in many ways and about many things on a daily basis. The problem you have with this is not that people are being pressured, but that you don't like religion. That's fine, that's your choice, but you don't have the right to make that choice for others.

No, my problem is precisely that people are being pressured. In case you STILL haven't realized, this is what the topic is about.

I don't have a problem with religions, other than the fact that at most one of them is right, and most probably all of them are wrong.

Scotso
Sep 11th, 2007, 08:31 AM
In a situation such as the one depicted in the first post, however, this is simply not the case. It is my belief that when someone is dying, it is your duty to help them regardless of their religion, skin colour, sexuality, gender, political views et cetera. The strings attached in this case create a kind of idealized, distorted reciprocity where one's life is being bartered with. Sure, we will help you to stay alive, if only you change your entire outlook on life. To me, this is not assistance; it is one of the lowest forms of indoctrination.

It's also a stretch to say that their life is being bartered with. Come on. The post said the people were dying, it didn't say that the Christians were denying them medical treatment they need to live unless they converted. Nor did it say that people who did not convert were treated differently than people who did. All it said is that they put pressure on them to convert, and I truly believe they only did so because they felt it was in the person's best interests. After all, converting the near-dead is not an efficient way of increasing your followers.

CooCooCachoo
Sep 11th, 2007, 09:06 AM
It's also a stretch to say that their life is being bartered with. Come on. The post said the people were dying, it didn't say that the Christians were denying them medical treatment they need to live unless they converted. Nor did it say that people who did not convert were treated differently than people who did. All it said is that they put pressure on them to convert, and I truly believe they only did so because they felt it was in the person's best interests. After all, converting the near-dead is not an efficient way of increasing your followers.

From the quote in the first post:

last-minute pressure to convert to Christianity

This, to me, makes it sound as if they were indeed putting the dying on the spot.

I am sure that they felt it was in the person's best interest. I also believe that the Jehovah's witnesses that bother me feel it's in my best interest. I also believe that missionaries believed their converting practices were in the best interest of the so-called Other. However, I also believe that these all constitute forms of imperialism, be it religious or cultural or a synthesis of the two. They are far from ethical, even if meant in a 'good' way.

And I actually believe that converting the near-dead is a very efficient way of increasing followers. It adds to one's reputation, regardless of whether the person lives or not.

meyerpl
Sep 11th, 2007, 09:18 AM
People put pressure on other people in many ways and about many things on a daily basis. The problem you have with this is not that people are being pressured, but that you don't like religion. That's fine, that's your choice, but you don't have the right to make that choice for others.
Think about what you wrote and remember, we're talking about other peoples children and vulnerable adults.

Why won't anyone with your point of view touch my question: How much tolerence do you think the religious community would have for a large, well organized group of atheists delivering aid to poor children and, while they're at it, effectively promoting the notion that there is no god? It's because you know the answer and what it means in terms of the hypocrisy that prevails in the religious community.

The Christian right has no tolerence for opposing points of view. Hell, they grouse because public schools don't promote faith in God; they liken that to promoting faithlesness. Imagine how they'd howl if atheists were actually doing what they do on a large scale.

Scotso
Sep 11th, 2007, 11:48 PM
I did touch it. They wouldn't have tolerance for it, but I asked you if their intolerance justifies your own. Does it?

meyerpl
Sep 12th, 2007, 01:16 AM
I did touch it. They wouldn't have tolerance for it, but I asked you if their intolerance justifies your own. Does it?
I absolutely tolerate it. I'd rather have religious organizations delivering aid to the poor than not. I just happen to believe that they would be more genuine in their efforts if they didn't try to push their beliefs on those they help. You don't really see anyone trying to stop them. I'm quite certain there would be a real uproar if the non-religious community operated in the same fashion as the religious community. It's their double standard, not mine.

That said, if I became aware that someone was trying to impose their religious beliefs on my children, I'd put an abrupt stop to it. It wouldn't be the first time either.

ico4498
Sep 12th, 2007, 01:48 AM
if you BELIEVE that it makes a difference if somebody converts to your religion before they die, how can you NOT try to convert them?

issue in a nutshell.

catholics see it as the only way to save an immortal soul. i'm not a believer but the practice is consistent with their beliefs.

HippityHop
Sep 12th, 2007, 01:48 AM
Good luck in you trying to convert Muslims to atheism in front of mosques. RIP meyer I guess. ;)

:lol: :lol: :lol:

ico4498
Sep 12th, 2007, 01:50 AM
If there would be a true religion, there would be no need to convince other people, it would be obvious to all of us.

are you suggesting that the truth is universally obvious?

'cause it aint.

Whitehead's Boy
Sep 12th, 2007, 01:59 AM
are you suggesting that the truth is universally obvious?

'cause it aint.

No, I'm saying the truth would be universally obvious if there would be a God.

If it's not well... What's the logical conclusion? Truth is not universally obvious, because there is no magical entity to tell us what is the truth. We have to find out by ourselves. We are alone.

If we take Christianity, there are 23498423984293842398482 denominations, who teach contradictory way to attain salvation. And it doesn't bother God. :confused: He would only need to make one miracle to tell us who is right (catholics?, Jehovah witnesses?, calvinist?, mormons?, etc)... But God stays quiet. :confused: Again, what's the logical conclusion?

HippityHop
Sep 12th, 2007, 01:59 AM
Think about what you wrote and remember, we're talking about other peoples children and vulnerable adults.

Why won't anyone with your point of view touch my question: How much tolerence do you think the religious community would have for a large, well organized group of atheists delivering aid to poor children and, while they're at it, effectively promoting the notion that there is no god? It's because you know the answer and what it means in terms of the hypocrisy that prevails in the religious community.

The Christian right has no tolerence for opposing points of view. Hell, they grouse because public schools don't promote faith in God; they liken that to promoting faithlesness. Imagine how they'd howl if atheists were actually doing what they do on a large scale.

It's an interesting hypothetical but that's all it is. I guarantee you that there will never be a large well organized group of atheists delivering aid to poor children because there is nothing in their philosophy that calls them to do so.

The Christian right might believe that you are going to hell if you don't believe as they do, but they don't believe, unlike some, that they are called to kill you if you don't believe as they do.

HippityHop
Sep 12th, 2007, 02:03 AM
I absolutely tolerate it. I'd rather have religious organizations delivering aid to the poor than not. I just happen to believe that they would be more genuine in their efforts if they didn't try to push their beliefs on those they help. You don't really see anyone trying to stop them. I'm quite certain there would be a real uproar if the non-religious community operated in the same fashion as the religious community. It's their double standard, not mine.
That said, if I became aware that someone was trying to impose their religious beliefs on my children, I'd put an abrupt stop to it. It wouldn't be the first time either.

Come on meyerpl, are you really making the argument that the non-religious community (if you can call it that) does not try to foist their beliefs on others by attempting to remove all references to religion from the public sphere?

Number19
Sep 12th, 2007, 02:04 AM
No, I'm saying the truth would be universally obvious if there would be a God.

If it's not well... What's the logical conclusion? Truth is not universally obvious, because there is no magical entity to tell us what is the truth. We have to find out by ourselves. We are alone.

If we take Christianity, there are 23498423984293842398482 denominations, who teach contradictory way to attain salvation. And it doesn't bother God. :confused: He would only need to make one miracle to tell us who is right (catholics?, Jehovah witnesses?, calvinist?, mormons?, etc)... But God stays quiet. :confused: Again, what's the logical conclusion?

Free will.

ico4498
Sep 12th, 2007, 02:06 AM
The Christian right might believe that you are going to hell if you don't believe as they do, but they don't believe, unlike some, that they are called to kill you if you don't believe as they do.

history & current affairs passed yah by. :lol:

ico4498
Sep 12th, 2007, 02:17 AM
What's the logical conclusion?

this is where your argument becomes very flawed.

logic is of little consequence to believers. they come to their belief on faith without evidence. making "logical conclusions" from that foundation is as silly as the notions you later ascribe to the "logical god".

whats logic got to do with it?

meyerpl
Sep 12th, 2007, 02:23 AM
Come on meyerpl, are you really making the argument that the non-religious community (if you can call it that) does not try to foist their beliefs on others by attempting to remove all references to religion from the public sphere?
Absolutely. We aren't trying to foist anything on anybody. We're simply insisting that religion not be foisted upon us or our children in public schools and other public institutions. The place for religion is in the church, in the home and in one's personal life. It is NOT in public schools, public parks, courthouses, government buildings, etc.

HippityHop
Sep 12th, 2007, 02:23 AM
history & current affairs passed yah by. :lol:

Not at all. I am not about to make the argument that anyone has a monopoly on doing evil. However, I defy you or anybody else to show me one instance where Christ himself commanded his followers to kill those who don't follow him.
In fact, Christ specifically rebuked some of his disciples who asked his permission to call down fire from heaven to destroy some people who did not want to hear his teachings.

Of course some have committed atrocities in Christ's name but I guarantee you that they don't/didn't have a leg to stand on from the teachings of Christ himself.

Now there are some beliefs where the founder does specifically tell his followers to kill non-believers. But I won't go there.

It's interesting that it takes someone like me to defend Christianity on this board. Where are the believing Christians? Are they afraid to defend their faith?

Whitehead's Boy
Sep 12th, 2007, 02:26 AM
Free will.

The problem is that the "free will" defense doesn't work. If the truth would be accessible to us, we would STILL have the free will to reject it. For example, many people reject the historical fact that the Holocaust happened, even if every rational person knows it's the truth.

Free will means having the choice. But the problem is that, at the moment, the choice is completely random, rather than being rational. If truth would be accessible, then we would still have the choice to accept or reject it, but at least our choice would make sense.

HippityHop
Sep 12th, 2007, 02:31 AM
Absolutely. We aren't trying to foist anything on anybody. We're simply insisting that religion not be foisted upon us or our children in public schools and other public institutions. The place for religion is in the church, in the home and in one's personal life. It is NOT in public schools, public parks, courthouses, government buildings, etc.


Let's take a case in point. I don't know if you are in California but the ACLU has sued the county of Los Angeles to remove the cross from the county seal. This cross has been on the seal since its inception.
The cross is in fact an historical emblem on the seal to show just how important the Christian missionaries were in the founding of Los Angeles County.

To prove that it's an attack against Christianity there is also the image of a Roman goddess on the seal. That's a religious symbol but the ACLU has nothing to say about that one.

Why not change all of the names of the cities in California to secular names? After all many cities are named after saints. :eek:

But what's more irritating is that they are trying to erase the history of the Catholic missionaries from the early history of California by eliminating the seal.

ico4498
Sep 12th, 2007, 02:32 AM
I defy you or anybody else to show me one instance where Christ himself commanded his followers to kill those who don't follow him.

err, didn't yah say "the Christian right" in the post i quoted? not "Christ himself" but the Christian right.

nice try tho' ...

HippityHop
Sep 12th, 2007, 02:37 AM
err, didn't yah say "the Christian right" in the post i quoted? not "Christ himself" but the Christian right.

nice try tho' ...

You know precisely what I'm talking about that's why you won't address it. And I don't blame you. ;)

If someone is not following the teachings of Christ, they can call themselves Christians but that doesn't make them Christians.

Hell, I can go stand in my garage and call myself a Lexus but that doesn't make me one.

meyerpl
Sep 12th, 2007, 02:37 AM
Not at all. I am not about to make the argument that anyone has a monopoly on doing evil. However, I defy you or anybody else to show me one instance where Christ himself commanded his followers to kill those who don't follow him.
In fact, Christ specifically rebuked some of his disciples who asked his permission to call down fire from heaven to destroy some people who did not want to hear his teachings.

Of course some have committed atrocities in Christ's name but I guarantee you that they don't/didn't have a leg to stand on from the teachings of Christ himself.

Now there are some beliefs where the founder does specifically tell his followers to kill non-believers. But I won't go there.

It's interesting that it takes someone like me to defend Christianity on this board. Where are the believing Christians? Are they afraid to defend their faith?
Defend their faith? I'm not attacking anyone's faith nor do I see any such attacks pervasive in this thread. I have tremendous respect for faith and for people with faith. I'm only asking for the same respect in return. I've never derided faith, only hypocrisy and those who try to impose their beliefs on others.

I think the Christian right would do well to pay due consideration to Christ's teachings. If Christ walked among us today, a lot of so-called Christians would shout him down.

HippityHop
Sep 12th, 2007, 02:39 AM
Defend their faith? I'm not attacking anyone's faith nor do I see any such attacks pervasive in this thread. I have tremendous respect for faith and for people with faith. I'm only asking for the same respect in return. I've never derided faith, only hypocrisy and those who try to impose their beliefs on others.

I think the Christian right would do well to pay due consideration to Christ's teachings. If Christ walked among us today, a lot of so-called Christians would shout him down.

Point taken. :)

Whitehead's Boy
Sep 12th, 2007, 02:39 AM
this is where your argument becomes very flawed.

logic is of little consequence to believers. they come to their belief on faith without evidence. making "logical conclusions" from that foundation is as silly as the notions you later ascribe to the "logical god".

whats logic got to do with it?

I think you misrepresent the majority of believers. Most of them claim their view is logical, and based on evidence. Actually, I can't think of any Christian or Muslim who claims that their belief is without evidence. For them, evidences are everywhere and their point of view is entirely logical.

It's just that when you start to argue with them and point out the incoherency of their worldview, they resort to "faith" and the mysterious nature of God to escape a rational discussion.

ico4498
Sep 12th, 2007, 02:41 AM
Absolutely. We aren't trying to foist anything on anybody. We're simply insisting that religion not be foisted upon us or our children in public schools and other public institutions. The place for religion is in the church, in the home and in one's personal life. It is NOT in public schools, public parks, courthouses, government buildings, etc.

we absolutely don't meet the same atheists. :lol:

anyway, if i'm certain you're gonna drive off a cliff and kill yourself, i'd pressure yah with my belief. the catholics are merely doing the same ...

btw, where's the damage? if there is no god, a death bed conversion is meaningless. if there is a god, it might make all the difference. seems like a win/no loss issue.

ico4498
Sep 12th, 2007, 02:43 AM
It's just that when you start to argue with them and point out the incoherency of their worldview, they resort to "faith" and the mysterious nature of God to escape a rational discussion.

which underlines the futility of logic in this debate.

meyerpl
Sep 12th, 2007, 02:48 AM
Let's take a case in point. I don't know if you are in California but the ACLU has sued the county of Los Angeles to remove the cross from the county seal. This cross has been on the seal since its inception.
The cross is in fact an historical emblem on the seal to show just how important the Christian missionaries were in the founding of Los Angeles County.

To prove that it's an attack against Christianity there is also the image of a Roman goddess on the seal. That's a religious symbol but the ACLU has nothing to say about that one.

Why not change all of the names of the cities in California to secular names? After all many cities are named after saints. :eek:

But what's more irritating is that they are trying to erase the history of the Catholic missionaries from the early history of California by eliminating the seal.
I wouldn't get too excited about something like that, one way or the other. Maybe the ACLU is picking the wrong battle in this case. The fact is, Christianity is firmly entrenched as the predominant religion in the U.S. Every single President has been a self-declared Christian and that isn't likely to change any time soon. Roughly 85% of Americans identify themselves as Christian. If a few Christians in the U.S. feel persecuted, it's more a product of fear mongering propaganda than any real threat. Trust me, you guys have nearly all the power. The only thing non-Christians have going for them is a thing called the Constitution, which sometimes keeps us from being completely rendered powerless against those who would turn the country into a theocracy.

HippityHop
Sep 12th, 2007, 02:53 AM
I wouldn't get too excited about something like that, one way or the other. Maybe the ACLU is picking the wrong battle in this case. The fact is, Christianity is firmly entrenched as the predominant religion in the U.S. Every single President has been a self-declared Christian and that isn't likely to change any time soon. Roughly 85% of Americans identify themselves as Christian. If a few Christians in the U.S. feel persecuted, it's more a product of fear mongering propaganda than any real threat. Trust me, you guys have nearly all the power. The only thing non-Christians have going for them is a thing called the Constitution, which sometimes keeps us from being completely rendered powerless against those who would turn the country into a theocracy.

Do you really think that a sizable number of Christians want the US to become a theocracy? I don't think so.

It's interesting and fortunate, I believe, that the US was founded primarily by Protestants who had no central athourity figures. I wonder how the US would have evolved had Catholocism been the predominant version of Christianity in the US.
Perhaps if one looks to much of South America the answer might be there. Then again it might not.

But I guess that's another thread. :)

Whitehead's Boy
Sep 12th, 2007, 02:54 AM
which underlines the futility of logic in this debate.

The problem is that religion is not merely a messageboard debate, religious people sometimes take actions and, in this case, put pressure on other people. So logic does matter.

I mean, if I decide to start killing people randomly because I believe Allah tells me to kill infidel via special revelation, it seems to me logic awfully matters. Someone needs to tell me my logic is flawed before I start doing stupid things.

Your analogy about driving off a cliff and killing yourself doesn't hold. We know for a fact that driving off a cliff means death. We don't know if we have a soul. We don't know if there's a Christian God. We don't know if there's a hell and heaven. What right do we have to pressure other people, when our knowledge isn't factual, but based on faith?

ico4498
Sep 12th, 2007, 02:57 AM
You know precisely what I'm talking about that's why you won't address it. And I don't blame you. ;)

If someone is not following the teachings of Christ, they can call themselves Christians but that doesn't make them Christians.

Hell, I can go stand in my garage and call myself a Lexus but that doesn't make me one.

i'm really not trying to get on your case but i responded to your post about the Christian right. you then changed horses midstream to "Christ himself", now you're asking an agnostic to pick "true followers".

my initial response was to the right wing Christians statement. if yah want to defend that within the context of my response ...cool. else, if yah wanna keep shifting the sand for what was clearly incorrect, good luck!.:lol:

meyerpl
Sep 12th, 2007, 02:57 AM
we absolutely don't meet the same atheists. :lol:

anyway, if i'm certain you're gonna drive off a cliff and kill yourself, i'd pressure yah with my belief. the catholics are merely doing the same ...

btw, where's the damage? if there is no god, a death bed conversion is meaningless. if there is a god, it might make all the difference. seems like a win/no loss issue.
I understand the logic in what you're saying but the problem is it's disrespectful toward the one you're trying to convert.

meyerpl
Sep 12th, 2007, 03:02 AM
I think you misrepresent the majority of believers. Most of them claim their view is logical, and based on evidence. Actually, I can't think of any Christian or Muslim who claims that their belief is without evidence. For them, evidences are everywhere and their point of view is entirely logical.

It's just that when you start to argue with them and point out the incoherency of their worldview, they resort to "faith" and the mysterious nature of God to escape a rational discussion.

Why would you argue with them at all? Isn't that just as disrespectful as somebody trying to shove religion down your throat? I may not have faith but I understand it and respect it.

ico4498
Sep 12th, 2007, 03:09 AM
Your analogy about driving off a cliff and killing yourself doesn't hold. We know for a fact that driving off a cliff means death. We don't know if we have a soul. We don't know if there's a Christian God. We don't know if there's a hell and heaven. What right do we have to pressure other people, when our knowledge isn't factual, but based on faith?

i'm sure some folks survived the quick trip off a cliff.:)

i like the analogy because its not necessarily fact based. i BELIEVE you're gonna drive off a cliff, i don't "know for a fact". i'm gonna pressure you because of a belief.

the catholics are doing the same. btw, if my butt is in the car with yah, my persuasion might get physical:lol:. not unrelated to the analogy since Christ charged his followers as their brother's keeper ...

meyerpl
Sep 12th, 2007, 03:14 AM
Do you really think that a sizable number of Christians want the US to become a theocracy? I don't think so.
It's interesting and fortunate, I believe, that the US was founded primarily by Protestants who had no central athourity figures. I wonder how the US would have evolved had Catholocism been the predominant version of Christianity in the US.
Perhaps if one looks to much of South America the answer might be there. Then again it might not.

But I guess that's another thread. :)
I agree, I don't think most Christians want the U.S. to become a theocracy, nor do I think most non-Christians are particularly interested in removing all religious symbols from money, courthouse walls, parks, etc. Unfortunately, the voices on the fringes are the loudest.

I personally couldn't care less is there's a nativity scene on the courthouse lawn or if my kids are singing Christmas carols in school. I actually appreciate those traditions. On the other hand, I would NOT sit quietly and allow the public school my children attend to line the kiddies up to pray or start teaching "intelligent design" as an alternative to established science.

I tend to think the majority of Christians and non-Christians aren't appreciably far apart in terms of our concept of the world in which we want to live and raise our children.

ico4498
Sep 12th, 2007, 03:24 AM
I understand the logic in what you're saying but the problem is it's disrespectful toward the one you're trying to convert.

thanks, but why is is disrespectful to try to save someone?

meyerpl
Sep 12th, 2007, 03:31 AM
thanks, but why is is disrespectful to try to save someone?Because you're essentially telling the person, "I'm right and you're wrong."

Whitehead's Boy
Sep 12th, 2007, 03:40 AM
Why would you argue with them at all? Isn't that just as disrespectful as somebody trying to shove religion down your throat? I may not have faith but I understand it and respect it.

You can respect other people belief and at the same time discuss it. What is disrespectful? If atheists, agnostics and skeptics would never argue against Christianity, the US would be a theocracy and Christianity would be teach in schools as a fact. If there is no one to question religious belief, then it's going to impose itself as a fact in every sphere of life.

Scotso
Sep 12th, 2007, 03:42 AM
I absolutely tolerate it. I'd rather have religious organizations delivering aid to the poor than not. I just happen to believe that they would be more genuine in their efforts if they didn't try to push their beliefs on those they help. You don't really see anyone trying to stop them. I'm quite certain there would be a real uproar if the non-religious community operated in the same fashion as the religious community. It's their double standard, not mine.

That said, if I became aware that someone was trying to impose their religious beliefs on my children, I'd put an abrupt stop to it. It wouldn't be the first time either.

Your posts in this thread show your intolerance.

Whitehead's Boy
Sep 12th, 2007, 03:44 AM
thanks, but why is is disrespectful to try to save someone?

If my belief is that I save people by torturing them, what's wrong with me torturing people to save them?

meyerpl
Sep 12th, 2007, 03:47 AM
Your posts in this thread show your intolerance.
For example? My point can pretty much be boiled down to this: Live and let live. Believe as you choose and have enough respect for others to allow them to do likewise.

Scotso
Sep 12th, 2007, 03:48 AM
If my belief is that I save people by torturing them, what's wrong with me torturing people to save them?

Oh give me a break. I really just can't understand why a few of you feel so threatened by religion. You're just as fanatical and scary as as those right-wing fundamentalists.

ico4498
Sep 12th, 2007, 03:51 AM
Because you're essentially telling the person, "I'm right and you're wrong."

yes, thats the essence of religion. :confused:

it is unfortunate that poor disadvantaged folks are more vulnerable ... but they're always the least protected. thats just the current social breaks, not just religious imperialism. as an aside, i'm a firm believer in the incidence of religious imperialism, religion was certainly a weapon in the colonist's arsenal.

meyerpl
Sep 12th, 2007, 03:52 AM
You can respect other people belief and at the same time discuss it. What is disrespectful? If atheists, agnostics and skeptics would never argue against Christianity, the US would be a theocracy and Christianity would be teach in schools as a fact. If there is no one to question religious belief, then it's going to impose itself as a fact in every sphere of life.
I take no issue with discussion, as long as all parties involved are willing participants. Generally speaking, there is nothing to be gained by arguing "against Christianity". As you aptly pointed out, faith is as the word implies; a belief taken on faith. What warrants confronting is behavior, when the behavior infringes on the rights of others.

ico4498
Sep 12th, 2007, 03:55 AM
If my belief is that I save people by torturing them, what's wrong with me torturing people to save them?

WB, we had a reasonable debate ... that analogy is beyond reasonable.

way, way, way beyond a reasonable response. :wavey:

Whitehead's Boy
Sep 12th, 2007, 03:57 AM
Oh give me a break. I really just can't understand why a few of you feel so threatened by religion. You're just as fanatical and scary as as those right-wing fundamentalists.

I really would like to point out where I have been

1) Fanatical.

2) Scary.

In this thread.

Please provide even one quotation to support your ridiculous claim.

Pressuring people to convert to a religion is wrong, period. You haven't even come close to show it isn't. No one has.

Whitehead's Boy
Sep 12th, 2007, 03:59 AM
WB, we had a reasonable debate ... that analogy is beyond reasonable.

way, way, way beyond a reasonable response. :wavey:

No, it's extremely reasonable, because it shows that I can't use my faith to do something that is morally wrong. I can't torture people. I can't kill them. I can't manipulate or pressure them. It's wrong. Period.

Mother Theresa was wrong to pressure people to convert to Christianity. She was wrong. Wrong wrong wrong. Just like I would be wrong to torture people based on my faith.

ico4498
Sep 12th, 2007, 04:43 AM
Live and let live. Believe as you choose and have enough respect for others to allow them to do likewise.

reasonable treatise ... :worship:

ico4498
Sep 12th, 2007, 04:53 AM
No, it's extremely reasonable, because it shows that I can't use my faith to do something that is morally wrong.

nah. its repulsive, 'cause even her harshest critics have never portrayed Mother Theresa as a sadist.

where are you going with this?

woosey
Sep 12th, 2007, 04:59 AM
I was an atheist most of my life. It wouldn't be honest to even say I'm an agnostic now. I'm just not convinced there's no god. Having said that, if you BELIEVE that it makes a difference if somebody converts to your religion before they die, how can you NOT try to convert them?

in certain religions - christianity and islam - proselytizing, i.e. spreading the word, the gospel, etc. is the foundation of their belief. and so, according to their own texts, often they are dutybound to spread it.

having said that, i think proselytizing is the work of the devil. :devil: if i'm to believe in such a thing.

ico4498
Sep 12th, 2007, 05:09 AM
in certain religions - christianity and islam - proselytizing, i.e. spreading the word, the gospel, etc. is the foundation of their belief. and so, according to their own texts, often they are dutybound to spread it.

having said that, i think proselytizing is the work of the devil. :devil: if i'm to believe in such a thing.

lol, believe in the devil ... gottah believe in his opponent.

Whitehead's Boy
Sep 12th, 2007, 05:30 AM
nah. its repulsive, 'cause even her harshest critics have never portrayed Mother Theresa as a sadist.

where are you going with this?

I just took a random example (that wasn't an analogy) to show that we can't use our own faith to do an action normally considered as wrong.

Pressuring people to believe something is usually considered as wrong, and faith can't be used as an excuse.

meyerpl
Sep 12th, 2007, 05:55 AM
nah. its repulsive, 'cause even her harshest critics have never portrayed Mother Theresa as a sadist.

where are you going with this?

Come on, you know what he means, you're just being contradictary. Of course he isn't calling Mother Theresa a sadist. He's saying that if you can use faith to justify bad behavior, by logical extension, you could use it to justify really bad behavior.

ico4498
Sep 12th, 2007, 06:01 AM
I just took a random example (that wasn't an analogy) to show that we can't use our own faith to do an action normally considered as wrong.

Pressuring people to believe something is usually considered as wrong, and faith can't be used as an excuse.

from this you're willing to portray Mother Theresa as a sadist?

get a grip. its just not credible.

Whitehead's Boy
Sep 12th, 2007, 06:07 AM
I take no issue with discussion, as long as all parties involved are willing participants. Generally speaking, there is nothing to be gained by arguing "against Christianity". As you aptly pointed out, faith is as the word implies; a belief taken on faith. What warrants confronting is behavior, when the behavior infringes on the rights of others.

The problem is that a religion like Christianity like woosey pointed out work by "spreading the good news". So it is intrusive by nature.

And we see in every sphere of society. Just one example (but there are so many in the US): Creationists are doing everything they can to convince people the Bible is the scientific truth and we should teach it at school. So us skeptics are just supposed to stay quiet?

With so many people treating their religion as the "truth", I say we don't have much choice but to argue with them.

ico4498
Sep 12th, 2007, 06:09 AM
He's saying that if you can use faith to justify bad behavior, by logical extension, you could use it to justify really bad behavior.

fair enough, i guess ...

i'm oblivious to her "really bad behavior" ... but no doubt i'll be educated.

Whitehead's Boy
Sep 12th, 2007, 06:09 AM
from this you're willing to portray Mother Theresa as a sadist?

get a grip. its just not credible.

Not really. I don't portray Mother Theresa as a sadist. I'm just saying she was wrong in pressuring some people to convert to Christianity.

ico4498
Sep 12th, 2007, 06:32 AM
Not really. I don't portray Mother Theresa as a sadist. I'm just saying she was wrong in pressuring some people to convert to Christianity.

and i disagree. nothing wrong with differing viewpoints ...

CooCooCachoo
Sep 12th, 2007, 03:20 PM
Absolutely. We aren't trying to foist anything on anybody. We're simply insisting that religion not be foisted upon us or our children in public schools and other public institutions. The place for religion is in the church, in the home and in one's personal life. It is NOT in public schools, public parks, courthouses, government buildings, etc.

Agreed. The separation of church and state is to be treasured.

Scotso
Sep 12th, 2007, 05:16 PM
For example? My point can pretty much be boiled down to this: Live and let live. Believe as you choose and have enough respect for others to allow them to do likewise.

That implies that you keep your nose out of other people's business. Which means that what these Christians did doesn't concern you. :shrug:

Scotso
Sep 12th, 2007, 05:20 PM
Agreed. The separation of church and state is to be treasured.

I agree, but it has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

woosey
Sep 12th, 2007, 05:23 PM
Oh give me a break. I really just can't understand why a few of you feel so threatened by religion. You're just as fanatical and scary as as those right-wing fundamentalists.

do you know why pope john paul II went on an apology tour at the turn of the millenium? apologizing for the catholic church's actions worldwide in this past century, but particularly in the americas.

when you watch the new cate blanchett movie about queen elizabeth, make sure you are completely clear about the relationship between her rise, the transatlantic slave trade, the murder of millions of indigenous people and how the church of england followed lockstep.

and when you understand how religions (including islam) act to oppress those who are not like them, then you should come back and talk that crap.



here is a bbc story:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4694896.stm

Church apologises for slave trade

Dr Rowan Williams says the apology is 'necessary'
The Church of England has voted to apologise to the descendants of victims of the slave trade.
An amendment "recognising the damage done" to those enslaved was backed overwhelmingly by the General Synod.

Debating the motion, Rev Simon Bessant, from Pleckgate, Blackburn, described the Church's involvement in the trade, saying: "We were at the heart of it."

The amendment was supported by Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams and Archbishop of York John Sentamu.

Dr Williams said the apology was "necessary".

He said: "The body of Christ is not just a body that exists at any one time, it exists across history and we therefore share the shame and the sinfulness of our predecessors and part of what we can do, with them and for them in the body of Christ, is prayer for acknowledgement of the failure that is part of us not just of some distant 'them'."

Branding irons

During an emotional meeting of the Church's governing body in London, Rev Blessant explained the involvement of the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts in the slave trade.

The organisation owned the Codrington Plantation in Barbados, where slaves had the word "society" branded on their backs with a red-hot iron, he said.


We were directly responsible for what happened

Rev Simon Bessant

He added that when the emancipation of slaves took place in 1833, compensation was paid not to the slaves but to their owners.

In one case, he said the Bishop of Exeter and three colleagues were paid nearly £13,000 in compensation for 665 slaves.

He said: "We were directly responsible for what happened. In the sense of inheriting our history, we can say we owned slaves, we branded slaves, that is why I believe we must actually recognise our history and offer an apology."

The synod passed a motion acknowledging the "dehumanising and shameful" consequences of slavery.

It comes ahead of commemorations of the 200th anniversary of the Slave Trade Act of 1807, which will be marked next year.

The debate heard from descendants of the slave trade including the Rev Nezlin Sterling, of Ealing, west London, who represents black churches. She told the synod that commemorations of the 200th anniversary would revive "painful issues and memories" for descendants.

The apology comes after Dr Williams was criticised in November for saying that missionaries "sinned" by imposing hymns ancient and modern on places such as Africa.

CooCooCachoo
Sep 12th, 2007, 08:59 PM
I agree, but it has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

It did with the post I replied to.

And I really can't comprehend how you can support the tactics employed, but oh well.

tterb
Sep 12th, 2007, 11:27 PM
That implies that you keep your nose out of other people's business. Which means that what these Christians did doesn't concern you. :shrug:
I'm pretty sure voicing objections to proselytizing doesn't mean you're actively attempting to ban it. Meyerpl has already said that he'd rather have religious charitable organizations doing good and "spreading the word," than doing nothing at all. :shrug: "Live and let live" has never meant that one has no opinions on others' beliefs. It means you tolerate those beliefs, as long as they don't translate into actions that infringe upon others' rights.

To me, if Mother Theresa is simply telling the poor or sickly about Christianity, it's not the worst thing in the world. If, on the other hand, there is pressure to convert involved, that's pretty low in my opinion. I understand that one of the tenets of Christianity is spreading the "good news," but to take advantage of people in desperate conditions that have no other options for help leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

If someone said to me, "I believe that Jesus died for our sins, and that if you accept him as your Savior, you will go to heaven," I don't think that would bother me. The issue for me is the lack of context - in my experience, these beliefs are rarely prefaced by "I believe," but rather presented as fact, and sometimes accompanied by fear-mongering tactics ("Non-believers go to hell" and all - not that I believe Mother Theresa in particular ever said that to anyone :) ).

I understand that for the religious, faith is a fact - claiming facts with no evidence as a basis for one's worldview terrifies me, but as long as those beliefs are kept at home or in church or displayed appropriately in public, that's okay. "Live and let live." But when faith is presented as the only option, the one truth, to underpriveledged people around the world, it smacks of religious imperialism. :shrug:

Volcana
Sep 13th, 2007, 01:02 AM
How much "tolerence" do you think the religious community would have for atheists organizing under the pretext of helping poor children and, while they're at it, sharing "the word" with the kiddies that there is no God?
Actually, that would trying to convince the kiddies that there is no God. However, if you actually bringing people real help, like food and medicine, does it matter?

Volcana
Sep 13th, 2007, 01:11 AM
Why won't anyone with your point of view touch my question: How much tolerence do you think the religious community would have for a large, well organized group of atheists delivering aid to poor children and, while they're at it, effectively promoting the notion that there is no god?
I'll take that question on. Most Christians would have NO tolerance for that. Most Muslims that I know of would have no tolerance for that. However, it's not exactly an equivalence.

Most followers of monotheistic religions get along. Most of their values are similar. There are disagreements over detail, for overall, they all agree that there's a single 'supreme' being.

An aggressive atheistic posture attacks that BASE of religion, not the details. It's a bit light the difference between arguing over ther color of a house, and saying it has to be torn down.

Volcana
Sep 13th, 2007, 01:18 AM
Do you really think that a sizable number of Christians want the US to become a theocracy?Absolutely. There's a movie called 'JesusCamp' you could take a look at. But 'sizable' is a relative term. Is ten million people sizable? Twenty million? Seems so to me, but it's not even 10% of the population of the USA.

Volcana
Sep 13th, 2007, 01:32 AM
Oh give me a break. I really just can't understand why a few of you feel so threatened by religion.It's not religion that's threatening. It's SOME believers, be they Jim Jones, George Bush or Osama bin Laden. Fiction isn't threatening. In fact, a good deal of it is VERY entertaining.

Then there's Lt. Gen. William G. Boykin....

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2003/10/21/warring_with_god/

I KNEW that my God was bigger than his," Lieutenant General William G. Boykin said of his Muslim opponent. "I knew that my God was a real God, and his was an idol."

How do you make the arguement to ANY follower of Islam that you're trying to do good, when a general high up in the so-called 'War on Terror' makes comments like that? SO perhaps the way to look at it is, the IS such a thing as 'religious imperialism'. The question is where the line is.

Whitehead's Boy
Sep 13th, 2007, 02:38 AM
Absolutely. There's a movie called 'JesusCamp' you could take a look at. But 'sizable' is a relative term. Is ten million people sizable? Twenty million? Seems so to me, but it's not even 10% of the population of the USA.

That movie freaked me out :tape: I had to pretend it's fiction for my mental health. It pretty much shows what Christianity is about though, when you take scripture seriously, as opposed to those who pick and choose the verses they like.

Most followers of monotheistic religions get along. Most of their values are similar. There are disagreements over detail, for overall, they all agree that there's a single 'supreme' being.

I have to disagree, Christianity and Islam are completely different, despite being both abrahamic religions. According to Islam, all Christians burn in hell. And because Muslims don't believe in the divinity of Jesus, they'll go to hell to, according to Christianity. I would say it's more than mere details. Muslims don't believe in the trinity, so they're not even worshipping the same God.

Volcana
Sep 13th, 2007, 03:07 AM
That movie freaked me out :tape: I had to pretend it's fiction for my mental health. It pretty much shows what Christianity is about though, when you take scripture seriously, as opposed to those who pick and choose the verses they like.I disagree. My mother is a good example of what Christianity is all about, if you take your scripture serious. She follows thew words of Jesus Christ, not the interpretations of those who pervert them.

meyerpl
Sep 13th, 2007, 03:50 AM
I have to say that this is a great thread. Thanks to everyone who contributed for providing food for thought. All anyone can ask for is for people to give consideration to other points of view. It's a healthy exercise. Undoubtedly, most people will still hold dearly to their views, but hopefully we'll all gain a degree of understanding and respect for each other's opinions after gaining a little more insight.

Whitehead's Boy
Sep 13th, 2007, 04:01 AM
QUOTE=Volcana;11632552]I disagree. My mother is a good example of what Christianity is all about, if you take your scripture serious. She follows thew words of Jesus Christ, not the interpretations of those who pervert them.[/QUOTE]

Christianity isn't only about what Jesus said, it's believing the Bible is divinely inspired. When you read the Old Testament and see what kind of character God is, then it's not really hard to understand why the fundies scare kids with hell, and insist consistently on the dangers of sin.

Jesus might have been a nice dude, but he sure wasn't shy to talk about hell, and how it's hard to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. What he said About Judas: "It would have been good for that man if he had NOT been born.” To me it' entirely clear what it means. :tape:

Let's face it: Love in Christianity is just one side of the story. You get the other side of the story when you open the Bible, or when you listen to fundies, who actually take scripture seriously and don't dismiss the nasty parts.

HippityHop
Sep 13th, 2007, 05:39 AM
QUOTE=Volcana;11632552]I disagree. My mother is a good example of what Christianity is all about, if you take your scripture serious. She follows thew words of Jesus Christ, not the interpretations of those who pervert them.

Christianity isn't only about what Jesus said, it's believing the Bible is divinely inspired. When you read the Old Testament and see what kind of character God is, then it's not really hard to understand why the fundies scare kids with hell, and insist consistently on the dangers of sin.

Jesus might have been a nice dude, but he sure wasn't shy to talk about hell, and how it's hard to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. What he said About Judas: "It would have been good for that man if he had NOT been born.” To me it' entirely clear what it means. :tape:

Let's face it: Love in Christianity is just one side of the story. You get the other side of the story when you open the Bible, or when you listen to fundies, who actually take scripture seriously and don't dismiss the nasty parts.[/QUOTE]

And who told you this?

Whitehead's Boy
Sep 13th, 2007, 07:06 AM
And who told you this?

Jesus.

More seriously, people who believe in Jesus need to believe the Bible is a special revelation, because what we know of Jesus comes from the Bible! If you reject the Bible as not being the Word of God then... Why believing the parts about Jesus and the supernatural claims concerning him? That's the "pick and you choose" business I was talking about...

There is no reason to only accept what Jesus said and reject the rest, especially when the New Testament constantly refers to the Old Testament. And Jesus does refer to Old Testament.

When I see the behavior of people in a movie like Jesus Camp, I do think it is shocking... However I also think it is the logical consequence of seriously believing in the Bible.

Sam L
Sep 13th, 2007, 10:21 AM
I disagree. My mother is a good example of what Christianity is all about, if you take your scripture serious. She follows thew words of Jesus Christ, not the interpretations of those who pervert them.

Well, scripture was not written by Jesus. It's debatable whether she's really following the words of Jesus or scripture as written by the likes of Paul.

Sam L
Sep 13th, 2007, 10:26 AM
In a Sept. 5 op-ed piece in The New York Times, the Indian writer Chitrita Banerji noted that Mother Teresa’s charity toward the dying in Calcutta was often accompanied by last-minute pressure to convert to Christianity. Are such efforts really an expression of our cherished freedom of conscience, or are they a form of religious imperialism directed toward those who are so poor in this world that their only hope lies in the next world?

But all (organized) religions are like that. This isn't something unique to Christianity although Christianity because of its roots has a more aggressive, missionary nature to it than any other religion.

Still, I'm not a big fan of Mother Teresa. I just think there should be a separation of church and everything and that includes charity work.

Doing good deeds is fine but don't do it because of religion and don't tell people that. Religion should always be a private thing.

meyerpl
Sep 13th, 2007, 12:06 PM
Jesus.

More seriously, people who believe in Jesus need to believe the Bible is a special revelation, because what we know of Jesus comes from the Bible! If you reject the Bible as not being the Word of God then... Why believing the parts about Jesus and the supernatural claims concerning him? That's the "pick and you choose" business I was talking about...

There is no reason to only accept what Jesus said and reject the rest, especially when the New Testament constantly refers to the Old Testament. And Jesus does refer to Old Testament.

When I see the behavior of people in a movie like Jesus Camp, I do think it is shocking... However I also think it is the logical consequence of seriously believing in the Bible.
Another logical consequence of this kind of rigid thinking would be to own slaves along with a lot of other things that would be viewed as bizarre in today's world.

HippityHop
Sep 13th, 2007, 03:19 PM
Jesus.

More seriously, people who believe in Jesus need to believe the Bible is a special revelation, because what we know of Jesus comes from the Bible! If you reject the Bible as not being the Word of God then... Why believing the parts about Jesus and the supernatural claims concerning him? That's the "pick and you choose" business I was talking about...

There is no reason to only accept what Jesus said and reject the rest, especially when the New Testament constantly refers to the Old Testament. And Jesus does refer to Old Testament.

When I see the behavior of people in a movie like Jesus Camp, I do think it is shocking... However I also think it is the logical consequence of seriously believing in the Bible.

It's true that Jesus referred to the OT, but how? If you study the teachings of Jesus you will find that he abrogated some of what was in the OT.

This reminds me of the people who say that Jesus said "judge ye not" and then take that to mean that we should not make judgements about good and evil. They fail to realize that there is much more that Jesus said in that passage than "judge ye not". He also made other pronouncements about how you tell who is good and who is evil which obviously requires judgement.

But again theological exegesis is much too extensive to discuss here, so I won't.

HippityHop
Sep 13th, 2007, 03:27 PM
Absolutely. There's a movie called 'JesusCamp' you could take a look at. But 'sizable' is a relative term. Is ten million people sizable? Twenty million? Seems so to me, but it's not even 10% of the population of the USA.

How much of JesusCamp do you think represents most Christians in the USA? You're right the term sizable is relative.

Things like JesusCamp remind me of newstations who when they want the "Christian" point of view on an issue go out and get the most outrageous, out of the mainstream "spokesman" that they can find.

It's like me forming my opinion about the gay community from the fringe element of the drag queens and leather queens that you find the media focusing on at the gay pride parades.

There are very few documetaries about the three "taboo" subjects of sex, religion and politics that I trust because the makers invariably have an ax to grind.

I also believe very strongly that if you put up a referendum for Christians to vote on in the USA of "shall the United States become a theocracy with Christian pastors having final say on all laws passed by the secular government", I'll bet you dollars to donuts that it won't get 2% of Christians to vote for it.

Expat
Sep 13th, 2007, 04:39 PM
as a hindu who has had personal experience of what christian missionaries do in india
i would say one thing
the persons converting are so poor they can't even afford medicines or food
99% of conversions that happen in india happen because the missionaries promise free food or medicines to the dying children and force the whole family to convert

i am not sure this is salvation just desperation to stay alive
the fault is not of these poor people
i m not sure where these christian missionaries are heading to heaven or hell
i remember this speech by a christian missionary after the tsunami
he was thanking god for creating the tsunami because it created opportunities for them to convert because the people had lost all their houses and belongings and family members and were vulnerable to be converted easy pickings for the soul collector

Expat
Sep 13th, 2007, 04:44 PM
and to those people who say conversions happen out of free choice
i would say that happens only 1 in a 1000
the history of all religions (including my religion hinduism ) is proof of that

Sam L
Sep 13th, 2007, 04:51 PM
as a hindu who has had personal experience of what christian missionaries do in india
i would say one thing
the persons converting are so poor they can't even afford medicines or food
99% of conversions that happen in india happen because the missionaries promise free food or medicines to the dying children and force the whole family to convert

i am not sure this is salvation just desperation to stay alive
the fault is not of these poor people
i m not sure where these christian missionaries are heading to heaven or hell
i remember this speech by a christian missionary after the tsunami
he was thanking god for creating the tsunami because it created opportunities for them to convert because the people had lost all their houses and belongings and family members and were vulnerable to be converted easy pickings for the soul collector

There are some despicable Christians but Christianity itself is not bad.

I think in their desire to convert they lose sight of what the religion is about like in your example there. They are probably brainwashed too. I know there are some churches that are a bit on the wacky side of things. I stopped being friends with a girl after she took religion too seriously. She used to point out that so and so famous person is Christian and that's why she likes them etc and went to a missionary school and and tried to get me to go to church every week and read the Bible etc. And worse of all she judges you. I thought enough and cut her loose.

For a lot of pastors in some churches Christianity is a money-making business too. They make so much in donations.

I read the Bible and I have no problems with Christianity but I do have a problem with some churches and some religious Christians.

woosey
Sep 13th, 2007, 05:37 PM
i'm amazed that people don't get what the problems are with attempting to convert people - particularly in light of history.

it is not about being a "good" or "bad" christian, or even doing it the "wrong" way. the reality is, there is no nice way to convert people because implicit in trying to convert someone is the belief that you are right and they are wrong. implicit is the belief that you are full and they are empty. that you have and they do not, they are lacking.

and when you go to places where people are poor and sometimes desperate and you've got the bible in one hand and some food in the other, well that's a grand manipulation right there. it's saying, look, my god is so good that not only does he provide for me, but he can provide for you too - we have clothes, food, technology, shelter, etc. your god, obviously does a poor job of caring for you. you don't have to say anything explicitly. the symbolism is already there.

the backbone of christianity is to gain converts. historically, gaining converts has been a messy business. and it continues to be.

woosey
Sep 13th, 2007, 05:38 PM
as a hindu who has had personal experience of what christian missionaries do in india
i would say one thing
the persons converting are so poor they can't even afford medicines or food
99% of conversions that happen in india happen because the missionaries promise free food or medicines to the dying children and force the whole family to convert

i am not sure this is salvation just desperation to stay alive
the fault is not of these poor people
i m not sure where these christian missionaries are heading to heaven or hell
i remember this speech by a christian missionary after the tsunami
he was thanking god for creating the tsunami because it created opportunities for them to convert because the people had lost all their houses and belongings and family members and were vulnerable to be converted easy pickings for the soul collector

there isn't a christian alive who believes he/she's going to hell, especially for trying to gain converts.

woosey
Sep 13th, 2007, 05:40 PM
Do you really think that a sizable number of Christians want the US to become a theocracy? I don't think so.

It's interesting and fortunate, I believe, that the US was founded primarily by Protestants who had no central athourity figures. I wonder how the US would have evolved had Catholocism been the predominant version of Christianity in the US.
Perhaps if one looks to much of South America the answer might be there. Then again it might not.

But I guess that's another thread. :)

the people who put bush in office twice would not mind.

woosey
Sep 13th, 2007, 05:42 PM
thanks, but why is is disrespectful to try to save someone?

save them from what?

woosey
Sep 13th, 2007, 05:45 PM
Let's take a case in point. I don't know if you are in California but the ACLU has sued the county of Los Angeles to remove the cross from the county seal. This cross has been on the seal since its inception.
The cross is in fact an historical emblem on the seal to show just how important the Christian missionaries were in the founding of Los Angeles County.

To prove that it's an attack against Christianity there is also the image of a Roman goddess on the seal. That's a religious symbol but the ACLU has nothing to say about that one.

Why not change all of the names of the cities in California to secular names? After all many cities are named after saints. :eek:

But what's more irritating is that they are trying to erase the history of the Catholic missionaries from the early history of California by eliminating the seal.

i'll bet there are some native americans - in all parts of the americas - who would like to erase the catholics from the face of the earth.

Sam L
Sep 13th, 2007, 05:52 PM
i'm amazed that people don't get what the problems are with attempting to convert people - particularly in light of history.

it is not about being a "good" or "bad" christian, or even doing it the "wrong" way. the reality is, there is no nice way to convert people because implicit in trying to convert someone is the belief that you are right and they are wrong. implicit is the belief that you are full and they are empty. that you have and they do not, they are lacking.

and when you go to places where people are poor and sometimes desperate and you've got the bible in one hand and some food in the other, well that's a grand manipulation right there. it's saying, look, my god is so good that not only does he provide for me, but he can provide for you too - we have clothes, food, technology, shelter, etc. your god, obviously does a poor job of caring for you. you don't have to say anything explicitly. the symbolism is already there.

the backbone of christianity is to gain converts. historically, gaining converts has been a messy business. and it continues to be.

Judaism used to be a proselytizing religion too but it is no longer. This is the same with Buddhism so there's no telling what will happen to Christianity.

Once again, you have a negative opinion of something and you've pretty much written off anything that's related to it. From your post, it seems as if you don't like Christianity itself.

woosey
Sep 13th, 2007, 05:53 PM
I'll take that question on. Most Christians would have NO tolerance for that. Most Muslims that I know of would have no tolerance for that. However, it's not exactly an equivalence.

Most followers of monotheistic religions get along. Most of their values are similar. There are disagreements over detail, for overall, they all agree that there's a single 'supreme' being.
An aggressive atheistic posture attacks that BASE of religion, not the details. It's a bit light the difference between arguing over ther color of a house, and saying it has to be torn down.

history and current events are not on your side for this particular argument. i'm at a loss as to how you could even think such a thing. it's too easily refuted.

woosey
Sep 13th, 2007, 06:24 PM
Judaism used to be a proselytizing religion too but it is no longer. This is the same with Buddhism so there's no telling what will happen to Christianity.

Once again, you have a negative opinion of something and you've pretty much written off anything that's related to it. From your post, it seems as if you don't like Christianity itself.

i'm not a religious person. i believe in people believing in and doing whatever they want. christians don't really hold that view hence this thread about proselytizing.

it's not negative to think proselytizing is wrong. i think it's negative (and history proves this) to think that proselytizing is not just ok, but positive.

it is not usually an exchange of ideas between equals. it is usually an exchange between the haves and have nots. for me, proselytizing is just wrong and creates bad energy.

so, i'm not so sure why you're positive because maybe you don't take issue with it. i take issue with tons of people being killed because of it.

that woman kate blanchett portrays in your sig - she was behind a great deal of proselytizing and murder. and she benefited greatly from it. that is not positive. it is negative.

i feel like my priorities and beliefs are more on the side of righteousness. at least i've learned from history.

and no, i don't like christianity or any religion that asks me to forsake my own brain for a sometimes nutty line of reasoning.

HippityHop
Sep 14th, 2007, 12:36 AM
i'm not a religious person. i believe in people believing in and doing whatever they want. christians don't really hold that view hence this thread about proselytizing.

it's not negative to think proselytizing is wrong. i think it's negative (and history proves this) to think that proselytizing is not just ok, but positive.

it is not usually an exchange of ideas between equals. it is usually an exchange between the haves and have nots. for me, proselytizing is just wrong and creates bad energy.

so, i'm not so sure why you're positive because maybe you don't take issue with it. i take issue with tons of people being killed because of it.

that woman kate blanchett portrays in your sig - she was behind a great deal of proselytizing and murder. and she benefited greatly from it. that is not positive. it is negative.

i feel like my priorities and beliefs are more on the side of righteousness. at least i've learned from history.

and no, i don't like christianity or any religion that asks me to forsake my own brain for a sometimes nutty line of reasoning.

Hmmmmmmmmm.

meyerpl
Sep 14th, 2007, 02:55 AM
How many Christians who believe in proselytizing would have no objection to someone who is very persuasive trying to convince their children that there is no god? As for proselytizing, it isn't just the self righteousness of it that galls me, it's the hypocrisy of the practitioners.

Sam L
Sep 14th, 2007, 04:20 AM
that woman kate blanchett portrays in your sig - she was behind a great deal of proselytizing and murder. and she benefited greatly from it. that is not positive. it is negative.


That's rubbish. The American colonies were barely established even by the time she died. If you're saying that about James I, I might agree. :rolleyes:

woosey
Sep 14th, 2007, 04:36 AM
The Queen's Slave Trader: John Hawkyns, Elizabeth I, and the Trafficking in Human Souls (P.S.) By Nick Hazlewood.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0060935693/ref=wl_it_dp/105-9628945-7852425?ie=UTF8&coliid=I1REF93EV8M3KW&colid=LI0V6A3LOIVS

you need to get your facts straight and get your head out of your little squeaky clean silly world. much of britain's involvement in the slave trade began with elizabeth i.

save your stupidity for someone else dear. you're wasting it here.

at least do a simple google search before making such idiots assertions.

so now mr. christian, mr. prostelytizer.

you love a slaver. a murderer. a thief.

where's your morality?

Sam L
Sep 14th, 2007, 04:41 AM
The Queen's Slave Trader: John Hawkyns, Elizabeth I, and the Trafficking in Human Souls (P.S.) By Nick Hazlewood.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0060935693/ref=wl_it_dp/105-9628945-7852425?ie=UTF8&coliid=I1REF93EV8M3KW&colid=LI0V6A3LOIVS

you need to get your facts straight and get your head out of your little squeaky clean silly world. much of britain's involvement in the slave trade began with elizabeth i.

save your stupidity for someone else dear. you're wasting it here.

at least do a simple google search before making such idiots assertions.

so now mr. christian, mr. prostelytizer.

you love a slaver. a murderer. a thief.

where's your morality?

In your anger and hatred you're getting your facts mixed up. Nowhere in that post of yours did you tal about slavery. Now we're back to slavery? You are obsessed.

You used the words "proselytizing" and "murder" and I thought about the Native Americans. But of course, I should've known you were talking about slavery. That's all you talk about.

Good luck.

woosey
Sep 14th, 2007, 04:47 AM
In your anger and hatred you're getting your facts mixed up. No where in that post of yours talked about slavery. Now we're back to slavery? You are obsessed.

You used the words "proselytizing" and "murder" and I thought about the native Americans. But of course, I should've known you were talking about slavery. That's all you talk about.

Good luck.

and you're an idiot.

the facts are right in front of you but you refuse to look.

elizabeth and the church of england are perfect examples of why proselytizing should not occur. but if you had read my post, i wondered how anyone who claimed not to understand the problems with proselytizing yet also try to appear to be so moral could possibly admire such a woman - the one portrayed in your sig. you obviously just don't get it or anything else.

you choose to conflate issues. you choose to erect strawmans. you choose to act as though someone else is merely making things up or delusional because the facts, irrefutable, don't agree with your pie in the sky silly logic.

precisely why you and your ilk have no business moralizing and attempting to save anyone. you need help yourselves. and get your morality intact before you attempt to do the same for others.

btw, historically, proselytizing does accompany murder. read about the church of england. this is pointless because you're so stupid and uninformed.

woosey
Sep 14th, 2007, 04:51 AM
Hmmmmmmmmm.

haven't you heard of the prime directive?

or at least the hippocratic oath - Primum non nocere - first do no harm.

hmmmmmmm.

Sam L
Sep 14th, 2007, 04:58 AM
and you're an idiot.

the facts are right in front of you but you refuse to look.

elizabeth and the church of england are perfect examples of why proselytizing should not occur. but if you had read my post, i wondered how anyone who claimed not to understand the problems with proselytizing yet also try to appear to be so moral could possibly admire such a woman - the one portrayed in your sig. you obviously just don't get it or anything else.

you choose to conflate issues. you choose to erect strawmans. you choose to act as though someone else is merely making things up or delusional because the facts, irrefutable, don't agree with your pie in the sky silly logic.

precisely why you and your ilk have no business moralizing and attempting to save anyone. you need help yourselves. and get your morality intact before you attempt to do the same for others.

btw, historically, proselytizing does accompany murder. read about the church of england. this is pointless because you're so stupid and uninformed.

You are too angry and you need to calm down. :lol:

For one thing, I "claimed not to understand the problems with proselytizing"? :confused: I said I don't like proselytizing and it shouldn't be done.

woosey
Sep 14th, 2007, 01:44 PM
You are too angry and you need to calm down. :lol:

For one thing, I "claimed not to understand the problems with proselytizing"? :confused: I said I don't like proselytizing and it shouldn't be done.

you need to get a clue.:rolleyes:

Sam L
Sep 14th, 2007, 03:09 PM
you need to get a clue.:rolleyes:

Considering you didn't even know on which side of the argument I stood - which was yours, by the way - I think you're the one that need to get a clue.

i don't like christianity or any religion that asks me to forsake my own brain for a sometimes nutty line of reasoning.

Also, I got sidetracked but what a simple, narrow-minded view. Of course, I'm not surprised. You don't like a religion because the way the followers of that religion acts? Too funny but too sad at the same time. You've just exposed yourself to be an ignorant, prejudiced person.

HippityHop
Sep 14th, 2007, 04:06 PM
haven't you heard of the prime directive?

or at least the hippocratic oath - Primum non nocere - first do no harm.

hmmmmmmm.

:lol: I guess you missed the point. :lol:

woosey
Sep 14th, 2007, 04:15 PM
Considering you didn't even know on which side of the argument I stood - which was yours, by the way - I think you're the one that need to get a clue.



Also, I got sidetracked but what a simple, narrow-minded view. Of course, I'm not surprised. You don't like a religion because the way the followers of that religion acts? Too funny but too sad at the same time. You've just exposed yourself to be an ignorant, prejudiced person.

no, i think i've exposed you as an ignorant, prejudiced person. :rolleyes:

woosey
Sep 14th, 2007, 04:16 PM
:lol: I guess you missed the point. :lol:

you wrote, "hmmmmmmm."

that was open to a lot of interpretation....

HippityHop
Sep 14th, 2007, 04:24 PM
you wrote, "hmmmmmmm."

that was open to a lot of interpretation....

Only if you ignore the line of your post that I bolded. :)

woosey
Sep 14th, 2007, 04:35 PM
Only if you ignore the line of your post that I bolded. :)

i didn't ignore that. i took it into consideration when it posted.