How would more Buddhists make the world a "better" place?
Refer to the Asian (specifically, Indian) caste system, namely that of the Dalit ("untouchables").
The very idea of a particular belief system is just that. Peoples' interpretation of it is what causes much grief.
Doesn't India's caste system fall under Hinduism? And even then Hinduism doesn't encourage castes in and of itself... it just happens to be practiced in areas where castes exist... same with a lot of other religions.
Dalits are historically Hindus persecuted by Buddhists.
*Shrugs* Everyone's got to be persecuted by someone I guess... I've never heard of Buddhists persecuting anyone but if you are going to be persecuted by someone then I guess you could do worse than a group of pacifists. I do have to wonder though why so many of the untouchables are converting to Buddhism from Hinduism if they are being so persecuted.
*****That's the point.*****
This question of who's better for whom, or, who we could do without, is moot.
Also, an "untouchable" is born as one. Dalits are not converting in droves, though of course converts exist, but this has absolutely nothing to do with the question at hand.
Way to red herring.
Again, the question of who's better off is no question at all, no matter which example I present.
Actually, no. Dalits have converted to Buddhism in great numbers. Dalis have certainly endured persecution, but primarily at the hands of Hindus.
Melissa, sensible woman, why didn't I meet you earlier? Kindly tell them to get out of that E.M. Forster world of Hinduism as the 'dark, mysterious cave' and a sly brahmin taking his tea away from untouchables, and wake up to realize that, that was fiction of a dim-witted man who spoke before he understood, but saved his name by suggesting that it was all a dream. Must a debate be tainted with such imaginative parley?!
If more people practiced Buddhist teachings and Christ's teachings, the world would be a better place for sure. I think both have great things to offer. So I still find the question odd, unless you are defining Christianity by its heretics like so many do. In honesty however, if just Jesus' teachings were followed, this world would be an excellent place to be.
I like your comment a lot. Christian means Christ like; one who genuinely follows Christ. Not everybody who call themselves a Christian is actually Christlike or born again, and there are many hypocrites out there. I personally think true believers are like "salt" (adding flavor) and "light." My answer to the question...No!
Though I don't agree with the question raised in this forum, but the caste system is in Hinduism, and it is not anyway part of the religion, and no way any where near Buddhism..
Oh spare me. Why do you have to talk about India as a religion? Can't you get out of that colonial hangover of Orientalism? ...!!!
Nah, you would still have to many religions fighting each other.
Yes but that would have to be the coolest fight ever... a world of Buddhists standing around doing absolutely nothing but looking flustered. Watching a war among pacifists has to be about as exciting as watching paint dry.
Not all religions are pacifists, in fact, most aren't. The world would be no better just because of a different dominating religion.
It depends on what the new dominating religion would be... as I said before a world full of Jains would be amazing... a world full of Buddhists wouldn't be too bad...
I would say a world full of my own religion (UU) would be wonderful but we would never stop debating and nothing would get done except LOTS of volunteer work... On the other hand Gay marriage would be universally permitted. Abortion would be legal but the death penalty wouldn't be and there would be virtually no pollution... Of course we would all be driving a Prius and Burkenstocks would be universal footwear.
See? When you make across the board "all religions suck" statements you fail to take into account that 1. Religions are extremely varied and 2. Your idea of sucking is likely someone else's idea of Utopia. Which leads us to the "There can never be a Utopian society because Utopia means different things to different people" argument... And eventually that comes back to the "Atheists wanting no religion in the world are essentially selfish despots who would shape the world to suit their idea of perfect"...
Of course you could substitute "Atheists" for "Christians" or "Muslims" or any other group that would like to see another group gone.
I'm not saying do away with all religion either. Religion gives hope, and hope is a good thing. I just think an equal spread of all religions (so that they could keep each other in check) instead of a dominating religion, would be better.
*Smiles* And for that even spread to occur there would need to be more Buddhists! Ha! I win! Nee Ner!
I wonder why people keep talking about Christianity as a violent religion? We actually have violent religions in this world. We have many Christians being killed for their Christianity by others that hate them for being Christian.
It seems that the suggestion that Christianity is a like a Crusade from long ago, has really sunk into the minds of people. I just want to remind people that even the Catholics have backed off of the idea of Crusades.
Truth is, the pacifistic Christians being truly martyred are being left out of the mix oddly in this whole discussion. That is sad, and their very real factual examples show what real Christianity is. You don't hear about it often.
Awww, MelissaBarrett, I knew I'd find you in this forum. You always shoot it straight from the... eh hem... hip! I have learned never to dispute your words because you are always armed with so much logic that you hit the nail on the head every time.
My only defense in this forum topic is that we all should show some compassion. I mean, why should I wear a red dress when the blue one fits me better? Am I hurting anyone if I wear a purple dress? Why do I have to be labeled?
Melissa, YOU get it. I think I'm going to go into the forums and refer to your comments saying, 'What SHE said..." That's still participating in the forum, right?
I've already got someone saying "yeah what she said" of course I say "yeah what he said".... soon no one is going to be saying anything...
Come think of it that might be a bit of Utopia in and of itself
Who do you suggest gets eliminated? people that is...
I want to know the suggestion cooresponding to the 1/3 elimination as well.
Who goes first guys?
I would say you but something tells me that Buddhism would suffer for it.
According to various sources approximately 1/3 of the world believes in Christianity. Therefore, if all Christians were to be eliminated, there would be about 2/3 the amount of people, or 1/3 less.
Not trying to be rude, but suppose 1/3 of the other people were eliminated leaving 1/3 others an 1/3 of the world still 'Christian' which no doubt includes lots of different denominations
Why would you assume that all the Christians would be the 1/3 eliminated? I'm not a Christian per se, but
Wow... thank you for assuming that I can't do basic fractions. And for the assumption that the only way to reduce the amount of Christians is to kill them.
Melissa, I'm sure she did not mean it that way--that you can't do math. I think she was just trying to add her thoughts to the 'war'.
Let's keep our calm like Jesus surely would. Seriously, I do not think she meant anything by it.
Ohh sorry everyone I misread the question. I do not wish to play word games with people, and I do not suggest that anyone be "eliminated" (killed) based on their religion beliefs. However, religious beliefs can be "eliminated" simply with education and time.
I hope some day that the irreligious can someday win as many Nobel Prizes in the Sciences as Christians. Unfortunately the irreligious have an inadequate and dismal record when it comes to Nobel Prizes. They barely compete demographically in Nobel Prizes like literature, not the hard sciences.
Maybe with some more education and time, atheists can catch up?
Religion doesn't have any direct contribution to the scientific achievements of the Nobel prize winners. And a disproportionate amount of scientists don't believe in god .RAAS conducted a survey a few years ago and found that "Almost 52 percent of scientists surveyed identified themselves as having no current religious affiliation compared with only 14 percent of the general population". (http://phys.org/news102700045.html).
Well you would be wrong according to the statistics derived from 100 years of Nobel Prizes.
Prove (or give any evidence) that religion helped the "oh so devout" Albert Einstein (or any other Nobel prize winning scientist) come up with his brilliant work (he is one of the few "devout" Nobelists listed on "50 Nobel Laureates and Other Great Scientists Who Believe in God"). I did a little more research and came to the conclusion that Einey didn't believe in a personal God. He said himself, he had a "a deep religiosity, which, however, reached an abrupt end at the age of 12. Through the reading of popular scientific books [he] soon reached a conviction that much in the stories of the Bible could not be true....Suspicion against every kind of authority grew out of this experience...an attitude which has never left [him]" (The Quotable Einstein)
I "could be wrong", as you claim, but after doing a little research, it doesn't seem like I am.
Your inane comment about how religious beliefs can be "eliminated" simply with education and time, seems to be just that, because of the amount of Nobel Prizes won by people of belief. Just a bunch of condescending rhetoric not backed up by anything, correct?
Einstein did not believe in a personal God that intervenes as similar to Spinoza, but however wrote: we all dance to a mysterious tune, intoned in the distance by an invisible piper.
Einstein rejected atheism.
Where are your statistics and quotes? Claims can not be substantiated without proof (Thanks Miss Miller <3)!
You took Einstein's words out of context and ignored the beginning of the quote. He said “Everything is determined, the beginning as well as the end, by forces over which we have no control. It is determined for the insect, as well as for the star. Human beings, vegetables, or cosmic dust, we all dance to a mysterious tune, intoned in the distance by an invisible piper.” . Einstein was not supporting religion in this quote, he was merely saying that the world is an enigmatic place out of man's control. The pipe itself can be some "force" that we know not of controlling us. It may be some computer for all we know. However, he did not attribute the control to any being whatsoever. Especially not a judeo-christian god. He rejected "label atheism", but he simply said that we can't be sure because we are like "little child(ren) entering a huge library filled with books in many languages". The universe is simply too complex to make any claims, whatsoever.
also, "The 2008 report Average intelligence predicts atheism rates across 137 nations finds a negative correlation between national IQ and belief in God across 137 countries" (http://500questions.wordpress.com/2011/ … increases/) .
You can find that study here: http://www.valdegames.com/pig/mirror/Av … ations.pdf
I didnt take anything out of context, nor did I play clairvoyant as you attempt.
What the quote actually shows is that he believed in determinism, and following through would negate an intervening personal God. Why would God intervene? We all dance to a piper. No need to change the tune.
You took Einsteins quote out of context however to espouse your bias.
The full quote-
I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many different languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see a universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws, but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations.
Further: That deep emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God.
And no, Phoenix, on even one religious scientist and an example of how religion contributed to the scientist's findings or had anything to do with his work.
Your argument is a strawman. There was never a question if religious affiliation influenced achievements. It would be less confusing if you could learn how to respond to the posts. My comment was specifically about how- Maybe with some more education and time, atheists can catch up? In the Nobel department.
Please. The pro-Christians in this thread have created enough straw men to populate a city.
You'll be happy to know that I don't believe there is any way to prove that a God of some sort doesn't exist, and that there are good (albeit complicated) reasons to believe that something like God might exist. I think rejecting the possibility of God out of hand, as most atheists do, is no more tenable than accepting his existence without good reason, as most religionists do. We simply can't know, short of being 'enlightened' somehow. You can have faith in a doctrine, but you can't prove it.
That, of course, doesn't change the fact that I don't believe a word of Christian dogma beyond the possibility that Jesus was a real person like the Buddha or Krishnamurti. If there is a God, he/she is surely nothing like the one depicted in the Bible. I doubt God would be stupid or cruel enough to cast critical minds into a pool of burning waste just because they doubted something that insults the reason he endowed them with. I'm not that stupid or cruel, so by definition God can't be.
The twisted perversity of Christian dogma is what turns people off, not the charitable actions of a few people who, for whatever reason, choose to believe in it.
Feel free to engage in your usual rants.
It doesnt insult my reasoning. Perhaps it is just a refinement process at death and all that would imply. On the other hand I would not want to spend eternity with a willful person that is carnally biased or incapable to subject will. Hypothetical eternity multiplied by a intransigent will equals horror, in my opinion.
I think you misunderstand the term "reasoning."
But don't you worry - now it is no longer social suicide to not believe in majik, I am sure the amount of Nobel winners who don't claim to believe in majik will increase. What a strange way of measuring education. I see why you need to do it that way of course. Unfortunately - this is one of the many reasons your religion causes so many conflicts.
Thanks for validating my opinion of your irrational belief system.
I guess the same argument could be made about todays "polls", nevertheless the statistics were based on questionnaires, not public proclamations. Either way it would be speculation and assuming people are lying to support the notion. Kind of pathetic to "want your beliefs to win so bad" lol pathetic.
Want my beliefs to win? Not at all - sorry you don't understand. I don't have beliefs - I just want you to keep yours in your head where they belong.
Thanks for validating my opinion of your irrational belief system.
You do win in the mass murdering atheist dictator category though so that is something! Why does your belief system cause so much death? It must be a bummer being you.
Sorry you don't understand. It must be very frustrating to think the way you do. No wonder you are so angry.
No - being me is awesome! You can ask any of my pals.
Thanks for validating my opinion of your irrational belief system.
Ahh I see, you NEED validation. LOL Having some kind of inadequacies are you? Well you are a waste of time. I am here just to debate. That rules you out.
Listen, I'm only about a day into this website! Chillax. And in reply to that, atheists don't need to catch up. We already seem to be dominating the National Academy of Science (93% atheist).
If that were true, then education and time would have eliminated them by now. History certainly has peaks and valleys, times when there is more religion (or "spirituality") and times when there is less, but even in "educated" western countries there is not a time when there is no religion and there is not going to be. And although some people are quick to dismiss religion as being a superstition or fairy tale that only uneducated people who are unwilling to look at reality subscribe to, in fact there are many highly educated people who believe in God.
If Christianity was effective at eliminating violence and intolerance, we wouldn't have those either. Education 0, Christianity 0.
Christianity is effective at eliminating all kinds of injustices when Christianity is practiced. I've said before and I will say again that just because people claim the name of Jesus does not mean they are doing what Jesus told them to do. Jesus would not have told us to hold the Crusades, or the Inquisition.
Some believed he did, just as you believe he tells you things through an old book or in your head. You would have been right in the middle of either event because you would not have had all of the info to decide the wrongness of it had you lived during the times.
There was merely more religious ignorance than we have now. Not that we still don't have too much.
Christianity isn't special. People who want to do good will do good no matter what their beliefs. People who want to do bad will behave likewise. Christianity has had 2000 years to change human nature. Has it made any impact at all? We're still destroying the world and each other to satisfy our greed. Would we have been worse off without it? I doubt it. I was raised in a secular household. I have no problem behaving ethically. I don't need God, Jesus, or a childish fear of hell to guide my behavior.
Well said! Unfortunately, believers like to think they are taking the high road and cannot fathom a person being good unless they are threatened by a supernatural being of some sort. Most of them have been taught to think this way by their particular religious cults. It makes them feel superior, I suppose.
A) Christianity is "special" in that it provides the one, unique pathway to be with God forever. It's called Grace. And whether you "need" a fear of hell, hell is real and we should prefer Heaven.
B) Yeah, people will do what they want to do. Even the Bible is pretty clear about that. And yes, there are plenty of atheists, Muslims, Hindus, etc. who are "good" people, nice, kind, generous and helpful. People have different personalities. But Christianity is better than any other religion or philosophy at helping people who are not like that to see why they should be and how to change.
C) Yes, it's had a major impact for the good. Reread point B above, then remember that Mother Theresa did good in a place where no one else was doing what she did because of her Christianity. There are Christian groups that go into hot spots before other groups, or when other groups won't go. I'm not talking missionaries, I mean groups that help people like in Darfur and New Orleans. And there are Christian groups that stay when other groups pull out, like the Menonite groups that are still in the Gulf building houses and helping people affected by the BP disaster. These are the people living out the teachings of Jesus.
D) I grew up in an agnostic household. Religion was anything but a centerpiece of my life, and I was hardly urged to explore it for myself. I'm glad you are "good," that is as it should be. God has given everyone different personalities, and as I said, there are plenty of people who are "good" who are not Christians. Not everyone "needs" Jesus, but everyone needs Jesus!
It's not unique. There have been hundreds of religions and religious sects. Most of the Western ones claim they are the 'one true path' and all of them had adherents who felt the same way you do about your religious convictions. Are you telling me you're right and all of the other equally devoted religionists were wrong? How do you explain that without resorting to a 'just so' argument?
That claim is completely unfounded. I've learned much from Eastern religion, and very little from Western religion.
Yes, there are Christians doing good work. There are also plenty of non-religious people helping out and doing good all over the world. Most of the widely publicized Christian missionary work takes place in third world countries that have been exploited by Western nations for hundreds of years. Christian nations are therefore in a privileged position to help them, since they've reaped the benefits of their natural resources and labor forces. I find it curious that the 'Christians' who dominate public office and big business have no objection to continued exploitation. I guess that's related to their manifest destiny.
No. People just need to stop pretending they know the truth. That's all.
I like you, j-u-i-c-e. No pulp, just the good stuff.
That there have been umpteen religions is not a valid argument against the validity of any particular one, including Christianity. And that all religions, and indeed most philosophies, argue that they are "the true path" is not ipso facto a good reason for saying none of them are, including Christianity. It's kind of like saying that the first 300 years of history don't count because they don't fit into what you think of the rest of it.
Of course, I have my own experiences, but I don't expect you're too interested in that (in my "ahem" experience atheists and agnostics are quick to dismiss personal experience out of hand.)
So in your personal experience, Eastern religion is better than "Western" and therefor any claim about Christianity having a better track record of helping people to improve than other thought systems is unfounded? Interesting...
That was an interesting way to go from what I said. I was not talking about missionaries. I don't care who's in office or why, that has nothing to do with what I said. And I acknowledged that non-Christian groups are involved in these areas.
You seem very politically oriented, based on our discussion about the history of Christianity (which for you seems to basically start with Constantine and is seen in political terms) and the fact that you took my statement about Christian NGO's and turned it into a chance to talk about American public office holders.
AND...if you know Jesus, then you know the truth!
Still sticking it to them and claiming to know better than them huh?
This is why your religion causes so many fights.
People like you claiming to know the truth!
The fact that I have never seen a unicorn does not make it reasonable to assume that they exist, even if it doesn't prove that they don't. If I told you that I believed in unicorns, you would assume I was deluded.
I don't discount personal experiences. In fact, if everyone relied on their own experiences instead of parasitically clinging to the experiences of others, organized religion wouldn't exist.
You said Christianity was the best religion for 'teaching' people to be more spiritual/morally good (paraphrase). I provided an example of someone who has not found that to be the case (me). The point is, you've just presented your opinion, not a fact. It's just an unfounded claim that you wish were true.
If I seem politically oriented, it's because religion is constantly being abused to support the decimation of your enemies and the stealing of their land. Those are political concerns that religious dogma is used to justify and exonerate. If your religion excuses intolerance, aggression and land theft, it's a bad religion, plain and simple. (The same can said of political philosophies.)
Wow! Can I have the number? Or maybe email id?
The world would be a better place without religion to begin with. Some people say religion is harmless. Tell that to the victoms of the countless wars, witch hunts, and other wholesale slaughter due to their beliefs. Then there's the "multipy and be fruitful belief. Now that there are about 6 billion people on earth. At this rate, things aren't exactly looking up in the future.
Would the world be a better place if there were fewer Christians and more Buddhists?
That question is dripping with bigotry. It is is the same league as a question that asks, Would the world be a better place if there were fewer blacks and more whites?
It's no less in it's bigotry then being against homosexuality because the Christian bible says to be.
There's no whaaaat to it. The bible says to kill homosexuals. It's not hard to comprehend. It also tells you to kill all practitioners of witchcraft and any woman who marries and is not a virgin. That's just three groups of people that the Christian Bible wants killed off, 2 of which Christians tend to openly bash and fling hate towards. All your attempting to do is throw people off topic by talking about how it's dripping with hate and bigotry, yet all it really serves to do is try to cover up the Christian hate and Bigotry being thrown around.
Not all Christians follow Jesus. Most of them Cherry-Pick what to follow when it's convenient and serves them or their cause, best.
I give up on the title of being Christian. I follow Christ :p I am getting tired of saying they aren't being Christian haha
LOL that's what I did... doesn't work. *Smiles* I have no problems with your personal beliefs. The argument I was making was along the lines of not being able to disown members of a group that you belong to just because they aren't acting the way you think they should.
To illustrate: I can't disown my family when they embarrass me so that gives me a sense of responsibility in their guidance. That makes me more aware of what is going on with them... If my sister, for example, is showing signs of extreme hatred for a group and I know she's bought a gun then I kinda need to do something about it. If I don't and she does something stupid then I have to own that. That way if I see my cousin doing the same thing I am more likely to stop HIM. I can't say... oh well a TRUE member of my family wouldn't do that.
So... are you your brother's keeper? If those who follow Christ are your brothers and sisters in faith are you not at least responsible for trying to watch over them? Are you not responsible for monitoring the conditions within your faith that might cause someone to act in a way that THEY think is part of God's plan? Take our sister (?) in faith rdcast here. She obviously believes in Christ and reads the bible... That at least marginally makes her Christian. She is also just as obviously slightly unhinged. If she does something stupid when the world fails to end on her schedule is it at least marginally our responsibility? Or do we just say that she wasn't a real Christian?
Melissa, honestly, if I had been surrounded by Christians like you, I'd still be one to this day. Through many of your comments here, I think that you really understand the idea of being without judgement, what love really is, etc. But, I'm no longer one for too many reasons for that to change. I however, give you my upmost respect, even though that may not mean much.
I said that the question that initiated this forum is dripping with bigotry and I made no mention of the Bible or any of its contents.
So, why are you talking about the Bible?
Because everyone so far that has mentioned the question being full of hate and bigotry has been Christian. I apologize if your not, but the point does stand regardless.
I am a stone-cold, hardcore Christian.
That said, and regardless of what is written in the Bible, the question that kicked off this forum does, in fact, demonstrate hatred and bias towards Christians.
And as far as I am concerned, anyone who is biased towards others because of their beliefs is one who is also biased towards others because of their skin color or ethnicity.
Yeah because beliefs are inherently part of the physical make up of a human being and definitely not a choice. So much for personal responsibility eh?
According to your logic, no one can disagree with anyone! This is a ridiculous argument.
I will say it one more time -- show me a person who ridicules or hates others because of their beliefs, and I will show you someone who also ridicules or hates others because of their skin color or ethnicity.
They see others based on such things as their beliefs, skin color and ethnicity rather than on the content of their character.
Is that ridiculous enough for you?
So when Hitler had the belief that all Jews should be wiped off the face of the earth, it's the same as engaging in racism to hate him, or strongly dislike him?
Same thing with a racist. If someone utters a racial slur, if I dislike them for their beliefs about races other than their own, that somehow means I am as bad as the racist?
Again, you did nothing to explain your argument. You just repeated it.
That's a foolish assumption to make. And typical of a Christian, or any person, really, living in a black/white world. Let me tell you man, you're so off.
Forgive me, but you're a little off yourself. I've never known a Christian or read one before feenix who equated being anti-religious with being racist, and I agree they went a bit too far with it, but to retort that this is "typical of a Christian" doesn't bolster your point any more than it negates feenix's.
And feenix did make one good point, which is that "they see others based on...their beliefs...rather than on the content of their character." Obviously, this is a sin committed by both sides, but the fact is that "they" (and there are those who count for this as "they") equate your beliefs with your character, meaning that whatever they think of your beliefs is now fair game to broadcast as loudly and often as desired about you. It the same principal as racism, where your skin color becomes your character.
Yes Chris, the other day I had an "Aha!" moment when I realized I was starting to make unfair generalizations (i.e. the "typical of a Christian" thing). I believe what I should've said was that people often come to fallacious conclusions, especially this kind (I forget the name for this kind of fallacy). Many Christians seem to fall in this category, though, which I think I mentioned specifically because Feenix so heartily and boldly stated that he was a "hardcore" Christian. I've come across a number of people, specifically Christians, like that in my lifetime, especially where I live, and while they haven't said this exact statement, or hinted at the idea, the attempt to use sound "logic," but then coming to false conclusions, happens regularly. Not all Christians are that way, and for me to say "typical of a Christian" was out of line. I apologize for that. And, again, it's certainly not only a trait of Christians either. People do that with all kinds of beliefs under their belt. I'll take my foot out my mouth any day now.
The point I was making was this. Someone who judges others based on their beliefs is not automatically someone who will judge someone based on their skin color or ethnicity. I was mostly peeved by this statement, because it seemes like Feenix was almost playing the race card unnecessarily.
This coming from a Christian?
Christians are Notorious for not being accepting of others beliefs, they aren't even accepting of others sexual preferences.
However, I'm not against anyone's beliefs. I'm against forcing beliefs on people. I'm against religious views affecting other people. I'm against indoctrinating young people into religion when they should be free to choose their own religion. I'm against all the hate and bigotry you find in the bible. What people choose to believe is up to them, but what the Christians tend to do towards others shows a complete LACK of acceptance and tolerance. They would rather shove their beliefs on the world then let people make a decision on their own. And of course, everything has to be turned into hate towards them. A discussion in an Atheist forum can't possibly NOT have anything to do with them.
If Christians were not accepting of others' beliefs, you would not even be living in this country, or else you would be confined to some kind of a concentration camp.
And the truth is, homosexuals and atheists are making far greater efforts to turn out and indoctrinate children than Christians are.
Truth is, you really don't know what your talking about. Atheists and Homosexuals aren't indoctrinating anyone, Christians just want them to so they can blame someone else for what they are doing.
As for Christians being in America first, I think you and any others who believe that, have a whole lot to learn. Not to mention, I'm Native American, I would've been here regardless . But yea, Christians were not the first people here and didn't even dominate the colonies when they formed. You definitely have a lot to learn if you believe otherwise.
Christians are Notorious for not being accepting of others beliefs, they aren't even accepting of others sexual preferences.
Are those that call themselves Christians the only group that are not accepting of others points of view [strongly held beliefs]? This entire discussion is about everyone trying to prove his or her way of seeing things is the way of seeing things
See this diamond,? If we look into just one facet of it, we see one thing. If we look into another of its facets we see something different. Yet, are not both views still in and of the same diamond?
And that's where all the fighting, argueing and disagreement comes in.
However, I'm not against anyone's beliefs. I'm against forcing beliefs on people.
Is a person strongly stating their view, belief, strongly held conviction any different than your expressing your strongly held view, belief?
Both sides are trying frantically to be heard.
I'm against religious views affecting other people.
Religion from the Greek: threskeia meaning
1) Religious worship
a. A)esp. external, that which consists of ceremonies
i. Religious discipline, religion
Thayer’s Lexicon: hence apparently primarily fear of the gods I; religious worship..of the reverence of Antiochus the pious for the Jewish religion, Josephus.
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lex … &t=KJV
Whenever we take the written word and merely look at it as a law by which to judge self or others, we are not getting the “spirit” in which it was transmitted to Moshe and the people at the foot of Mount Sinai. We have to have the Spirit behind the record.
I'm against indoctrinating young people into religion when they should be free to choose their own religion.
[ in dóktrə nàyt ]
1.cause to believe something: to teach somebody a belief, doctrine, or ideology thoroughly and systematically, especially with the goal of discouraging independent thought or the acceptance of other opinions
from bing search
Yes, indoctrination is completely against the purpose of our Creator. It is not how He desires His word to be used.
I'm against all the hate and bigotry you find in the bible.
to anyone: Are you among those that don't believe God exists because if He did, surely He would destroy the evil? The day is coming it will be destroyed.
Please do not take this as a statement against people that are more strongly attracted to the same sex as an attack on them. I personally know very well and am close to four such persons and love them.
IF the entire world were homosexual, how long would it be before there were no more people? No offense meant at all. Just think about it. How long? 100 years maybe at the most..
What people choose to believe is up to them, but what the Christians tend to do towards others shows a complete LACK of acceptance and tolerance. They would rather shove their beliefs on the world then let people make a decision on their own.
Maybe they just really want to be heard like you do?
And of course, everything has to be turned into hate towards them.
Do you mean to say that when a ? is asked, "Would the world be better with less Christians?---that's not a hateful statement? That it's not a statement that can feel like an attack?
A discussion in an Atheist forum can't possibly NOT have anything to do with them.
You mean with people just like you that have feelings that just feel provoked enough to defend their views, beliefs, points of view--just like you do?
hhhhmmmnnn does that not make us all the same? everyone simply feeling attacked and trying to defend themselves....
Looks like we are all the same in that way to me.
Just to provoke more conscious thought. That is all...
If I have an only child that is male and he 'realizes' he's homosexual. [I do and he has}
And another mother or couple also has only one son that comes to the same 'realization'.
And our sons choose to become a couple. What happens to the bloodline of both families? Even if they never find that one. What happens to the bloodline of the families?
It ends right then and there....
There is no more bloodline, it dies...
If anything, homosexual couples are beneficial to our species especially because they cannot reproduce. It reduces the number of children being born, which in many circumstances is a great thing... Especially in overly populated areas, poor areas, etc.
And you act as though things are so finite. If a gay couple wants children, guess what, they can have children... They can adopt. Or, they can have sex with the opposite sex for the mere reason of procreating, then raise the child. A gay man couple and a lesbian couple could gladly and happily raise a child. There are also things like artificial insemination... but if your looking for a more natural context, refer to what I said previously. Your views are so small on the matter that you think and see the situation as if this is an "either this or that, no in between" scenario. I assure you, it is not. People can actually think you know. It's not as if people are so violently "gay" that they can't make a decision to sleep with the opposite sex in order to procreate. What? Do you think they are stupid?
And concerning continuing the bloodline... So what if your bloodline isn't continued? Is your ego so huge that you need it to, as if somehow the world will be affected detrimentally if your bloodline ceases? I'm sure there's lots of parentless kids out there who'd be quite happy if they had loving parents period, regardless of their sexual identity. "Continuing the bloodline" is nothing but ego, and there are plenty of kids out there to adopt.
When thou art come into the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee, thou shalt not learn to do after the abominations of those nations. Deuteronomy 18: 9
For these nations, which thou shalt possess, hearkened unto observers of times, and unto diviners: but as for thee, the LORD thy God hath not suffered thee so [to do]. Deut. 18: 14
And it shall come to pass, if thou shalt hearken diligently unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to observe [and] to do all his commandments which I command thee this day, that the LORD thy God will set thee on high above all nations of the earth: deut. 28: 1
Humankind was given a free will by the Father. Without free will we would not be free to either accept or reject Him and His love and blessings.
It is handed down by the Sages that YHVH offered His Covenant to other nations and people before He offered it to the people that as one nation said, "Whatever you say, we will do." but then failed because no man is able of himself but only with His Grace He is so willing and happy to give.
People may do as they please!
That's not the issue.
The issue is; there are consequences to our choices, not because YHVH is mean, but because He is a Spirit and He alone is life while the things we fight to defend are
sense knowledge restricted
they are the pleasures of the senses which of themselves are not 'wrong' but when prioritized above life they amount to only feelings that are missing a heightened dimension that was lost to man ---the reality of his own spirit personhood.
You are free to continue to take pleasure in the senses alone without the awakening of your spirit to life, but those that do shall forever be separated from the pleasure and joys known only by coming to YHVH.
I have known both. I assure you, YHVH is so much more fulfilling and satisfying to the soul than the sense knowledge that once grossly limited me to far less than He has for us.
Bias cannot be inferred from my question. My question was phrased with neutrality in mind, in fact.
For centuries, Buddhism was the dominant religion, even in India, where Hinduism dominates now. My question was actually inspired by a comment from a Christian friend from New Dehli, who asked me, philosophically, whether I thought his country would have experienced more peace in its history if it had remained Buddhist. I simplified the question and changed it to be more relevant to the participants of these forums.
I am very familiar with your overall view of Christians and Christianity.
Now, would you be so kind as to inform me of your overall view of Jews and Judaism?
You're dawgone right it's a trap.
And what prompted me to ask Chasuk what are his views concerning Jews and Judaism is an observation I have made.
While many of the atheists on this site are very critical of Christians and Christianity, I have never seen anything written by any of them in which they are critical of Jews and Judaism.
Now, why do you suppose that is the case? Is it because none of the atheists around here have the heart and the courage to attack Jews in the same ways they attack Christians? Are they afraid of the backlash that would result from their putting down Jews?
The way I see it, atheists should be just as critical of Jews as they are of Christians -- because after all, Christianity is what could be described as a subsidiary of Judaism. Or, it could be said that Judaism is the mother of Christianity.
1. Jews (and Judaism) don't have any issue with atheists. There's nothing wrong with not having a faith, since belief is not something that really matters. What do you as a Christian think of people who don't believe?
2. Jews don't proselytize. Do Christians?
3. Jews don't reserve special treatment in the afterlife for themselves; if there is an afterlife, everyone is treated the same. Is the same the case in Christian doctrine?
4. Jews overwhelmingly support marriage equality, the theory of evolution, abortion rights, and a separation between church and state. Is that the case among a majority of Christians?
You are quite wrong in your assessment of Jews and Judaism.
First, just as there are different kinds of Christians and different sects of Christianity, there are different kinds of Jews and different sects of Judaism.
What you wrote about Jews in your response mostly applies to Reformed Jews. However, when it comes to such sects of Judaism as Orthodox and Hasidic, the majority of their members are opposed to such things as "marriage equality," "Darwinism" and the ommission of God from the affairs of the state.
In fact, when it comes to seperation between church and state, Jews of all stripes go against that "law" by requiring a number of municipalities in the U.S. and Europe to have "Kosher regulations" when it comes to the sales and distribution of foods and other consumer goods.
In fact, here in New York City where I live, thousands of Orthodox and Hasidic Jews held large public demonstrations against a museum showing about dinosaurs. Many of them do not believe that dinosaurs ever existed and do not want their children to be exposed to such "lies" and "propaganda."
And one more thing, what you wrote about the way you think Jews are also applies to a number of Christian denominations, such as Episcoplal, Unitarian and The Church of Christ.
So, I return to my question.
Why aren't any of the atheists on this network ever critical of Jews and Judaism? At the very least, atheists should be as critical of highly-and-devoutly-religious Jews as they are against Christians.
By your own admission, points 1, 2, and 3 are still valid. (And #4 applies to the modern fundamentalist Haredi cults, which account for less than 5% of Jews in the country, obviously more in your neighborhood)
I live in New York City which has the largest concentration of Jews in the U.S. -- and a very high percentage of the Jewish people in this town are deeply religious.
Furthermore, a considerable number of religious Jews align themselves with Christian Evangelicals, and that is because with the exception of the "Messiah question," they have everything in common with the Evangelicals.
And then, there are "Jews for Jesus," and there are thousands-upon-thousands of them in North America, Europe and Israel.
Yes, in NYC there's also a much larger population of "UWS Jews" too. Have you polled all of NYC's Jews about their positions on these sorts of social issues?
And even if you wanted to believe all Jews have Haredi beliefs, you still have my initial points 1, 2, and 3.
You're missing one significant thing.
Essentially, an atheist is one who does not believe in deities.
And that largely underpins the critical ways in which they view Christians -- because Christians believe in God, or in what atheists consider to be a deity.
Therefore, atheists should be just as critical of Jews, of all stripes, as they are of Christians. Because after all, the vast majority of Jews, including most of the ones who are not religious at all, believe in the same God that Christians believe in.
In fact, it is more accurate to say, Christians believe in The God of the Jews.
Most atheists don't have any issue with other people having their own beliefs. They tend to have an issue with people berating them for not believing (point #1), telling them to believe (point #2), threatening them with an afterlife in hell (point #3) and supportive a regressive, anti-science political platform (point #4).
Speaking as a resident atheist - I despise all religions as being divisive nonsense - and that includes judaism.
Why do we not argue so against it? Because there are not very many evangelical Jews. Get a Jew on here sticking his religion to me - I will tell him what I think.
Happy now Mr Christian?
If you guys kept your ridiculous beliefs to yourselves - there would be no arguments.
Well at least your honest but it's a low play, I disagree with Judaism just as much as Christianity, on the other hand I have never had Judaism shoved down my throat in the same way Christianity is, maybe that is just because their numbers are small. In conclusion yeah I think the world would have been better off without the Jewish faith just as much as the christian faith.
Well, the Jewish faith spawned the Christian faith and has - arguably - caused as much strife. Maybe more. Telling everyone you are the chosen and separating yourselves into small communities within the overall community generally causes ill will.
Seems to me the Christians want to be as persecuted as the Jews, but there are too many of them to legitimately claim it.
They want to be nailed to a cross and will push you to do it. But - the Jews beat them to it with the whole, "we are the chosen ones, let us lend you some money," thing.
Divisive. * shrugs*
Wrong. Not that facts will ever sway your beliefs, of course.
Ah - a self righteous Jew. Feenix - did you order this? LOL Facts?
Lets look at the conflicts involving Jews shall we? You know - facts.
If that's what you want to call it, Mark. Naturally you would.
Yes, let's refer to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion for all those Jewish-inspired conflicts. Without that, of course, Jews have been on the receiving end of literally millennia of violence.
The facts speak for themselves. I had no part in making them.
Ah - poor you. The Christians would emulate you, but - you beat them to it. The chosen ones. Nothing divisive about that.
To be fair according to the old testament the Jewish people engaged in not a small amount of genocide. But I don't really see where this is going.
Is the "old testament" a true historical record of the Jewish people?
And if we're going to incriminate today's Jews for things recorded in the Bible that occurred 2000-3000 years ago, do all of the other nations get off scot-free because they didn't record their violent history?
Maybe there were some truly peaceful nations who didn't harm anyone from that time period. It seems pretty difficult to imagine.
I think Christianity is attacked in particular on Hubpages, more than any other religion because it is true. This would be the case for whatever was true, by those that disagree. Once one knows what Christianity teaches, one sees it all the more clearly as well. Its like a proof of its own.
In fairness, I think Jews and Judaism get a free ride because of what happened with the holocaust. Its fair they get a break to some degree, but it honestly doesn't make sense that its not included more.
When on an opposing side, one goes after what is most threatening. Nothing makes sense that Christianity is so attacked other than that its worldview best explains all we see. This is my opinion. Someone asked, and I notice a lot of things, and pay attention.
Ten minutes ago, I expressed my feelings about Judaism on another forum, which I will copy-paste here:
When I was in my teens, I fell in love with a young Jewish woman who was a member of a Reform synagogue. She wasn't particularly devout, nor was her father, but her mother was. During this period of my life, I soaked up everything that I could about Judaism. I fell in love it, with its pragmatism, with the fact that it was far more concerned with life in the here-and-now than with what might occur after. I absorbed all of the parts of its culture that I could absorb. A rabbi told me that I had become a "social Jew," and I don't think that he meant it unkindly. I immersed myself in Isaac Bashevis Singer, Herman Wouk, Bernard Malamud, Howard Fast, Chaim Potok, and in every book by every Jewish author that I could find.
Anyway, the experience changed my life. My Jewish sweetheart bought me a Hebrew grammar of the same sort that she had used as a child, and I taught myself a little Hebrew, that I have sadly now forgotten. She also bought me a pocket Tamud, which was, of course, just a collection of excerpts. I was heartbroken when I lost it years later.
I am who I am because of my early exposure to Judaism, however brief and simple it was.
I only just read this post from Chasuk. He says, after the question is posed, that "Bias cannot be inferred from my question. My question was phrased with neutrality in mind, in fact."
That is a little bit more helpful, but just saying that bias cannot be inferred by such a question isn't totally fair. Obviously, many took it a particular way. When I look at such things, and topics and boards, I take all I know of into account as well. Look at our history, for example. Its a rather careless question at best, because of all the problems it can create.
Saying after the fact, he had neutrality in mind, he could have just as easily used the word atheist or any group. He didn't however, and in keeping with the tone that is allowed on hubpages, it isn't cool, no matter how you look at it.
Not sure how its neutral..... but its something.
I find the speech to be provocative, you find the speech to be provocative. No amount of resounding personal references from people that instantly resort to abusive ad hominem attacks will change that and quite frankly enforces the belief that it is provocative. The OP's intent does not discount that.
The reason why it is provocative is because it resembles speech that allows an environment and an atmosphere, where groups of people and individuals are invariably targeted.
That is the real point here. Its why the trying to defend it is resulting in a losing battle, riddled with ad homs, and invalid points.
The environment and atmosphere that it allows, is what I disagree with. Its like trying to say the OP isn't doing that, and then getting to get away with it, while putting more Christians down in the mean time, which is ironic but obvious.
Admireres, and adherents, of Buddhism perceive it as a peaceful religion. Historically, this has been true, but only by degree. Further, it hasn't been true of all schools of Buddhism. Understand that I say this as an admirer of Buddhism. Understand that I am also an admirer of most of the essential precepts of Jesus.
The question was initially posed to me by a Christian friend living in India, which is now a Hindu nation, but which was previously predominantly Buddhist.
We both concluded that no given religion could necessarily be described as peaceable, nor as violent, but that only the worldviews of SOME of their adherents could be described as such. My question was framed to coax this conclusion, but I was obviously inept in my execution.
Thanks Chasuk, and after the original question was posed, and you got many varying replies that echoed my own, even before I came into the scene as I later saw, you shared where you were coming from.
I think its much better, when worded in a different way to reflect what you share here, and many also agree with that which I echoed. It makes more sense, and seems very fair from you to explain. I think that is all well and good.
The general putting down of people, whole groups of people when the thing being said is not possibly true of all is just getting old. It would get old on both sides. I hold myself to this as well, not just others.
If I see poor treatment, I will speak up. I never said it was hate speech, but I do appreciate the response, and clarification again. It shows character, and possibility for dialogue I think. That is all I really want here, fair dialogue in a non hostile environment if possible. I want that for all hubbers, not just me.
Thanks for your latest comments, clarifying again.
Einder, it was directed at Christians. Would it read as ok by you if it said, "Would the world be a better place if there were less of those that believed and thought as Einder does?'
Atheist here. I think the question sounded bigoted and hateful. It made me imagine someone wondering if killing a bunch of Christians or wishing them out of existence would make the world better. I'm not saying that was the asker's intention. Maybe he was asking if the world would be a better place if a lot of Christians converted to something else? I dunno.
A lot of Christians are good people. I don't dislike Christians. I don't like fundamentalists of any religion.
I think the world would be a better place if everyone would just chill and concentrate more on being good and less on making everyone else good.
Just a thought, and I don't actually mean this as criticism of anyone, just my random thoughts.
Chris, I totally appreciate your fair post there, and love that I can totally agree with an atheist on something here. Thanks for being so fair minded and explain why you think what you do, in a nice and fair way.
oceans, I can understand your feelings about the original post. I felt a bit that way myself coming in, but as I read through the responses and acknowledgments from the O.P., I realized it certainly was not his intent to speak hatefully about any group.
Once I understood that he was actually creating a dialogue and attempting to truly understand others' thoughts on this, I found it easier to participate in the discussion.
Don't know if that helps or not.
Its easy to say that after getting lashback, and then the thread is still there, saying, "Would the world be a better place if there were less Christians?"
I didn't realize until just a few minutes ago, he is a HubPages Elite. Its just not cool, and I respect the choice of HubPages to support it, but it doesn't look good, and doesn't help that underlying idea that HubPages is a place to bash Christians in particular.
I do see Christians responding in varying ways. I see some leave, some fight back, some try to kind of kiss up.... That won't be me. I will keep to facts, an ask for fairness and reasonable dialogue that is respectful of all. I can't support people that think Christians are some sub class of humanity. Not saying you are, but that post is still there. HubPages can do what they like, but people come to the site, and see stuff like this, and that it isn't only encouraged, the top of HubPages encourages it and gets involved. The effect will play out. I hope for a world that is a bit more fair to all, and addresses particular things and points as they happen. Just be more fair, that shouldn't be much to ask.
We all KNOW, this question wouldn't fly if put on another group, period.
I agree. The fact that they didnt immediately use abusive ad homs and personal attacks towards your opinions is its en vogue here to use hate speech towards Christians, no matter how innocent it may or may not have been "crafted".
Chris Hugh wrote:
"Atheist here. I think the question sounded bigoted and hateful. It made me imagine someone wondering if killing a bunch of Christians or wishing them out of existence would make the world better."
This is more than obviously true. He doesn't have a persecution complex either. Its a fact, taken at face value, that you can't miss when you visit these forums. You don't SEE the part about the Buddhism unless you click on it, and the suggestion keeps on being put out there, again and again. We all KNOW that some do wish this kind of world, as they have said it outright, or in not so many words.
Of course it CAN BE viewed as bigoted and hateful. It did right off the bat, as I KNOW these forums, just glancing through...its not reflective of real people in the real world, but still its not right that the ideas are allowed to spread, that are so awful, because that does make impact over time.
Being sorry that some took it the way it looks, doesn't make the problem go away. Having people use ad hom attacks and putting others down and fighting hard to defend that doesn't help, but it DOES shed light on the value of those people's held worldviews. They are failing them. Its not a good worldview that allows for even the suggesting of what the OP says, nor the behavior of many here being supported. It is an evidence of its own. That is something at least, to me.
LoL. Even the Buddhist would tell you no, Chasuk. Life needs balance. Many buddhists are passive people. A world full of passive people would never get anything done. Now, if your question was would the world be a better place if the whole world wasn't influenced buy capitalist, greedy, money hungry, work-work-work, time is money views, obsessed with whats next (technologically), who's the next big thing, etc, etc, and there were fewer Christians and more buddhists? Then I'd say... maybe. But "buddhist" is a hard term to define 100%. Life probably would be less stressful.
I have known peaceful Christians, let me say that. However, the more deeply you become indoctrinated with the "Word," and believe your becoming closer to the "Holy Spirit," the more you become convinced that you must share Christ with the rest of the world, and most Christians don't understand that "dust the sand of off your feet and move on" scripture when people don't receive the message, instead of trying to force it on them with legislation from the gov't, etc.
Point taken. I know I've been guilty, whether you were thinking of me when you wrote that or not. However, Jesus did tell us to make disciples of all the nations. But just because some people like to argue doesn't mean I should be one of them.
Serious question, though. When we (Christians)see, not just anti-social or unBiblical behavior, but actual legislation that tells us we have to accept things we know are wrong, or even support them (and I'm not pulling specific examples so please don't reand anything specific into it,) should we keep quiet? Should we not try to influence the laws?
That depends Chris, should you be trying to force your beliefs on to anyone else? A persons sense of right and wrong (most of the time, but not always) is tied to their religious beliefs. Something Romney and Sanatorum have made abundantly clear this election year. Should people be subject to one's religions standards of right and wrong? Or should they be subject to what can be accepted as right and wrong by all sides?
Name one thing that can be accepted as "right and wrong by all sides?" Even if you eliminate the extremes, there aren't that many things.
And everybody is subject to somebody's standard of right and wrong. If marriage to multiple persons becomes the law of the land, should we accept it? Or should we try to change it if we know it's wrong? Should we shut up and disappear, or should we try to influence people and persuade them why it's wrong?
Many people think that holding a Christian viewpoint means I'm trying to shove it down their throats, but think nothing of trying to shove their viewpoint down mine. Is that okay?
There is a difference that you aren't quite getting...
Legalizing Gay marriage does not force you to marry the same sex. Not legalizing it forces gays to not be married. One gives a choice and the other gives no room for any point of view but yours.
Legalizing abortion does not force me to get an abortion. Legalizing prostitution does not force me to pay some poor woman for sex. Am I getting this right? What you're saying is that, as long as I keep my head down and don't make waves but don't actually participate in these activities, then when Jesus asks me "Did you read My Commands?" and I say, "Yes," He'll say, "Well, that's okay. At least you didn't actually do anything..."
Do you still think I heard a voice, BTW?
*Blinks* OK... now I have to go back through 37 pages or so of conversation to find out what the hell the circumstances of that statement were and how in the hell it is related to the current conversation... was that even in this thread?
Anyway... I'll give you my gut reaction and say that if my faith depended on your conversations with Jesus then my conversation would go:
Jesus: When you saw people being made miserable by people forcing their opinions in MY name did you try to help them?
Jesus: And when you saw two people in love who wanted to be together forever did you try to help them?
Jesus: And when you saw the suffering of babies born into the world to live in constant physical agony instead of sending them back into my arms did you fight to keep them in terrible pain?
Jesus: Even after I gave you a child that suffered physically every day of his short life until I stepped in and brought him home you would still fight to force that on other children? You would still fight to make other mothers suffer through the pain of watching their child slowly die in front of them every day for their entire existence as you did?
Me: Yes because other Christians said that's what you wanted.
Jesus: Is that how you would want to be treated?
Jesus: Did you read my Commandments?
And yes... I still believe that hearing voices is a sign of mental illness.
Yes? I'm listening to you...
Which is more than you've done for me...
You're Bible says that? Which translation is that? The New World I Don't Care What You Think I Just Hear What I Want To Hear Translastion?
I believe you.
I bet your Jesus also tells people to commit suicide if it gets too hard. Never mind that God created humans in his image, and that He made it clear often that it was not for human beings to decide who is and who is not worthy of life.
Your Jesus is indeed cruel. I'm glad the real Jesus is not like yours.
You: Yes, but since you couldn't possibly have meant what you actually said, I decided that I know better.
At least that's how the conversation would end if you followed it to it's logical conclusion.
Badum-BUM! RIM SHOT!
Although I'm certainly capable of sarcasm, I don't actually usually talk to people in forums like this. But, you've proven that you're not really listening, so I could say almost anything. However, let me just point out a few things, all of which you would know if you had ever just read my hub -
1) My wife has Stage IV uterine cancer
2) We have three kids, two of whom are special needs. My daughter is severely autistic.
3)I have never heard voices.
I think I've had a chance to really think this thing through, whether you've already decided in your head that I have or not.
Are you this much fun and easy to talk to when you're working in the mental health field?
Which just proves that your Jesus and mine have different opinions. I wonder why that is...
I didn't read you hub and won't. I'm sorry if you are insulted by that but I am under no obligation to try to understand your story. You asked for my opinion and i gave it...if you don't want to know it don't ask.
I am truly sorry for your personal problems and I will keep you in my prayers... however my personal problems also color my perspective and don't make me any more right than anyone else. The same goes for you. Reading your story might help me understand your perspective but it would likely not change my opinion... especially since the listed problems aren't very different from my own which I've based MY opinions off of.
I am indeed sympathetic when I do my volunteer work... but I am sympathetic with the knowledge that the person I am working with is mentally ill. If you would like me to talk to you using that standard then I certainly will.
God is trying to tell me something, and He's using you to do it. I would just like to point out a few things.
1) My wife has Stage IV uterine cancer.
2) We have three children. One of them is mildly autistic, one of them is severely autistic.
3) I have never heard voices.
Had you ever taken five minutes to read any of my hubs you would know this.
Once again... knowing these things doesn't change my opinions and therefore reading your hubs wouldn't change my opinions.
Therefor I assume that when you hear you should never assume you assume that does not apply to you?
This is almost as much fun as my exchanges with Mark Knowles.
Okay i read your hub... now not only do i think you hear voices but i think your wife does too and that you are dangerously fueling her delusions... Happy?
But hey if you want to think that God named your children then have at it.
Why was it so important to you that I read something that you knew was likely going to make my impression worse? I'm genuinely curious as to why my opinion mattered and why you were so desperate for me to read it. Were you that eager to get a view on your hub are are you seriously so masochistic that you want someone that already believes you are on shaky ground to go beyond thinking it and know for sure? Or did you seriously think that your story was so miraculous that it would make me give up years of my life's observations and go "Praise Jesus it's a miracle"? Because honestly it really wasn't that great of a story even compared to the hundreds of stories I have heard about direct lines of communication with the big guy.
I am honestly sorry to be so blunt... I had been trying to avoid it... but you just wouldn't drop it. Please... and I'm begging you for you own sake... do not try to press the issue again. Unless I see you carrying some stone tablets past a burning bush then I'm simply not going to believe that God speaks to you.
How am I doing?
I should write a hub on it
I am alive and that is a good thing so I am doing ok ,thank you for asking.
Hows you ? and your cherubs
Emjoying the wonderful weather no doubt.
Please do write that hub! The cherubs are doing well... although I'm not sure that I would call them cherubs. The weather is entirely too warm for me but I'd live in Antarctica if they would let me
Yea ,a Hub is in order,or a blog ,they seem to earn the same benji's..
Cherub ins they are indeed.
Ha! at Antarctica, trust me hon ,I am in the last city that the USA have their base before they launch off to Scott Base ( Antarctica) and we (me) are entering the Winter phase... Brrr...
New Zealand is not on ice, but we its been a long hot summer and time to share the heat with out Northern family.
Actually, I didn't think it would make your impression worse. But, I've learned a LOT about you from this little posting.
I didn't hear voices. That you insist on believing it definitely says more about you than it does about me.
Also, if you really think this post was more blunt than previous ones, it wasn't. Don' apologize though, like I said before,you're just being you.
Obviously, it depends on what you mean by "better world."
And also how you view Christians.
My answer would be "no." But then I think the world would be a much better place if more of the people who actually call themselves Christian took their faith more seriously and lived it out better.
I agree. I know many good people who are christian: fair, don't harshly judge, don't shove bibles down your throat at the dinner table. But I also know an alarming number of christians that would sooner wrap a rope around your neck and hang you in their back yard than have a decent conversation with someone different.
It isn't a question of fewer Christians. It's a question of more people needing to stick to and actually KNOW about the religion that they claim to uphold.
What if the question to this forum read,
"Would the world be a better place if there were less Atheists, or Buddhists, and more of _______?"
How about, "Would the world be a better place if there were less Jews?"
Why is this kind of question even allowed on Hubpages?
Think about how horrifying it is...... What is the suggestion, and can we ask that about any other group and get away with it? Why is this allowed here?
Its amazing and alarming.
Just put on your breastplate of faith and take up the sword of the Living Word, and march your little self,PROUD OF YOUR SAVIOR, into battle for HIS GLORY!
That really puts it in perspective. Would the world be a better place if there were fewer black? Whites? Asians? Persons of mixed race?
Thanks for the clear thinking.
I think it's an interesting question though. It is something to think about, why so many people associate Christianity with something bad.
I guess not all offensive questions are bad. Maybe some offensive things make us think and exchange ideas.
Why would you equate something inherent about a human being to a particular belief they ascribe to?
Chris, I think it is because many are very against Christianity for personal reasons. There also are a lot of lies, assumptions, assertions and untruths and partial truths being used to paint Christianity in a particular light, that isn't reflective of what Christianity actually teaches.
This has caught on, and there is a true encouragement of some groups out there to demonize Christianity in particular. Its actually an amazing and great worldview, if you know what Jesus taught. The people quote things they hate about it, that Jesus would also hate about it! This is a clear sign to anyone thinking fairly, that they often are actually on the side of Jesus, thus Christianity. Very often, they have problems with particular people or groups and actions by those that said they were Christians, but acted opposite of Christianity. All of us should have problems with those people though. We are actually on the same page very often, and its what is askew, that needs to be looked at, then why.
I think Christianity also happens to answer the reasons why, ironically. That is something that either just "is" or not, and that I can't make true or not. My hope for all people is that they look fairly and squarely at all the facts for their own sake. So many opposing views cannot be right. Some are wrong, but some are being deceived big time.
I see a lot of nasty rhetoric against Christians nowadays and it worries me.
I see a lot of rhetoric against Christians for certain beliefs not as a group in general. That's actually a pretty specific distinction that's fairly important.
I tend to see a lot of hatred against "right wing" people, Republicans, "Teabaggers," Christians and basically anyone who doesn't toe the line of whatever is fashionable at the moment. I live in California, can you guess?
If people are complaining about certain Christian beliefs they don't agree with and not hating on Christians as a whole, I wouldn't even call that rhetoric. Nothing wrong with challenging stuff you don't agree with.
My guess on that is because Christianity is the -slightly- dominant religion. It also has a lot to do with the Christian group themselves putting their religion as the basis for their objections.
If a group of people got together and said "we don't like gays because it's icky"
then that would be one thing. These groups are saying "We don't like gays because our God says he doesn't." After a while the groups they are opposing have no choice to go after the faith because the "Christian" groups are setting it up so their opposition has to go through God to get to them.
That spreads...as such things often do... to the loudest and most noticable representatives of a faith being the only voice of that faith being heard. Unfortunately that makes the Westbourgh Baptist Church and Rush Limbaugh the voice of Christianity.
It's not completely fair but it is understandable. If Christianity wants a different representative though... it's going to be up to them to throw one up there.
I do also. I saw your other response as well, and I was born and raised in California. I have lived in a few different states and seen a lot. What gets me most are the distortions and untruths. If people could attack legitimate things, that would be so much better. I tend to agree with them!
I disagree for instance on murdering and killing people, I disagree on priests or anyone molesting children, I disagree on tv evangelists swindling money from people. So would Jesus. Its the strong need I sense from people to go after things that are distortions and not even true. Its when the discussion gets to be about something that isn't even true of Christianity, but is assigned to it and then this rage grows. Not a whole lot explains it, but its not without complete explanation. I hope this makes people think more deeply about things.
On the other hand, it is a good place to tell people about Jesus!
Well, let's see...there would be more illiteracy if you removed all the Bible translation societies who also teach people to read and write...obviously, with an ulterior motive.
There would be fewer deep wells dug in Africa and South East Asia by Christian organizations, so disease, drought, and starvation would be increased.
Fewer people would be available to meet hunger/disaster needs through groups like World Vision and Samaritan's Purse.
There would be fewer groups training prostitutes viable skills to get out of the trade and meeting the needs of the children of those folks; particularly in India.
There would be fewer groups to help people in 100s of refugee camps all over the world.
No...the world would not be a better place.
I love Bible translation societies. Half of the languages on earth didn't exist in written form before Bible translation societies decided to devise those written forms. I've known few people in my life as dedicated as the men and women who have labored for their entire lifetimes creating new dictionaries. I've known a few of them who were non-believers, by the way, at least they would have been considered non-believers by those Christians who insist on a literal resurrection.
The world would be a better place if there were fewer dogmas. Scripture should stimulate thought, not dictate it.
"Would the world be a better place if there were fewer Christians?" was the original question.
No and no, to both questions. People are people. Labels divide what it means to be human into fractiousness. We all breathe the same air. And too soon, the air will be gone. Good for us...we'll suffocate soon enough, regardless of our religious beliefs.
To look at this slightly differently I would like to take this question to mean that if all the people who are now Christian were instead Buddhist would the world be a better place. The answer? Absolutely yes.
Why? Because Buddhism is tolerant and non violent, Buddha himself stated that he was not sure if his path was the best path and that it was quite possible that other religions would work for you but that he had tried this particular path and it had worked for him and might work for you, Buddhism would have absolutely no time for imposing it's views on others, so we would have gay marriage and all the Buddhists would simply respect that as someone else's business , we would not have restrictions on stem cell research which hold back progress and cost lives and we would not have a continent with rampant poverty and HIV where the dominant religion told people to not wear condoms etc. etc.
Logically there is no doubt that if there were Buddhists instead of Christians the world would be a much better place. I say this impartially since I am a follower of neither and a student of both.
Christianity is tolerant and non violent, and if you doubt it, look at its teachings. Jesus didn't promote violence at all, and instead violence was put upon him and he died. Same with his followrs.
If you are referring to particular people that are saying they are Christians but acting opposite of what Christianity teaches, it only affirms the fact in a way. I won't assume what you are talking about for sure, but I know know what Christianity teaches. Its a common error in judgement, and many make sweeping statements about Christianity but that aren't based in fact when you look more closely.
We are not talking about the doctrine, we are talking about whether it would be better if there were more Buddhists and fewer Christians which means their actions count, Buddhism is doing lots of good and no harm, Christianity is doing lots of good and lots of harm. Christians are doing bad things in the name of their faith Buddhists are not therefore Buddhists are better for the world than Christians. Simple.
Yea, you know there are certain buddhists that set themselves on fire in protest to something; that is the epitome of selflessness in order for justice to be realized.
A lot more people across the world benefit from Christians than Buddhists. You would see society suffer for sure, if you took out Christians. I am not convinced that all Buddhists do no harm, and not convinced that as many Christians are doing horrible things as you claim either.
Buddhists may be peaceful, but they don't seem to give to others and to the community as whole the way Christians do. Yes, there are different sides, and I have nothing against Buddhists, except that it doesn't work or win out as a worldview compared to Christianity.
On the contrary Buddhism has just as strong an emphasis on charity.
I recommend you take some time to study Buddhism, oceansunsets. Based on your statements, I can only assume you know next to nothing about it.
Let me summarize Christianity and Buddhism in a single word each:
One is emotional and guilt-ridden and the other is dispassionate and intellectual. You're welcome to criticize that, if you like, but I can tell you who I'd rather spend eternity with. I don't even have to think about it. So, yes, it does win out as a worldview compared to Christianity. For lots of people. Billions, in fact.
This is quite a discussion; a good one. I must admit though, that when I first saw the question without the sub question, I immediately thought of Hitler. I think this type of thinking (would the world be better off without a certain type of people) can be dangerous.
Not always... if a group of people consistently do harm to society in general it is not dangerous at all to imagine a world without them. As a matter of fact those questions drive beneficial changes.
For example: Would the world would be better without pedophiles?
For the majority of people the answer would be yes. (Pedophiles would likely have a dissenting opinion.)
The questions that follow the original question are the questions that are most interesting to know the answers to... however if we stop asking the questions because (as would be the case in the question above) the pedophiles are offended then the debate never goes any deeper.
A pedophile describes a person who has a certain behavior and/or dysfunctional thinking. You probably know that It does not exactly count as an ethnicity, culture, religion, race, sexual orientation, etc. All pedophiles do harm. All Christians...most Christians and the groups mentioned above do not.
Wishing that no one would have pedophilia tendacies is one thing. Wishing that people would not exist because of things they have done is another. (I could go on, but it would be way off topic here.) And if this type of question would cause people to want to annihilate all pedophiles (thinking that there is no need for them to exist), it is certainly dangerous. But maybe that's the counselor in me talking. Most acts of oppression, genocide, etc. start off with this type of thinking. In my opinion, this statement should not be used at all.
As a whole, Christians do not cause harm...especially not consistently. You have some hypocrites that don't really follow Christ but call themselves Christians. Then, yo have cults and other groups who misinterpret the Word of God teach falsely. Either way, just imagining life without a whole group of people, because a few mess up or do harm, isn't really fair to those who are truly good to society. That type of thinking is judgmental and immediately puts everybody in a group in one box, when everyone is not the same. It's insulting to me because I am a Christian, obviously, & I try to live a good life, don't judge others, but believe in & love Jesus.
So basically... Christianity has no negatives and does no harm to society in any way shape or form? Is that the gist of your response?
Or are you claiming that no Christian has ever done harm to society?
Or are you saying that no person in the Christian faith has ever caused harm to society as a result of his/her religion?
Hey, Malissa. My gist is that imagining an ENTIRE religion, culture, or other group of people were not around just because SOME individuals in the group have done harm is not fair to others in the group who do not do any harm & that this type of question/thinking can be dangerous. This is the gist and my main point.
But yes, I do believe that the PURE teachings and belief in Jesus Christ are harmless. I know there have been Christians that have been harmful to others. However, that does not mean that Christianity itself is harmful. Nobody's perfect, but I think that most REAL Christians are not harmful. I think that some extreme people scream the loudest, so to say, do not act in love as Jesus teaches, and can represent in a negative light.
Thank you for responding. I hope I explained my thoughts a little better. Take care.
Untrue. If I can point out an example of how a group of people were following Jesus's teachings to the letter and managed to bring about horrific death and suffering then would you be willing to acknowledge that at least for those victims that the world would have been better off without Christianity?
Hi Crissy, many others echoed your same sentiment there. I agree, it can be dangerous, and we have seen too often in history as ideas play out. The example of Hitler is a key one, and the holocaust didn't just happen one day. Ideas matter, and how something reads and what it generates in the minds of people matter.
No editor or producer would have allowed such a question to be on their newspaper or commercial or even on a billboard, as many would take it in the same way a lot of us have when we first read it.
People will find other reasons to kill each other in the absence of religion.
Yes that is probably true, and is a good point to show that it is people that do these things, not the religions that do them. Religions can't make a war or kill a person, but they can teach to do that or not. We know of at least one religion that indeed has a prophet that encourages that of their followers.
Christianity teaches the opposite of war and murder. The prophet and apostles not only didn't kill but shed their own blood at the hands of others that didn't want their message to be true.
I agree though with what you said, they would get rid of religion only to find it didn't solve all their problems, I think that is wishful thinking and something that is just spread around for other reasons.
Human nature would still destroy the peace... Human primates are no different from those in the woods.
Nope. Christianity brought hospitals, charity and education and to some degree even our current justice system. You know, stuff like "civilization".
When the paper-back version of practicing quasi-buddhists get acute appendicitis, the pain and "reality" eventually sets in and they will immediately call 911 and more than likely end up in a hospital that was originally founded by Christianity. Just pretending one is kung-fu does not make one a martial arts expert. Kind of like how juveniles will pat themselves on the back after being publicly humiliated "claiming they taught someone a lesson". lol The proof is in the 500 years of civilized pudding. Christianity got it done.
Actually the foundations of modern medicine lay largely within Muslim and Taoist teachings.... They of course stood on the shoulders of Hebrews and the Greeks... who stood on the shoulders of the Egyptians...
So you can thank Ra for treatment for that appendix as the Egyptians had the first recorded hospitals... Well before Christ walked the earth.
As a side note... Pottery that was likely used for the preparation of herbal teas has been found in Asia. This pottery was over 8 thousand years old which-if accurate-means that herbal teas were being brewed in China 2000 years before the Christian God created the planet.
Feel free to appeal to that when it actually counts. I am talking about actual, real, modern, reality, type stuff. Anything can be claimed to have been developed from prior history. If someone needs a kidney they go to a real hospital. If they die from that condition, then they can be "mummified". lol
Theres a movie that I have always enjoyed starring Joseph Cotten and Orson Welles called the Third Man. In the movie Orson Welles makes a speech: an observation; that has a very similar theme to this:
In the last 500 years Christianity brought schools, colleges, charity, hospitals and aspects of our Justice system. All the important things that make this world even remotely civilized and tolerable. In the same 500 years, buddism brought us "yoga".
I know it's not an Orson Wells movie but I thought a link about a third century Hindu text describing surgical methods still used today might be relevant.
And for all this "civility," there is corruption beyond measure.
Also, Hinduism brought us yoga. LoL. Get your worldviews right, if you're going to criticize them.
ALSO, if all the "civilized" people in this world would "meditate" every once in a while, which is what I think you were shooting at, there would be a lot more peace and justice, less judgment and pettiness, more appreciation for our fellow man and nature even. We wouldn't be destroying our planet. There's a number of things we wouldn't be doing. I could live happily without all your "civility."
I think charity, schools and hospitals are more practical and pragmatic than meditation. But on a purely philosophical level, the core principles espoused by Jesus are as valid today as ever. They're workable. But ya know, meditation is good and I dont discount the good things in Buddhism. Karma and caste systems are not workable however.
Someone cherry picked a verse earlier, about how Jesus was not the Prince of Peace. But a "buddhist" would understand that verse, in a way that " peace is a state of mind and we are not in conflict with each other as much as we are in conflict with ourselves or specifically our carnality.
So, really it can be claimed that Jesus thoughts in that particular regard align very well with some of Buddhisms better teachings.
You are very much still confusing Buddhism and Hinduism... Caste systems are an erroneous by-product of Hinduism...
This is from a Buddhist site, A Thousand Words....
"Brahmanism, the predominant religion in India during the Buddha's time, divided all humans into four castes (attu vanna), priests, warriors, traders and labourers."
So he isn't confusing it, and not like you said, Still very much confusing them... How did he initially, that he still is? Or was it just an exaggeration? I may have missed something, is why I ask.... I don't think I did though.
Brahmanism=Hinduism... Buddha reached Enlightenment and thus "created" Buddhism in a time when Hinduism was the dominant religion (it still is)... so AGAIN, he is confusing Buddhism and Hinduism.
Bramanism is still hinduism.
BUT there are some buddist sects that followed the caste system.
Jesus was born a Jew, but that doesn't mean that we confuse Christianity with Judaism. Siddhattha Gotama was born a Hindu, but that doesn't mean that we confuse Buddhism with Christianity.
Siddhattha founded Buddhism, but he incorporated none of the elements of the Brahman caste system. The earlier mistake concerned yoga, which I consider a lesser error, if an error at all, since yoga is associated with Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism.
I think you meant "confuse Buddhism with Hinduism" in that second part, but that's a great, simple way to explain that which I could not.
I was simply refuting the idea that yoga came from Buddhism because it did not. But yes, there are Buddhists and Jainists who practice yoga, as there are now Christians and non-religious people practicing it, as well, but all with different intentions than Hindus.
No master how carefully I proofread my own work, someone always catches something that I didn't. Thank you for the catch.
There was never a confusion about yoga because I intentionally used it to replace the word with "cuckoo clock". Poetic license.
So where were we? Oh yea Christianity brought the world 500 years of schools, colleges, hospitals, charities and parts of our Justice system.
Conversely Buddhism in the last 500 years gave the world "what amounts to taking a nap" ie meditation.
Is that it?
Perhaps since Buhhda was born in to a caste system, lived in a caste system and I guess died in a caste system could it be said that buddhism brought us some " No True Buddhist Fallacy Paradox? AND taking a NAP "?
"So where were we? Oh yea Christianity brought the world 500 years of schools, colleges, hospitals, charities and parts of our Justice system. "
You forgot booze and blankets infected with smallpox. But I guess you probably wouldn't know about that, since it's historical, and not ideological.
If one or two people considered using biological warfare in conflicts was he following the teaching of Christ? Of course not. What is also illogical is to judge an entire belief system on the acts of so very few people.
You can't pick and choose when something can be labeled a by-product of Christianity, and when it can't.
It has not been established that some General in a war in combat, centuries ago was even claiming he was Christian nor can it possibly be suggested that he was carrying on some doctrine dogma or tenet of Christianity by doing so.
you will have to show that Jesus commanded anyone to put smallpox in a blanket to carry out a biological attack.
You are right...that should have been the first thing to ask of people, share proof first they were claiming Christianity or acting out of its tenets, THEN show which teachings indeed said to do any kind of version of any such thing. The opposite was true of course.
Many assume, that because many of the first people were followers of Christianity, that they had to be Christians that were doing it, or that Christianity was the drive to do something so amazingly evil. When there is this much insisted upon denial of facts and logic, this makes me think Christianity is all the more true, and that more is going on behind the scenes. Best question would be, why need some to be so wrong, and why the NEED for Christianity to be wrong, when its such a good worldview? The need I observe, would at least explain the behavior I see, but there is no explanation (outside of the Christian worldview) for people acting in these ways. Thus, my trying hard to get them to see how their own ideas are failing them, and to care more about why they don't mind that if they really don't?
A thousand words, actually you can, and you can test that idea. One needs to look at what Christianity is...and his point is valid anyway as its very obvious there is an intent to judge negatively (by actions of very few) while ignoring the millions more that do follow and do the actual good as taught by Christ.
People using biological warfare, are not drawing on the tenets of Christianity to do so. We all know people can say anything, including, "I am a Christian." When their actions show them to be diametrically opposed to it, the bigger question for us now is, why do anti christians COUNT on types like these, to make points when they failed before even getting out of the gate, so to speak?
This is what people do when the facts are not enough for them, or they are having a difficult time accepting truths or realities. Test it.... Its not "christianity" that kills through biological warfare. Now if the Pope declared it, I still wouldn't say so, because that would go against Christian teachings also. When we are wanting accuracy, these things matter. If one's goal is to just bash a worldview using poor reasoning, that is fine too, but again that fails when it does, like it did with that comment about smallpox. Amazing, that people wanted that to be some kind of slam dunk...
You both sound like conspiracy theorists. Who ever said anything about the spread of small pox being a biological weapon. That's silly. When people with antibodies to fight certain sicknesses have those sicknesses and go to a land of people never exposed them before, what do you think's going to happen. A sh*t load of people will die, which is what happened. Was it for the "greater good?" Only to the sadistic.
A thousand words, do you know what a biological weapon is? I have to ask, because of this comment you made, which has me amazed....
"You both sound like conspiracy theorists. Who ever said anything about the spread of small pox being a biological weapon. That's silly. When people with antibodies to fight certain sicknesses have those sicknesses and go to a land of people never exposed them before, what do you think's going to happen. A sh*t load of people will die, which is what happened. Was it for the "greater good?" Only to the sadistic."
The point the person brought it up, is that is is implying they were trying to harm people with smallpox! What did you take that example that was shared about smallpox blankets to mean, if you disagree with me? With all due respect, you are missing on some key points while making grave errors in thinking just to try to prove a poorly framed point and argument. How does this help you if it does, or why do you do that?
That was not what she was saying... She was saying that people that were doing the work of Christ, i.e. sharing the "Good News," unintentionally brought the smallpox disease to people with no way to fend it off. People, doing the "work of Christ," caused the end to millions of Native American lives....
If it was unintentional, which makes more sense, then what is the issue?
You can't blame a worldview or religion for diseases...
I have seen people try to blame those that came over, as intentionally spreading it on blankets...but that makes less sense. (Some extreme anti christian types, that also happened to Native American, in a group I am in.)
So now, the biggest question is, if this is the best anyone has against Christianity, it is nothing at all, and is making it look better all the time. Is this someone's best shot at an unbelievably good worldview? Don't you see how it fails horribly?
A biological attack was considered based on actual letters. On the other hand this was centuries ago and even prior to that you cannot compare our medical knowledge to that time period. Your claim fails because you are blaming "immigration" as some kind of sole christian thing with some evil intent. People move from place to place. In fact some moved here to escape.
Yep... the smallpox thing was quite helpful. The reduction of native Americans from an estimated high of 18 million to just over 500 thousand by those Christians who were following Christ's teaching to the letter was nothing. Those 17 and a half million people who died horribly would certainly not be better off if the 1000 or so missionaries that caused it all would have been Buddhist.
Or, they would have been better of actually if they had been following Christ's teachings. They were doing the opposite, and its actually not helpful.
We do see thousands upon thousands of christian missionaries continuing to daily change the world for the better, while following the teachings of Christ. They give up their lives and any monetary gain to do so, and they make a true, wonderful impact on our world. I am thankful for them, as well as for Christs very real and true teachings.
*sighs* I can't believe I am doing this...
The use of blankets to spread smallpox was actually rare and isolated if it ever happened. (There is speculation about whether or not it occurred). At any rate it was certainly not the cause of the epidemic but an opportunistic move on the part of the military after observing the natural course of events.
The epidemic was caused by Christian missionaries who went from tribe to tribe spreading the word of God at the same time they were spreading a virus that the Indians had no resistance to.
They were doing God's work and completely within the teachings of Christ to the letter...and killed upwards of 17 million people by doing it. They were not heretics or those acting against the true teachings of christ yet their work... which was completely supported by the words of Jesus... resulted in the death of more people per capita then the Black Plague in Europe.
Again... was this Christian work for the better of humanity?
Giving out blankets with a good intention is completely different than an attempt to deliberately spread smallpox. Christians did not invent small pox. Giving out blankets is altruism. Claiming is was "christian work" is an outright lie by an anti-christian.
This would be why the world would be a better place with less Christians.
Oh hush. I did appreciate however that you disliked all religions fairly in your Judaism posts. At least you are fair and honest in your convictions.
Can you expound on that Mark? I think I know why you say that, but I don't want to assume. Why do you think the world would be better with less Christians again, exactly?
Once again.... it was not spread by blankets but the missionaries themselves... who were acting completely in God's name and within the scope of Jesus's teachings.
No ill intent but millions of deaths caused by Christian missionaries. Christs work cause harm. Either explain how the missionaries were not doing Jesus's work... explain how the death of 17 million people is a good thing... or concede point.
Anything else is posturing.
You dont have a point. You just have anti-christian rhetoric. Having a disease is not a belief system. DUH
To MelissaBarrett's point, the above is incredibly dishonest, but lets leave that alone for a moment, and test it. Melissa says,
"Once again.... it was not spread by blankets but the missionaries themselves... who were acting completely in God's name and within the scope of Jesus's teachings.
No ill intent but millions of deaths caused by Christian missionaries. Christs work cause harm. Either explain how the missionaries were not doing Jesus's work... explain how the death of 17 million people is a good thing... or concede point.
Anything else is posturing."
Melissa, now you get to show us all how they were acting in Gods name, when acting opposite of Christs teachings, and show us where in Jesus' teaching he says to do such things, when again the opposite is said again and again. (You do know the gospels, correct? I am assuming you do... If not, that would maybe kind of explain this extreme error.)
If you will read the above posts, a few people here have explained in great detail, OVER AND OVER again how they were NOT doing Christs work. See the gospels, if you disagree with me here. I find there to be about 0% truth in all you said in that post. The onus is on the person making claims opposite of facts when you put them out there so boldly like that.
Are you brave enough to stand behind your words, or will you concede yourself, even though its a fail at its outset?
Smallpox infection was introduced to the Western Hemisphere during the 16th century by an African slave who was a member of the Spanish expedition led by Panfilo de Narvaez in 1520.
By their bizarre lack of logic do we now blame small pox on black people? Slaves or slavery? Spanish People?
Small pox does NOT have a religious preference. DUH
The irrationality, and illogic and poor reasoning is alarming almost to me. The need to expose oneself to this degree for any reason makes no sense.
I actually think that if any of us are actually showing poor reasoning or faulty thinking, that it is a good thing to share that with others. I would want them to do that with me. People instead, get so mad, and lash out and the insults start flying. (More signs of bad points being held onto, rather than good points. Why do people do that?)
... LoL ... How do you come to your conclusions? If anything, you could blame it on slavery ... < But you're missing the point...
She didn't just really say that you are missing the point, did she?
Thats the thing, you have to actually bring a point to make it possible to miss.
Disease is not inherent in belief systems.
Show me a "liberal" disease. Show me an "agnostic" disease. Show me a "Mormon" disease.
People contract, suffer from and transmit disease. Their belief system is irrelevant.
I have to go and I think this issue is pretty much a non issue, so I doubt I will address it again. BBL
No one here is saying that small pox came into being somehow magically because of Christianity, the intangible religion itself. That's ludicrous, which is why we don't believe you are comprehending what we are saying. That is not an insult, unless you decide to take it that way... just an observation...
Small pox killed millions of Native Americans, partly as a result of "good, bible following Christians" sharing the "good news" of Christ. This disease, along with other diseases, spread by missionaries and other Europeans who were themselves mostly immune, were fatal to people without the ability to fend them off. So, Christianity was one of the reasons, intentionally or unintentionally is irrelevant, small pox was introduced to Native Americans, the same way that they brought "hospitals, schools, charities," etc. Those things were not a direct result of CHRISTIANITY itself, as religion is no tangible thing, nor is there any mandate in the Bible about creating schools, hospitals, etc..., but by the actions of Christian people, some who may have thought they were doing good by following what their Bible said, but were in fact in some ways doing the opposite of good...
THAT is the point that we're all trying to make... Either Christianity isn't responsible for any of it, or it responsible for the good AND the bad... You cannot pick and choose.
Now I did some research on small pox, and found where the possibility of some, not all, but some of the spread of small pox was intentional, or the idea was expressed for it to be used as biological warfare. I will admit that I was wrong about it being used intentionally, as I was ignorant of the fact. However, that was not what Melissa was expressing. She was talking about the unintentional spread of small pox caused by missionaries doing the "work of Christ" meaning sharing Christianity with the Natives (I think somehow you thought she meant the spread of small pox was the work of Christ)
Anyway, here's an excerpt.
"Letters from British Gen. Jeffrey Amherst reveal a desire to use smallpox as a weapon to end Pontiac's Rebellion in 1763 by giving the Ottawa tribe infected blankets to wipe them out. It also arrived in the infected goods of traders and missionaries.
Indian medical practices, particularly sweat lodges and cold-water baths, made the disease worse by spreading the sores and weakening the immune system. Sioux warriors who raided infected enemy tribes likely brought smallpox back with them."
So while it is indeed possible that some of the spread of small pox was intentional, and some may have been intentionally put within some of the missionaries possessions (if that's what the article's suggesting), it still doesn't change the fact they they spread it, and happened to be Christians. (Man, you'd think the Holy Spirit would've told them to get rid of all their small pox infested supplies lest a race of people be decimated... Oh wait, God did that all the time in the OT, never mind...)
Just like the spread of hospitals, schools, charities, etc., just happened to spread within Christian affiliated society...
Hopefully you will get it this time... or continue to be stuck in the "they're attacking our religion" rut...
In all honesty please show how the link is made, that a teaching of Jesus, can cause smallpox. I will look forward to your very honest answer, thanks.
No one argued that the teachings of Jesus caused smallpox. They argued that smallpox was spread as a consequence of people following the teachings of Jesus. This is a very large, non-semantic, easily-understandable difference.
Truthfully, it isn't an argument that I wouldn't use, as it disregards the role of intention, but it is a sound argument, nonetheless.
Theres a good reason you wouldnt use it. It isnt a sound argument. Disease is incidental and does not have a religious preference. The argument lacks logical merit.
Here is why it lacks logical merit. If missionaries brought food and clothes to people and they also brought a belief system and they also brought disease BUT each time they accidentally dropped gold nuggets during their visits.
NO logical argument can be made by a christian that would claim- Look! We gave them gold too!
I clearly indicated that I found fault with the argument's ability to establish what it attempted to establish, but the argument was still logically sound. Any argument is sound as long as its premises are valid, regardless of its applicability, which is a separate issue.
The problem is, that the premises are only applied to a particular group, which is targeted by her. It isn't sound, and honestly.... this has gone over the top and getting downright depressing that I have tried to fairly and honestly reason with people that I thought just have differing views.
It was never an argument of intention. I agreed several times that there was no intention. However as missionary work is still being handled in exactly the same way with the same results it is obvious that the inability to admit a problem leads to a continuation of the problem.
And while it started as an obvious accident... the fact that minimal to no changes in church policy towards missionary work as a whole is continuing to lead to death has moved it into the realm of neglect for the people that they are claiming to help.
Then you must be against people immigrating to America ever, and people traveling across the world, ever, correct? The point where you err the most I think, is that you blame Christianity while not putting equal blame on any person that travels that is carrying any kind of disease.
You place blame only on the Church for not stopping people from sending missionaries, but you don't blame travelers for not traveling nor the presidents or governments from prohibiting travel. The disease spreads regardless. Buddhists can carry it too. You never, ever had any point here Melissa.
Chasuk, care to weigh on on it now, still support it like you did a minute ago?
Ok... I absolutely blame every person carrying a disease or traveling with a disease for everyone that they kill with their disease.
Now... back to the large group of individuals that do it regularly as part of their religious activity...
They should stop traveling, because the intention is to spread their help and love and the gospel? This DOES seem to get into intentions now... the very thing you claimed it was never about.
See, fair discussing is getting us closer to the truths here.
Nope... they should admit that is possible to kill people with their diseases and stay away from remote tribes who have no natural immune systems to their diseases.
"Normal travelers and immigrants" don't actively travel to remote areas to seek people who have never been introduced society... Missionaries seek out these vulnerable people and places on purpose.
Humanitarian work is done in places like that, people travel for all kinds of reasons. You very clearly, are trying to find a way to put down Christianity when its not warranted. I am waiting on the latest and best example of where its currently happening.
Also, why are you not including all the incredible good these missionaries continue to do after they go places, don't spread disease, and go on for centuries now giving their whole lives to help others that need it?
Your argument is very pointed, to a very small percentage, as if the other things don't exist or count. I disagree, that they should stop helping people because they may spread diseases.
Also, answer this Melissa..who can be ok to have been the first to have given smallpox to the Native American Indians, especially when it probably didn't happen? Who would have been better, and not gotten your disapproval? Then share why that is, thanks. It will help to prove you right, and you haven't done that yet.
I did... in a post to an athiest. You obviously didn't read it. I can admit things that don't fit into my "world view" why can't you?
Then there it is. But at least acknowledge that they ARE spreading disease. Sheesh.
I would have looked upon any group that did it with the same expectations of admitting responsibility. Then I would have expected that group to make sure it didn't happen again. In this case it was Christians who are still doing the same thing with the same results. Were it buddhists I would be saying the same thing about them... Those who don't learn from the past are doomed to repeat it.
Do you recall that your whole premise was not even based in historical fact, the story about Native Americans?
Its amazing we have given this the time we have.
Share some of the biggest and best examples in recent history where it still is happening, what disease it was...that would be a good place to start, and should be easy to do based on what you said.
Who is still spreading disease? Which diseases are they?
Um... why wasn't it accurate? Can you show me where it wasn't accurate?
The last uncontacted tribe to be confirmed was the ZO'E tribe in. In 1987 Christian missionaries exposed the tribe to influenza (common influenza) and 45 members of the tribe died from it. The missionaries... unsurprisingly... refused to give up their efforts and the WHO had to step in and force precautions.
So...does this mean that the world would be a better place if Christians weren't in it, to you? What about when Influenza was first spread to any country and people? Masses of people died, much more than that example throughout history? Who is the fall guy, or fall "group" there?
Do you see my point yet?
Its so glaring its really disturbing the level of denial and stubborness for Christianity to be wrong, or to blame somehow.
There was a war during the the 1917 flu pandemic, a perfect way to spread a germ. God/god had nothing to with it, I'd think such a being would be beyond petty contrivances, like spreading disease and death...
Of course it wasn't God that did it. If it could be blamed on the teachings of Jesus somehow however, these folks would sure love that, odd as it sounds.
Logic and truth win out..
No. That isn't what Melissa said.
I think I first mentioned "intention." When I did so, I was actually charitably excusing the missionaries' spreading of smallpox, because their genocide was not deliberate, i.e., it was not "intentional."
No one has equated spreading help, love and the gospel with unintentional genocide. However, if, as a missionary, after learning that in the process of spreading help, love and the gospel, I had inadvertently spread contagion, it would be my responsibility to stop. If I didn't stop, or otherwise eliminate the danger, I would be worse than a mass murderer.
Where did that happen? When and where is it still happening?
Looking forward to the responses on this.
I don't think I can hack this anymore... It is so incredibly discouraging and people deliberately trying to miss the points. IF those things happened....when did they happen? Did it only happen on Christian Missionary journeys? OF COURSE NOT. Go after all fairly.
I don't think I have felt this discouraged in a very long time. Its actually, very difficult for me to observe all of this, and I have tried to get people to be fair. You all can have your, "christianity is evil crap.." Blame people who didn't know they were spreading Smallpox if they were, for giving people blankets. Judge them, even if it didn't happen, and judge that it keeps on happening, though no one really seems to know where.
I feel not at home on this planet... Look at this.....
And the Oscar goes to...
Are you always so melodramatic, or does it come from your appointment to be God's official spokesperson here on the HP forums?
Thanks for backing my points for the last several days. Do you feel good now?
I've felt damn good from about the point where I decided that conversing with you was basically just something I was doing to pass the time and entertain some folks, and certainly not something I intended to learn from.
Honest... Hey I can appreciate that you owned that one. Wow.
What worldview are you again, or religion, did you say Christianity before?
I'm Christian. My chosen denomination is Roman Catholicism. And, there's no need to express your thoughts on Catholicism. You've done that quite frequently throughout this thread.
Ocean and I are Protestant. I am sorry your beliefs killed 17 million people. What verse did they die from? It was said that someone from africa actually brought the disease. What were his beliefs? as if it makes a difference?
Odd...weren't you the one trumpeting the Spanish Catholics for developing a vaccine that saved a number of the infected?
Blast away, friend. I have no illusions about my faith, or my denomination.
I was using sarcasm. But thanks for developing a vaccine that saved who knows how many. Good work! Bumps on a log cannot claim to make the world a better place. Unfortunately sometimes incidental stuff happens. Comes with the territory of actually- making the world a better place.
Do you even know what that means?
Frankly, it makes no sense to me whatsoever.
I knew you were being sarcastic. Apparently, my sarcasm didn't register as quickly with you.
Excellent points, that again should go without saying they are so obvious to me, but maybe not to all people. If anyone disagrees with that, I would sure love to know how.
I don't claim that it is happening, or that it ever happened.
You err, it is not part of their religious activity. It is I N C I D E N T A L
She is not disagreeing that it's incidental. She said that she is outraged it is still happening, because people have decided that the spread of disease isn't as important as the spreading of the good news, though people should stop spreading the good news until they can stop spreading diseases, otherwise their good works aren't so good, because they are neglecting the fact that people will be harmed.
She contradicted herself, that it wasn't about motives or intentions when it is. Its if you have Christian motives for going to places, you are doing something wrong.
If you don't have Christian intentions, then its ok, they get a free pass. They are doing it for some other reason other than Christianity. That is faulty, trying to place extra emphasis on Christians.
If about peoples health and well being she would be going after all people that travel for any reason, and ask them, Is it worth it that you MIGHT be spreading disease?
Okay we'll try this different...
Find any quote where i said any of those things.
I will do that, if you answer my latest questions to you also, fair?
You were echoing Chasuk, that it was never about intentions, and that you had said that several times or something, remember?
It turns out it VERY MUCH is all about the intentions.
Melissa, I asked so many...
This is one good one to answer and will apply and give us all knowledge where its lacking.
What Christian group is currently spreading disease to people not protected by it, knowingly and without taking responsibility for it like you asserted.
Perhaps give several of your best examples of this happening, so we can all observe and know about what you are sharing. Thanks.
To Melissa or A Thousand words, where did the last epidemic happen, that you know of? I am curious, as I am know many missionaries going to many foreign lands over the course of my life. I have never heard of them asking for prayer because they accidentally started an epidemic.
Since I seem to be in the dark about some knowledge you have, what is the best and latest example of where this horrific atrocity played out? Thanks..
Oh, I couldn't say. I'm just trying to accurately explain her point. I've been looking for that online myself.
Without disputing that it is still happening, is there any documentation for how often it happens or where it happens? Of course it would be great to know if, say, Korean Baptists spread it more often than Canadian Episcopalians, but I'm not that greedy.
I'm not sure what it is I'm supposed to have supported.
You were supporting Melissas "sound argument", and have said it again. I wonder if you can weigh in on what I say below, a copy paste so you don't have to go look it up.
"Then you must be against people immigrating to America ever, and people traveling across the world, ever, correct? The point where you err the most I think, is that you blame Christianity while not putting equal blame on any person that travels that is carrying any kind of disease.
You place blame only on the Church for not stopping people from sending missionaries, but you don't blame travelers for not traveling nor the presidents or governments from prohibiting travel. The disease spreads regardless. Buddhists can carry it too."
My point is many people have gone to new countries, immigrated different places and brought disease over history. Why the target on Christianity only, and on an incident that probably didn't even happen? This is starting to get maddening, and I wonder how I can be even asking these questions.
Another reason the argument is not sound "in this context" is because Buddhist have missions too. And Lo, Buddhist travel too. Oh Em Gee. The argument can easily be reduced to "airports are immoral". Last time I checked it is legal to travel. Missionary work usually comes with teaching people how to read and write their own language, drilling water wells, bringing food, tractors and even medicine. Syphilis is believed to have been contracted by indigenous people. Their beliefs or how they expressed their beliefs or whether they like to travel are irrelevant.
See, now THIS makes complete sense, and not because its my friend that said it. Can anyone answer these more than obvious points? It was never valid.
What I'm saying is that you cannot claim to "better the world by doing nothing".
If you do something to better the world and something incidental [if thats not the intent] happens it cannot not be assessed to the belief system. If Buddhist missionaries or christian missionaries drill a water well and strike oil, thats happenstance. No one can say- Hey be a Buddhist, you can become an oil tycoon!
Traveling is what people do. Its called "freedom". Missions are just a facet, with good intentions. Is the world a better place because we dont do anything? No the world becomes a better place because we do things. Disease is a natural occurrence, finding cures is not. But you have to do something to find a cure.
There are no verses that say to be willfully negligent or irresponsible.
Nevertheless Christianity brought hospitals, charity, and education. These are things that make the world a better place. Was the implementation perfect? Nope. But armchair QB's dont win superbowls.
great points all....I truly consider it a privilege to call you my friend. Reading your stuff sometimes is like a breath of fresh air in what can feel like a suffocating space at times. It takes time, but sharing things like this I think help to really care about all people, and cause me to think and I hope thats true of more people than myself. Some are probably quiet observers...
I can't deny the many examples of good that the faithful followers of Christ can, and have, done. However, the answer to my amplified question does not depend on that being true or false. I've explained this too many times already. With my sincerest apologies, I decline to do it again.
From what I know of Buddhism, which is next to nothing, I do believe that it has some great teachings about how to become a better person.
Creating a dichotomy of the two didn't pan out too well, I think. It promotes black and white thinking. Have a good night.
Christian Missionaries Do often bring reading and writing, and wells and the like. Some die for their cause, and they know the dangers. I hadn't thought about it until you said it. Buddhism also shares its knowledge. How is it different and how can we weigh every single time someone died incidentally to see if we can blame worldviews for the spread of disease in those cases.
First, I want to make something clear. I like Melissa. We agree on most things. However, whether I like her is immaterial; I don't agree or disagree with someone based on friendship, nor do I expect any such favoritism for myself.
I don't support Melissa's argument (while accepting that it is logically sound within its own parameters), but I also disagree entirely with your counter argument presented here. _Of course_, representatives of the church have a greater responsibility for knowingly spreading disease than ordinary travelers. They are undertaking their long journeys with the express purpose of spending good, not bad.
Please note that I am _not_ accusing the church of knowingly spreading disease. I am responding only as if it were true, within the context of this argument.
To be clear, me not conceding to poor points made, and me showing how they are terribly wrong, will never actually mean I am not "getting" the points made.
No one here seems to be confused about what we are saying besides you and Phoenix... Just sayin'...
You make no sense. Its a good thing, to not "get" illogical and completely unfounded points, and ask that the people forcing ideas that don't make sense to back them up. To be honest, this is starting to make me feel badly in a way I didn't expect, and I am probably going to bow out of this soon, if you guys keep on trying to miss very obvious points. Its not right, and a waste of all of our time I think.
If I can't use logic, reason and facts in a debate, then what could possibly convince A thousand words, Juice, and Melissa, and even MarkK? What else can I possibly bring to the debate and expect to have a conversation?
It is give and take... you can't expect to follow your logic and concede your points if you don't do it with us.
This is what you said you wanted from me... a logical emotionless debate... That is what you are getting. However you can't argue points that I am not currently making because I might make them. You can argue those points when and if I do make them. That means you have to pay attention to what I am saying not what you are hearing or assuming that i am going to say.
I'm going to try to take this on a point by point basis. Maybe that'll make it easier to understand.
In Christianity, there is a mandate to spread the Word of God, right? The Great Commission? To spread the Gospel, the "good news."
The Native Americans had not been exposed to Small pox before the Europeans sailed to the Americas, many of the diseases main spreaders being missionaries. Good, decent, Christians, whose sole purpose was to do the work of Christ and fulfill the Great Commission.
Millions of Native Americans die because of the small pox spread by these missionaries and their things.
It was not their GOAL to spread small pox, per se, but it happened, none the less, because they wanted to be "good Christians" and share Jesus with people.
This was, whether intentional or unintentional, also a contribution of Christianity. That is undeniable. And that is the point.
Was that any clearer?
Your point is invalid, though I get what you are trying to force along with Melissa and Juice here. It is invalid, because if not Christians, then it would be the next people and their worldview or religion that spread the disease. Were the Native American's forever going to be saved from smallpox if only Jesus hadn't given the great commission? No. Its silly to think so. I do get your points, and am amazed that you are saying I just don't get your points over and over. Its not that I lack comprehension, the argument doesn't weigh in on Christianity over anyone from any worldview that ever gave smallpox to anyone. Its an illogical argument, that is trying to be forced on people.
It could have been Russians, Buddhists, Hawaiians, Atheists that eventually spread it, and we know others have to all kinds of people. Notice, the attack is on Christianity, and it doesn't make its point. It loses on its own lack of merit. The frustration should be with the argument and those espousing it as a good one. In consistency, where are all the other religions and worldviews being proven to make the world a worse place for people that ever spread anything? You surely get my point now, if you didn't before, I hope.
I joined this one late. Are you saying that Christians should not have gone among the native tribes, then?
Thanks, I forgot to mention slavery in my list of things that True Christians did nothing to oppose.
Juice, Christianity helped end slavery. It was what was appealed to in Europe to end it, and in the states later on. So what you say is untrue. This is part of history. Man, people get so desperate. Look up William Wilberforce, and how that all played out. (Only if you want the truth. If you want to believe false things for poor reasons, have at it, but how is that a satisfying way to be?)
I think it's safe to say that you and Phoenix have some serious reading comprehension issues...
A thousand words, then you have to show how. Just disagreeing with someone, then now putting them down (what we always see when people begin to lose a debate, it can be predicted almost), will never mean they are wrong.
With all due respect, I have seen a great deal of error in your own thinking processes, but rather than say so, I tried to show you how. That is actually very clear thinking, and what I keep encouraging everyone to be a part of, but many don't want it. Now that you say that though, that I and others have comprehension issues, you can show me how, and I will concede, but please be clear in that. Go after something I have said, or reasoned with poorly with the facts we know. You can't just say something, and even have others agree, without showing it to be true, when the opposite is shown to be true actually.
The missionaries were going tribe to tribe spreading the gospel of Christ.
He said "Go into the world and preach the good news to all creation"
Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit
Those are the actual words of Christ and that was the exact purpose of the missionaries in America.
How were they acting against those words by going from tribe to tribe and preaching the gospel?
Leaps of illogic to hold onto an illogical point, and go after your own worldview. Let me explain. You seem to making the incredible leap here, of not understanding how health and science works (pretending to not know), so THAT you have something, ANYthing against Christianity. This is amazingly transparent behavior, and let me say that I know it will anger you that I point out this obvious point, but you need to hear it for your own good.
Please show how diseases spreading is anything but just that. That is what you have to show and prove now, plus the other things I asked, IF you are being truthful.
I thought it was very fair to assume that you knew how germs and disease works, even if on just a basic level. Do we really need to explain that?
I look forward to how you justify your judging Christianity, by pretending to not know how smallpox is spread. It isn't spread, and this is a fact, by anyone's worldview or religion, or Jesus' teachings.
You didn't answer my question...
Were the missionaries acting against Christ's teachings. Yes or no please.
I more than answered your question, and showed how you choose to engage in incredibly dishonest dialogue.
Following the teachings of Jesus, and having germs spread, can NOT be blamed on the teachings of Jesus, and you get to show how, and answer my other questions that if you are telling the truth, you would be able to answer.
Why do you pretend to not know how smallpox is spread, to try and prove right points wrong? That is bordering on scary obvious, but pretending others aren't seeing this. What drives that kind of behavior?
Were the missionaries working against Christ's teachings? Yes or no.
No, AND germs and diseases are not spread by people obeying Jesus' teachings, so you have a huge fail there MelissaBarret.
Let me explain something about myself... I engage more in facts, logic and good reasoning to make my points in discussions like this. What you are doing, is trying to undermine logical and reasonable debate, by forcing an issue and manner that makes honest debate impossible.
I won't be in discussions with anyone that I find have to cheat to this degree to win an argument. Its very clear that since I came into these forums the other day, you have some kind of very strong need to make look wrong or foolish. I got that, and tried to be fair as I could, while not attacking you in kind, but showing again, with facts, logic and good reasoning why you were wrong.
When you act this way, the best ideas are not even allowed to win out fairly. Its cheating to win, and no one likes that, and my guess is not even you. You do it though for some reason. I don't have that kind of extra time in my life to engage in that kind of thing on my days off, and it would be unwise for me to do so.
Still, I hope you might answer more fairly, my simple questions put to you, that if you are right, ought to be easy to answer. Or even just this one, please answer if your reasoning is right..... Please show how following the teachings of Christ, makes a person get smallpox? How about even force, in say a lab controlled setting... Can I mix together some verses, and inject it into someone so they get smallpox? It is in my kindness I am even answering you now, because we all know these answers. It is for you, to see if you can face your own dishonest tactics or not.
Can we mix together some verses and teachings of Jesus in a test tube, and inject that into people so they get smallpox? If not, your point is moot.
Still not an answer.
As a Christian I will now answer the question.
Not only were they not acting against the specific teachings of Christ but they appear to be following a direct order from Christ himself.
So next question:
Did the Native Americans in the tribes visited by the Missionaries have small pox before the Missionaries came?
Yes or No?
I did answer, and no to your next question. Very curious to see where this goes. It is you that is refusing to answer questions that would prove you right, and me wrong.
and I think that we can conclude by the death of the members of the tribe that they did indeed have small pox after the missionaries arrived...
So... and here is a test of your honesty...
Would those native Americans who were exposed to the small pox that resulted in their death have died had the missionaries not been there?
Would the missionaries have been there without an order from Jesus?
I'm not asking if any NA would have died from small pox ever or talking about other methods of spreading the disease... I'm speaking of those specific native Americans in those specific circumstances.
Melissa says, "and I think that we can conclude by the death of the members of the tribe that they did indeed have small pox after the missionaries arrived..."
I say: Yes, but they would have had smallpox after anyone from any worldview came around and had smallpox. So what is the point there? That people spread smallpox?
Melissa says, "So... and here is a test of your honesty...
Would those native Americans who were exposed to the small pox that resulted in their death have died had the missionaries not been there??"
I answer: Yes, when someone else came with smallpox, say a band of atheists or humanists or buddhists that had it.
Mellissa says, "Would the missionaries have been there without an order from Jesus?"
No, probably not. Smallpox is spread no matter why anyone is anywhere though, so you have no point. Trying to force blame where it isn't warranted, makes no sense to do, unless you are defending a poor point, or attacking a good point.
Melissa says, "I'm not asking if any NA would have died from small pox ever or talking about other methods of spreading the disease... I'm speaking of those specific native Americans in those specific circumstances."
I know that you are speaking of those particular circumstances, what doesn't make sense is why you think it weighs in, on the value of Christs teachings or not. If you were fair, you would share how other worldviews have accidently shared diseases and blame that world view as well in those particular circumstances. It seems there is again a strong need to just put down Christianity, and the value of its teachings.
I don't deny its an unfortunate event, or a cause and effect. I am denying that you have a point that it weighs in on whether the world is a better place for Christianity to have been in it. You found a negative example in history of science playing out, but use that against a very good worldview, that has brought much more than that unfortunate small incident in comparison.
We can all find examples like you did, and blame targeted worldviews or religions. We don't however, because it makes no sense to do so. Your friends supporting you in that, don't add extra weight either. I could be alone in this argument and still win it hands down, while not denying a cause and effect of how disease is spread, against three very poor thinkers, and I mean in how you handle and assess facts. I saw where you were going every step of the way.
Melissa, if I may ask, please bring better points to the debates on these boards, and stop using so many tactics to win unfairly. Even being tenacious and ganging up on people may work because you wore them out and they said, "I am outa here.." but it won't be that you can ever claim a victory in discussion or debate until you win by making sound points, that are germane to the actual points. Keep in mind, if you choose to side with worldviews that have faulty basis for their beliefs, it will be harder to win arguments on their own merits. Thus, we each choose what to believe and why. If you continually need to employ such tactics, then that is a sign of a badly held view. It will always be frustrating and a struggle for you, and that actually explains a lot of the frustration I think I see in these boards. You want others to be so wrong, but they need to be actually wrong, to be wrong. Even a very unintelligent, shy, non tenacious person can be holding great views, and their views would stand on their own. Its why its so important to choose well and think well, from what I have seen.
Sorry you couldn't make your point a slam dunk, but it was a bad point from its outset. If you want to say that people spread smallpox, that is fair, and accidental also. Disease causes disease, any worldview or religion can spread it and be blamed similarly. Thus, you have no point against Christianity, along with all the other reasons I have been giving.
The reason it weighs in on the value of Christ's teachings is because it shows a problem in the distribution of those teachings.
The onus of fixing that problem lies with Christianity. The result of not fixing that problem leads to the problem continuing... which is no longer accidental but neglectful.
One has to admit there is a problem to fix it however... So i ask... Should Christian missionaries be allowed to participate in the same missionary activies knowing from experience that their presence could result in the death of those they are attempting to spread the gospel to?
The question is neither a put down to Christianity nor a slap in the face of the positive things that Christianity has done. It is not an insult to Christians to point out a problem... it is an invitation to fix the problem.
And lastly... the people who are disagreeing with you right now are not my friends... I'm not saying I wouldn't like them if we were but to my knowledge we have never debated together in the same thread before or had any contact of a personal nature... we all just simply share the same opinion apparently.
These new points fail also, and could be applied to immigrants to America at any time they brought disease. If you were fair, you would equally go after humans traveling for any reason to a new place that spread disease, and call that something bad for similar reasons you give.
Christianity must be incredibly threatening to people if this is the kind of arguments that come up against it. (Yes I know you said you were a Christian, which makes it all make less sense. You are part of a worldview you disagree with...)
So you are saying that Jesus would be ok with his missionaries spreading disease because immigrants do? Or would he try to prevent his own actions and those of him that follow him from hurting others? Saying that other people do the same thing isn't an argument for you doing it personally is it?
Melissa, the teachings of Jesus have nothing to do with the spread of disease and how it was going to be spread. You know this though. Here is the proof.... If there was no Jesus, and no teachings...guess what? SOMEONE or SOME GROUP was going to spread it at some point anyway. You know this also.
Your points are lacking coherence. One thing does not follow from another. If you don't allow for fair points as rebuttals, how can I speak to you at all? The way smallpox was spread long ago, was not a moral issue, and you are trying to force that it is. So your question about people doing the same thing isn't an argument for me doing it personally doesn't apply. My oldest son, got chicken pox when my mother had shingles once. Is my mother immoral? She felt so bad, but that spread of chickenpox isn't a moral choice to do so. How you suggest it ever could be, is the question! In keeping with your reasoning, do you not see how many things I could try and find to blame for that spread of chickenpox, or any disease that was ever spread? All one would need is what you have, a need to put anything down, in this case your choice is Christianity.
So, if a gang member murders someone as part of the rites of initiation into the gang, it has nothing to do with his being a gang member and he should be completely exonerated because SOMEONE or SOME GROUP would have murdered him at some point anyway?
Wanna help me go kill my ex? He's gonna die one day anyway.
This argument is sorta making my head spin.
It basically her and her SP (ever notice they always post at the same time use the same terminology and have been hear the same length of time with approximately the same number of posts?) wanting to take credit for every good thing Christianity has ever done while completely ignoring the negatives...
Which makes me agree with Mark...
Which I really hate doing.
You say, taking credit for every good thing Christianity has ever done... why shouldn't Christianity be able to do that?
If you meant taking credit for all the good ever done, well that was never said.
Ahhh....I'm so naive. I missed the SP angle.
Cover the pictures and read the text... you can not distinguish one set of text from the other.
However if you cover other poster's text... even if they agree on points... the language is different. I.E. i could separate your posts from Chasuk's even if they were in complete agreement... just by writing styles.
I think they are suggesting that they dont have a clue what the term sock puppet means, I guess. *shrug*
I'm not suggesting anything... I'm flat out saying that Pheonix is your alt. account...
something else I've said several times in the posts you've said were wrong but evidently never read...
Oh bother... the distraction she's been waiting for...
Anyway... no negatives about Christanity at all... small pox wasn't spread by Christian missionaries acting on Jesus's orders and no one died from it.
Well that would be an alternate account. A sock puppet is a fake account that has the opposing view but expresses it so poorly it lends credibility to your own position *. You are just paranoid.
And, it is VERY clearly against HP TOS to use BOTH accounts to participate in the forums. Who's dishonest now?
I am not violating TOS. I have a single account. But I intimidate the heck outa you huh? lol
One of you two desperate people, please report this double account usage to HugPages.....GOOD GRIEF.... You will find, that we are indeed two different people.
See you guys, I know you get mad at me when I go on and on about "please bring good points, facts, reason and logic.." but if you DID, then you wouldn't have to resort to this embarrassing stuff!! You are wrong....again.
The need is STRONG to have us be wrong, and I agree that something sure is intimidating... you know what it is though? Keeping to the facts, and seeing how others misuse them and apply poor logic.
Anyone can do this. I keep inviting anyone to do it with me. You are right phoenix....
I think that it is less likely that you two are the same person and more likely that you are just very similar in nature as you are friends, which often, but not always happens with friends. People a part of the same group or circle often are alike on many different levels.
Uh, not really, but thanks for being concerned about my feelings. You must really get off on the thought that you intimidate some poor chick on the internet. Any good Christian would, I'm sure.
Oh, that is very ridiculous. I don't have an alternate account. I have no reason to lie about it either. Go read our hubs. I do know him from online, and joined HubPages after he did, as a friend. lol
But let me ask you something....can you think of any reason, any reason whatsoever that I would use an alternate account in here, and talk back and forth with myself?
I have told you before, I would do this by myself.... he makes excellent points, and I appreciate his posts very much, and they make sense. They do that though, without me just being a cheerleader for another person. If he made bad points, I wouldn't support him.
Your accusation doesn't make sense Melissa. You seem to be on fair terms with some staff....ask them to check if I have an alternate account if they are able to. This is all me.
Okay, now that makes it comical. Shoot. Hard to take someone seriously when you uh...can't take them seriously.
the psychology is there too... hypothetically... as it seems like the though of "friends" ganging up on her seems particularly upsetting. Children who perceive themselves as outcasts make up imaginary friends all the time.
Obviously not... According to you I seem to have a plethoria of friends who's only purpose is to gang up on you.
I think it was me that said that....and I only say that when I see the few that come in. Its not that many really. You see them drop off also as they get deeper into the conversation. If he said it, I missed it. He has experienced it though I know for sure on other sites. They swarm against the best point makers of all lol. They threaten them also, and try to report them to sites, and make their lives hell very often. Don't assume some of us haven't been around the block a time or two.
You can be sure me and Melissa aren't friends. I don't even think she likes me. But I do believe that, to an extent, she was making a valid argument.
She is only going after people that travel with disease, that are following Christianity. While not acknowledging the incredible amount of good they do, much more outweighing any bad, as if that doesn't matter.
To others that spread disease when NOT traveling for Christian reasons, they get a pass. Christians do not. Its not a valid argument.
It's true, Melissa. I sent out the email a couple of hours ago to get the rest of the gang into the forums to defend your oh-so-delicate self. Knowing what kind of shrinking violet you are without us, I couldn't let all of these folks wear you down with genius debate tactics, inescapable logic, and the absolute monopoly that they seem to have on integrity and honesty.
Motown, your sarcasm makes great points and is really helpful, thank you so much for your helpful contributions here.
You're welcome, oceans. Please know how deeply I covet your good feeling and encouragement. It's like I finally have a reason for living.
You learn quickly and I fear shall soon surpass the skill of your master...
That's what I come here for, you know...to learn from the best. A mindless sheep am I. Baaaah.
No answers to all my questions to you? Ok.....
I answered your question to me. You asked me to find one thing you said that was wrong. I did so. You then said that didn't work at all and went on to dance around so more through some incomprehensible response. I again responded to that. You don't seem to pay attention when people respond to you.
I have asked you several questions.
The point you brought up, was already refuted. You actually didn't prove me wrong. To do so with anyone in any debate, you have to show they are wrong with things like facts, reasoning and logic. You used opinion, assertions and what you seemed to want to be true. Just siding with friends isn't a win, or opinions, assertions and desires.
Once again, I am not here to win a debate. Perhaps you are, and I give you great kudos for the fact that you're tenacious as hell in attempting to do so. I also do not side with friends for any other reason than I think they are right. You said people following Jesus' teachings don't spread disease. I said you were wrong and illustrated the point. You chose to ignore it. I have no desire to attempt to refute any of your arguments because they stand on fallacy to begin with...which has been clearly pointed out to you by others.
I think what you're missing is that I have absolutely NO DESIRE TO DEBATE OR ARGUE WITH YOU - and my choosing to agree with Melissa or anyone else who does not agree with you IS NOT EVIDENCE THAT I DO.
I explained to you before that I come into forums to express my opinions, to discuss matters of public interest, and to enjoy myself. Never took a debate class, never had any interest in 'winning' anyone over to my side of ANYTHING.
Again, you're as tenacious as a bulldog. Gotta respect that. I, however, don't care about 'proving' you wrong. Plenty of other folks here are doing that quite well, and you seem to be completely overlooking that fact.
In short, if you're trolling - there are plenty of fish out there bigger and hungrier than I.
Motown, you say that I said this
"You said people following Jesus' teachings don't spread disease."
I never said that. I don't know of any that have, but I know about science and how diseases are spread. It goes without saying that people spread disease.
Christianity, doesn't spread disease, it can't. Its a belief system based on the teachings of Jesus, which if followed result in so much good. It isn't something particular about Christianity that makes them more prone to share diseases over anyone else in history that shared diseases. Take explorers and their ships full of men on the exploration to new lands. Why aren't you folks "down on exploration" for doing what it did?
So thank you for answering, as you shared something which helps clear up what went wrong in part. You thought I said something I never said, above, in quotes. How could I say that? So it doesn't count as showing how I am wrong, when I didn't even say the thing in question. People spread disease. The Christians that happen to spread disease while doing good to others, aren't necessarily better or worse than people spreading diseases that are harming others. Maybe they are doing a bit more good actually, but you get the point.
The number one point that has been made, is that while Christianity has been targeted over other people groups and religions, it isn't a valid argument that they get more emphasis just because anti christians want to apply more emphasis. The suggestion is they don't obey doing good things for people, so that they don't spread disease.
Its an attempt at really, not allowing them room to share the good news. She doesn't seem to care, that in time, they will get this disease at some point, and even tried to distort that as "lets give it to them sooner!" which missed my point entirely. My point was, she was never going to go after the others that would have given it anyway, as they aren't her obvious target here, which is odder than anything, being a Christian.. Not much explains that kind of behavior either. There is some benefit to her in doing all this, but I am saying its not justified, especially we aren't sure it happened, and she said 17 million I think died from what later she admitted to not probably happening. ("Color things bad for personal reasons much?)
Prove that I said that 17 million native Americans didn't die from small pox. Prove that I changed my original argument at all.
*grabs popcorn* This should be fun to watch. Quotes will be fine for your argument but I want the apology to be original.
Are you saying you did or didn't say anything about 17 million people dying? I recall it, but inserted the "I think" to what you were applying that to.
You have a real attitude, and what on earth do you need an apology for? You have been pretty awful to talk with, and don't back your points.
When and where did this even happen? I imagine, my latest questions have you concerned that you never ever, really had a point at all. I will go find that, and you answer what you need to answer. When and where.... Talk about interesting
I absolutely said it... show me where I recanted it. Show me saying it didn't happen...
I deserve an apology because you lied about me. Generally when people lie they should appologise. It goes against Jesus's teachings.
You were agreeing with Chasuk, that you had echoed his point about it not maybe even happening! How can you forget that you said that?
So 17 million died, then it maybe didn't happen. You are adding in the rest there, and flipping out likely because I am asking for facts.
He came in, recall? And said he didn't mean to give succor to the argumentative types? You got smiley and agreed and said that it was you who said it.
You know Melissa, don't get mad at ME for observing what you say and then commenting on it. You have to own what you say, and you also get to answer when and where, and how. Waiting on that still. You will not be getting any apology, and its half crazy talk to speak like you deserve one. It never ends...
Liar. I said that pox-infected blankets likely didn't happen... but I never said that was what spread small-pox in the first place. You are lying to say that i said that 17 million people didn't die. Prove it. I'm not mad that you are a liar... but you shouldn't call yourself a REAL christian.
There is a difference between small pox infected blankets and deliberately small pox exposed blankets. Whatever the case it may have been spread by blankets. Deliberate or not. If you would word it correctly there would be no confusion. Try to be civil.
I never said blankets had anything to do with it at all... as a matter of fact I said they didn't.
You're lying now too... such horrible behavior from Christians. Again.. it's funny that you and your "friend" both came to the same conclusion separately when no evidence can be found for it...