[N8 v2.0]

Kids forced to become Buddhist monks

LONDON, April 1 (UPI) -- Christian children in Myanmar are being forced to become Buddhist monks, Ekklesia, a London-based religious online service, reports.

This is part of a campaign by Myanmar's regime to convert villagers from Chin state, whose population is 90 percent Christian, to Buddhism, according to Christian Solidarity Worldwide, which interviewed Chin refugees in India.

The children forcibly placed in monasteries are between 5- and 7 years old, the organization said in a report published by Ekklesia.

The regime in what was formerly Burma is destroying crosses on mountain tops and forcing Christian villagers to build Buddhist pagodas in their place, the report states.

Copyright 2004 by United Press International.
All rights reserved.

 

[Tenchiro]

I don't see the big deal. I knew plenty of kids when I was growing up that were forced to go to Catholic schools and/or to church on Sunday.

 

[Silver]

Now, if Bush read the newspapers I'm sure the bombs would start dropping tomorrow.

Since he doesn't, I'm not that worried that I'll end up getting drafted and shipped off to Burma just yet...

Any independent verification on this? I don't trust religious news organizations all that much...

 

[valve bouncer]

Any oil there?
My vote goes to the Burmese regime for having the most evil sounding junta name in the world at the moment. SLORC.......bwahahahaha, sounds like a Swedish death metal band.

 

[Changleen]

Bhuddism is more sensible than Christianity, but I still oppose anyone being force-fed any religion. Organised religion is the biggest problem in the world today.

'Get your own moral values!'

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

Originally posted by Silver
Now, if Bush read the newspapers I'm sure the bombs would start dropping tomorrow.

Since he doesn't, I'm not that worried that I'll end up getting drafted and shipped off to Burma just yet...

Any independent verification on this? I don't trust religious news organizations all that much...

does dubya know how to read????????????????????

 

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by Changleen
Organised religion is the biggest problem in the world today.

Id say its the perversion of religion that is the problem. Most religions dont teach "bad" things.

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
Id say its the perversion of religion that is the problem. Most religions dont teach "bad" things.

i think is anything that gives the people a sense of ultimate truth and turn them into fanatics.

like, make them feel absolutely right, so in the name of absolute true they do stuff they do. no religion only.

 

[Changleen]

Originally posted by ALEXIS_DH
i think is anything that gives the people a sense of ultimate truth and turn them into fanatics.

like, make them feel absolutely right, so in the name of absolute true they do stuff they do. no religion only.

Yeah, I think you pretty much hit the nail on the head.
Any belief system which allows/encourages/demands that it's practitioners to truly believe that 'their ideas' are the ultimate truth, and that everyone else, no matter what, is basically wrong, is full of sh*t and ultimatly destructive.

European Christianity (at least in western Europe) is, for the most part, fortunatley past that phase. (not that I endorse Euro Christianisy!)
Here is a little story form a Euro periodical I get, which illustrates the point nicely:

(Paraphrased from 'The Week' - UK magazine)

A researcher into modern religion and diversity is calling various religions outreach groups to get a handle on theri attitudes to various aspects of modern life. One of the questions he asks is:

'I'm a non-believer. I refute the existance of God. When I die, what happens to me?'

He asks the Muslims - The press officer on the end of the phone, in a cheerful voice, without malice, says 'You will go to hell. You will have boiling water cast over you for eternity.'

He calls the Church of England - 'Hmm' says the press officer. 'Well, that's a tricky one. We're not really that sure about that. Bit of a mystery, death...'

And that's the difference between any belief systems. Essentially, those which allow for change, acceptance, basically the fact that what you beleive might not be right and allows space for adaptation are compatible with living in todays global society, and those which don't are clearly going to have a lot of problems and conflict - ultimately self destructive. 'Violence begets violence.' Always has, always will.

The real problem I see today is the rise of 'traditional' religion in the US. The US is the only western society where more people each year subscribe to Christianity, and not just 'Christianity-lite' as even some Euro priest call their flavour of worship - I'm talking some pretty hardcore baptist ****. 'Gays are evil' - 'Abortion is wrong' - that type of crap. (Sorry Stinkle! )

It is essential for the future of the world that people learn to live with other peoples differences - jeeze I know that sounds SO cheesy - but it's true! If you believe YOU are right, yeah, I can tolerate these other weirdos, but in the end they're wrong - then eventually you're heading for one almighty fight.

I think we've all been through an episode of our lives that has shown us we're not perfect, we not always right, why is it so hard to accept about 'religion' - in the end it's just a set of values people decide to adopt. The problem comes when they decide that no upgrades are possible to their operating system. 'This is the truth. As defined 2000 years ago.'
Bullsh*t. Accept change, accept that you are human.

Excuse the rant. Religion pisses me off more than most things...

 

[Andyman_1970]

I held my tongue long enough, so allow me to comment on your rant:

Originally posted by Changleen
Yeah, I think you pretty much hit the nail on the head.
Any belief system which allows/encourages/demands that it's practitioners to truly believe that 'their ideas' are the ultimate truth, and that everyone else, no matter what, is basically wrong, is full of sh*t and ultimatly destructive.

This is what cracks me up about folks who rail on Christianity (and that's fine you are entitled to), is that you have just as much faith in things and are typically just as "absolute" as Christians but just about different things. I don't have a problem with that, it's your choice, run with it.

There are plenty of "non-Christian" ideas floating around our society today that are just as absolute as Christianity (my way is right your way is wrong, I think you actually assert that in this post).

For example the whole "tolerance" deal (not to open that whole can of worms), if for example I disagree with the idea of say homosexuality I'm labeled as intolerant. These same people who label me demand tolerance (which itself does not make sense) but disagree with the idea of Christianity (which is fine with me), but are they intolerant? No they are "open minded", even though they are just as absolute and have just as much faith in something such as science, nature, or Darwin as a Christian has in their faith.

Originally posted by Changleen
And that's the difference between any belief systems. Essentially, those which allow for change, acceptance, basically the fact that what you beleive might not be right and allows space for adaptation are compatible with living in todays global society,

I think that's known as moral relativism, changing the “rules” to suit the culture or times.

Again you believe your system to be correct and others to be wrong. On what do you base that on? Science, philosophy, etc? That’s fine if you base it on those things, but your demonstrating just as much faith in those things as a Christian does in their beliefs.

Originally posted by Changleen
and those which don't are clearly going to have a lot of problems and conflict - ultimately self destructive. 'Violence begets violence.' Always has, always will.

And Jesus tells His followers to be violent how? Please enlighten me.

Originally posted by Changleen
The real problem I see today is the rise of 'traditional' religion in the US. The US is the only western society where more people each year subscribe to Christianity, and not just 'Christianity-lite' as even some Euro priest call their flavour of worship - I'm talking some pretty hardcore baptist ****. 'Gays are evil' - 'Abortion is wrong' - that type of crap. (Sorry Stinkle! ).

I'm one of those "hardcore baptist ****" so if you have any questions or a "beef" with something you have seen, fire away.

The Scriptures say homosexuality is a sin, not that gay's are "evil". BTW, the sin of homosexuality is no worse than say lying, stealing, murder, lust, etc.

(Not to open this can of worms) Killing an unborn human is wrong, I would believe that even if I weren't a Christian.

Originally posted by Changleen
It is essential for the future of the world that people learn to live with other peoples differences - jeeze I know that sounds SO cheesy - but it's true! If you believe YOU are right, yeah, I can tolerate these other weirdos, but in the end they're wrong - then eventually you're heading for one almighty fight.

I totally agree with you. As Christians we are to love everyone and treat every human with dignity and respect. That is not something sadly that "Christians" are known for.

Originally posted by Changleen
I think we've all been through an episode of our lives that has shown us we're not perfect, we not always right, why is it so hard to accept about 'religion' - in the end it's just a set of values people decide to adopt. The problem comes when they decide that no upgrades are possible to their operating system. 'This is the truth. As defined 2000 years ago.'
Bullsh*t. Accept change, accept that you are human.

That's exactly why I became a Christian, I went through an episode in my life where I realized I wasn't perfect and I did not have all the answers.

Again, you have just as much faith in your understanding of how the universe operates as Christians have in that 2000 truth (it's actually much older than that), you point seems a little hypocritical.

Originally posted by Changleen
Excuse the rant. Religion pisses me off more than most things...

No problem, your excused , religion makes me mad too and I'm a Christian.

 

[Changleen]

This is what cracks me up about folks who rail on Christianity (and that's fine you are entitled to), is that you have just as much faith in things and are typically just as "absolute" as Christians but just about different things. I don't have a problem with that, it's your choice, run with it.

The only thing I try to be absolute about is what I stated before - "Are you willing to embrace change?" That in itself poses other questions for someone of a religious persuation - for example - Why does the bible assert this or that is wrong? Maybe it was wrong for those times but is a necassary or acceptable part of society now.

No they are "open minded", even though they are just as absolute and have just as much faith in something such as science, nature, or Darwin

I think here is where I would draw the line between 'faith' and 'science'. I 'beleive' in science, although 'beleive' is the wrong word. Let me expand:

I can see 'science' in action. I can measure it, experience it, taste it and am subject to it's effects. I 'agree' (a better word I think) with Darwinian theory as the evidence for it is, to me, blatent and logical.

This does not mean I hold it to be an absolute truth. If something comes along with a more refined theory I will consider it on it's merits and decide if I agree with it or not. I try not to 'believe' in anything without proof.

To me that is stupid, and ignorant for a species which has evolved a mind capable of rationality and judgement. I feel 'belief' is an interlectual laziness.

And Jesus tells His followers to be violent how? Please enlighten me.

Oh, I'm sure he doesn't, but by the nature of their blind faith (those who take the bible/koran/whatever in that way), they always end up being violent because of their inability to accept that what they believe isn't the only way of looking at thing - thay they are inherantly 'right' - this is bullsh*t, and I hate it. I think you pretty much agree with me on this though? Yes no?

Again you believe your system to be correct and others to be wrong.

No - well, yes, but it's not like that. My 'system' isn't fixed. I am willing to consider my environment and change my system. I have aproblem with people who are unwilling to do this. Like I said, I think it is irresponsible and ignorant.

That's exactly why I became a Christian, I went through an episode in my life where I realized I wasn't perfect and I did not have all the answers.

Great, but the problem I have is that when you decided to become Christian (OK, let's not say you because I don't know enough about you) but when some people take up Christianity, they take it hook, line and sinker. No questions asked - 'This is the truth irrefutable' - I think you know by now what I think of such behaviour.

I think the trouble is that from going from a state where you accept you don't and probably can't have all the answers, you decide to adopt a system that claims to have them all. I disagree with this. NO ONE has all the answers. Not even 'God'. It is part of the human condition to not have all the answers. I think people should stop being so scared of that and just accept it. We have enough answers to not die in the street, and everyday, through obsewrvation, measurement and rational thought we might learn more. We can't learn anything if we think we know all the answers.

Let me leave you with this:

You say Homosexualty is a sin. I ask you why? What is it about it that is so wrong? It doesn't harm anyone else, it's an expression of love, not of hate or distruction, so wheres the problem?

(PS sorry to jump around your argument but that's just the order my thoughts came to me)

 

[Andyman_1970]

Feel free to jump around my argument anytime.

Originally posted by Changleen
The only thing I try to be absolute about is what I stated before - "Are you willing to embrace change?" That in itself poses other questions for someone of a religious persuation - for example - Why does the bible assert this or that is wrong? Maybe it was wrong for those times but is a necassary or acceptable part of society now.

But you are being absolute with that philosophy, and that's fine. I'm not arguing whether your idea is right or mine is right. I'm asserting that you are being as absolute in your philosophy as those "narrow minded" Christians.

Originally posted by Changleen
I think here is where I would draw the line between 'faith' and 'science'. I 'beleive' in science, although 'beleive' is the wrong word. Let me expand:

I can see 'science' in action. I can measure it, experience it, taste it and am subject to it's effects. I 'agree' (a better word I think) with Darwinian theory as the evidence for it is, to me, blatent and logical.

Every one whether they want to admit it or not has faith in something. For somepeople it's science or nature or things they can prove physically. That's fine, that's your choice, and the Bible says you have that choice.

I like the example you use with science, how you can measure it, and expreince it and be subject to it's effects. For many Christians (myself included) that is the whole idea of a relationship with God, it's something alive and dynamic that we experince and are subject to it's effects.

I "agree" (to use your words) with God as He is revealed in the Scriptures, like you, to me the evidence is blatant and logical.

It all boils down to what you put your faith in, we all have it, so what do you put it in?

Originally posted by Changleen
This does not mean I hold it to be an absolute truth. If something comes along with a more refined theory I will consider it on it's merits and decide if I agree with it or not. I try not to 'believe' in anything without proof.

You may not hold it to be an absolute truth, but you just made an absolute statement. So somewhere you have an absolute "truth", everyone does. To say that you don't is an absolute "truth".

Originally posted by Changleen
To me that is stupid, and ignorant for a species which has evolved a mind capable of rationality and judgement. I feel 'belief' is an interlectual laziness.

Again you're putting your faith in the understanding of how things work in your own understanding to some extent. That's fine, I'm not going to debate you on what philosophy is right and which one is not. My whole point is that you put your faith in that.

Originally posted by Changleen
Oh, I'm sure he doesn't, but by the nature of their blind faith (those who take the bible/koran/whatever in that way), they always end up being violent because of their inability to accept that what they believe isn't the only way of looking at thing - thay they are inherantly 'right' - this is bullsh*t, and I hate it. I think you pretty much agree with me on this though? Yes no?

They "always" end up being voilent. Now granted there is alot of examples of that in all of the histories of the faiths you noted, but "always". That's a big and inaccurate assumption.

I agree that intolerance is not good and even contrary to the Bible (true tolerance, not how we have tweaked it today in PC world)

Originally posted by Changleen
No - well, yes, but it's not like that. My 'system' isn't fixed. I am willing to consider my environment and change my system. I have aproblem with people who are unwilling to do this. Like I said, I think it is irresponsible and ignorant.

So your system isn't fixed, it's still the system you believe in. Now your saying that because your system isn't fixed and say a Christians system is fixed, yours (to your understanding) is right and theirs is wrong.

Do you not see the irony in that statement. You have a system of beliefs you think is right and you think those that do not agree are irresponsible and ignorant. Does that not remind you of some of those Christians that irritate you?

You don't "seem" do be very tolerant of other systems of belief other than your own, even though you indicate your system is flexible and changing. Again do you not see the irony in that?

Originally posted by Changleen
Great, but the problem I have is that when you decided to become Christian (OK, let's not say you because I don't know enough about you) but when some people take up Christianity, they take it hook, line and sinker. No questions asked - 'This is the truth irrefutable' - I think you know by now what I think of such behaviour.

That's called faith. Believe it or not you excersized it when you started to believe what you believe.

Originally posted by Changleen
I think the trouble is that from going from a state where you accept you don't and probably can't have all the answers, you decide to adopt a system that claims to have them all. I disagree with this. NO ONE has all the answers. Not even 'God'. It is part of the human condition to not have all the answers. I think people should stop being so scared of that and just accept it. We have enough answers to not die in the street, and everyday, through obsewrvation, measurement and rational thought we might learn more. We can't learn anything if we think we know all the answers.

You are right no one person has all the answers, that includes both of us. To you understanding (or lack of it) God does not, but I disagree. I am a follower of Jesus, but I will freely admit I do not have all the answers or even close to having them all, it's called humility. I agree we can't learn anything if we think we have all the answers. Anyone that says they do is probably a member of a cult, LOL.

Originally posted by Changleen
ILet me leave you with this:

You say Homosexualty is a sin. I ask you why? What is it about it that is so wrong? It doesn't harm anyone else, it's an expression of love, not of hate or distruction, so wheres the problem?

(PS sorry to jump around your argument but that's just the order my thoughts came to me)

It's off topic of the thread but I'll jump in. Let me "globalize" this to not just homosexuality but sexual immorality in general.

My beliefs are that having sex outside the marriage of one man and one woman is sexual immorality (as defined by the Bible) that would include homosexuality. This would also include looking at a woman lustfully, which Jesus calls adultery. Why, it's not hurting anyone if I look at that hot chick in the cube next to mine, is it?

The problem is that all humans (Christian and non-Christian) are created in the image of God. When I look at a woman lustfully, she has turned into a "that" (Hey look at "that") and is no longer a person, a sister, a daughter, a mother, she is a "that". When I treat another person as an object I am stripping them of what it means to be human. Why is slavery wrong? Because it treats that person as though they were an object or a possession to be bought and sold. The same holds true for the whole lust/pronorgraphy things. The core of the issue is do we treat others with respect and dignity?

Not to get off on a tangent: I believe the whole homosexuality thing boils down to self control. I am attracted to womenl, but it's not right for me to pursue them and have sex with them because I am married. So I have to have self control. The same holds true for homosexuality, that person may be attracted to someone of the same sex but you don't have to act on it. We aren't animals, we don't have to have sex because of every little whim that enters our heads.

Now you don't have to believe all this, that's not why I wrote it.

My whole point is that you with your belief system have just as much faith and are just as absolute as a Christian. I don't mind you "railing" on Christians, that's fine, whatever floats your boat. But it's hypocitical to sit there and make fun of them for their faith and then say your's is the right way to beleive, that is just as bad as the Christians you make fun of.

 

[BurlyShirley]

Andyman,

Those were your two best posts ever. Im not a Christian, but you illustrated your points quite well IMO.

 

[Andyman_1970]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
Andyman,

Those were your two best posts ever. Im not a Christian, but you illustrated your points quite well IMO.

Thanks for the encouragement Burly, I appreciate it.

 

[Tenchiro]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
Andyman,

Those were your two best posts ever. Im not a Christian, but you illustrated your points quite well IMO.

Not to mention the longest...

 

[$tinkle]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
Andyman,

Those were your two best posts ever. Im not a Christian, but you illustrated your points quite well IMO.

concur on props.

furthermore, this forum is certainly more tame & thoughful than say, hcor or mtbr (kids) or americas debate (elitist pricks). Too much posturing over those places.

what has always blown my mind is the math of various religions. Pick any one at random. They claim their god, and identify their satan. No one religion allows for another concurrent one, nor is any one religion the majority of the global population. On the face of it, it seems that various flavors of god are losing to their satans. It is this that gets my heading spinning.

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

Originally posted by Andyman_1970
Feel free to jump around my argument anytime.



But you are being absolute with that philosophy, and that's fine. I'm not arguing whether your idea is right or mine is right. I'm asserting that you are being as absolute in your philosophy as those "narrow minded" Christians.

hmm, its different. the relativism we talk about (and everything within a logical tree), gotta, and MUST be laid upon at least one axiom, tautology or whatever you want to call it.

just like we rely all our math on the basic "every number has one greater, and one smaller".

that is a necesity for every single logical tree. from math, to philosophy, to religion, to political ideas, to everything.

the difference is that hardcore fundamentalist fanatics rely upon simple, old, ethereal and irrational axioms. basically everything relies on G-d. and that he is perfect, and we are the closest to him and gotta obbey him.
that is the tautology of religion. we have no other proof that tautology is absolite right, just like on most other axioms. all we have to base that is tha "faith" of some, if by faith we call "believing just because i want to".

now, other ethical systems, are not based on this ethereal and made up tautologies (actually the ultimate truth of any religion is not if those are true words of G-d, BUT IF WHOEVER WROTE THEM WAS TELLING THE TRUTH.) that is my friend to ultimate uncertainty in every religion, its not g-d itself, because neither you or I have seen him. Its how truthful were those who testify they saw or talked with him. OK?

in other ethical system, we base things in like stuart-mills utilitarianism, which is pretty good for most ethical problems. like good is what is people persuit more for themselves and stuff like that.

BUT again, we are willing to accept that even out tautologies or axioms are wrong, and be willing to replace them with more precise ones. and we accept its limitations. fanatics dont. they just state that whatever g-d said (which is actually unknown, because you only know what a mere GUY said, He heard or got from G-d, not his actual word) is the ultimate true.

you can argue its circular because we take this uncertainty as the only certainty we have. its not we have certainty on the uncertainty of our non theistic ethical system, but experience points that. we dont know again, if that experience is right, but at least seems to, an while it seems to, well, we'll take it,

because its the best we have. other than a guy who said he talked to g-d and is going to give us the ultimate truth reveled
just to him

but again, we only know, we know nothing.

 

[Changleen]

Every one whether they want to admit it or not has faith in something.

NO! That's the point. I don't have 'faith' in anything. Really! Please, if you could, I'd love you to come inside my head and have a look!
I don't have 'faith'. I agree with some things and disagree with others. My agreement or not is based on my evalution of the merit of either argument. Can't you see how that's different?
Please, try and tell me something I have 'faith' in.

But you are being absolute with that philosophy, and that's fine. I'm not arguing whether your idea is right or mine is right. I'm asserting that you are being as absolute in your philosophy as those "narrow minded" Christians.

Possibly you are right, but I don't have 'faith' in my point of view, I attained it by regarding and evaluating the world, history, every second of my life - it is my 'opinion'. and further I would contend it is nothing like as narrow minded as a *insert religion here* viewpoint as it allows for update and modification of my ideas and the possibility that I may be wrong. Something religion does not permit, as it already claims to know the truth.

I like the example you use with science, how you can measure it, and expreince it and be subject to it's effects. For many Christians (myself included) that is the whole idea of a relationship with God, it's something alive and dynamic that we experince and are subject to it's effects.

No, the two are not the same. well, I supose in some ways, for example you can clearly be subject to the logical outcomes of your 'beleifs' - but that's not the same as being subject to Gravity, or measuring the spin state of electrons. You're talking philosophically, and about your human emotional interpretation of 'god' - where as I am talking about physical facts - like seeing the different stages of evolution in the fossil record.

I "agree" (to use your words) with God as He is revealed in the Scriptures, like you, to me the evidence is blatant and logical.

Sorry, what evidence?

Now your saying that because your system isn't fixed and say a Christians system is fixed, yours (to your understanding) is right and theirs is wrong.

No, I'm saying theirs is short sighted and badly thought through, and no basis on which to carry on a sensible society in this day and age.

I don't agree with the concepts of 'right and wrong' as all thay they are 'moral' judgements made from a particular standpoint. I would say, however, that I think my evalution of reality is more appropriate and suitable for the world we live in than a fixed inflexible one, such as those suggested by religious doctrine.

They "always" end up being voilent. Now granted there is alot of examples of that in all of the histories of the faiths you noted, but "always". That's a big and inaccurate assumption.

Name one period of religious rule that hasn't included, endured or ended in violence because of the tennants of that relgion.

My beliefs are that having sex outside the marriage of one man and one woman is sexual immorality (as defined by the Bible) that would include homosexuality.
The problem is that all humans (Christian and non-Christian) are created in the image of God. When I look at a woman lustfully, she has turned into a "that" (Hey look at "that") and is no longer a person, a sister, a daughter, a mother, she is a "that". When I treat another person as an object I am stripping them of what it means to be human.

I totally disagree. When I look at a women lustfully it may be because she is really clever, and that excites me. It is precisly because of her 'personality' and 'humanity' that I am attracted to her. If this is the case is my lust OK? Can I now have sex with her with 'gods' blessing?

Secondly - why do you not question what the bible defines as sexual immorality? I tend to define my own idea of what I consider acceptable and unnaceptable, based on things like 'they're not doing themselves or anyone else any harm.'

I believe the whole homosexuality thing boils down to self control. I am attracted to womenl, but it's not right for me to pursue them and have sex with them because I am married. So I have to have self control. The same holds true for homosexuality, that person may be attracted to someone of the same sex but you don't have to act on it.

So people who are unattracted to the opposite sex should just 'control themsleves' their whole life? Are you serious?
Let me refine my question:

How are they hurting you or anyone else?

 

[Andyman_1970]

Alex, I'll be honest I have no clue where to start with your post. That's that humility in my admiting I don't know it all (and that from a Christian also, stop the presses!!!)

Originally posted by Changleen
NO! That's the point. I don't have 'faith' in anything. Really! Please, if you could, I'd love you to come inside my head and have a look!
I don't have 'faith'. I agree with some things and disagree with others. My agreement or not is based on my evalution of the merit of either argument. Can't you see how that's different?
Please, try and tell me something I have 'faith' in.

You don't have faith in anything? You understand how everything in the universe operates? Are you sure you're not God (sorry I had to throw that one in).

Have you ever flown on an airplane? Do you know how every system works on that airplane and the theroies of aerodynamics, fluid dynamics, statics, physics, mechanics of materials, thermodynamics etc? Did you inspect the engines to make sure there was no foreign material in there? Were you there when they mined the aluminum out of the ground, are you sure the engineers and inspectors did their job when they designed and assembled that airplane? But yet you get on one and have faith that it will get you to your destination.

You don't have to be religous to have faith, like I said everyone to some degree or another has faith in something.

Originally posted by Changleen
Possibly you are right, but I don't have 'faith' in my point of view, I attained it by regarding and evaluating the world, history, every second of my life - it is my 'opinion'. and further I would contend it is nothing like as narrow minded as a *insert religion here* viewpoint as it allows for update and modification of my ideas and the possibility that I may be wrong. Something religion does not permit, as it already claims to know the truth.

Ok so you admit that your point of view is absolut'ish, good. You're going to hate this statement, but you have your faith in what you can experince and what you can understand. That's fine, I'm not knocking you for that. But it is what you base your understanding of the universe on, what you can experience. I base my understanding of the universe on the God of the Bible.

Originally posted by Changleen
No, the two are not the same. well, I supose in some ways, for example you can clearly be subject to the logical outcomes of your 'beleifs' - but that's not the same as being subject to Gravity, or measuring the spin state of electrons. You're talking philosophically, and about your human emotional interpretation of 'god' - where as I am talking about physical facts - like seeing the different stages of evolution in the fossil record.

This again is a matter of faith, just because you didn't expreince God like I have doesn't not mean He does not exist. You can't prove He doesn't (by scienfic means) any more than I can prove He does.

Originally posted by Changleen
Sorry, what evidence?

The experinces I have had that is my evidence, much like what you base your understanding of things on.

Originally posted by Changleen
No, I'm saying theirs is short sighted and badly thought through, and no basis on which to carry on a sensible society in this day and age.

So you are saying that because those narrow minded Christians are not as intellectual as you there worldview is short sighted and badly thought out. So how is this attitude different than a Christian saying that homosexuality is a sin? The context maybe different but the attitude is the same, both bigoted to some degree.

I am accepting of your point of veiw, I am not saying its wrong, but you however are essentially saying mine is. Do you not see the intolerance in that?

Originally posted by Changleen
I don't agree with the concepts of 'right and wrong' as all thay they are 'moral' judgements made from a particular standpoint. I would say, however, that I think my evalution of reality is more appropriate and suitable for the world we live in than a fixed inflexible one, such as those suggested by religious doctrine.

So your an anarchist (sp?)?

In your opinon (and it is that an opinon, just like mine is) you believe my morals are inappropraite.

Are not the physical laws of the universe (gravity and the like) fixed?

But again your making an absolute statement, which is fine, but don't assert that you're somehow on a high plane of understanding. Your attitude is just like the ones you hate so much that you say Christianity.

Originally posted by Changleen
I totally disagree. When I look at a women lustfully it may be because she is really clever, and that excites me. It is precisly because of her 'personality' and 'humanity' that I am attracted to her. If this is the case is my lust OK? Can I now have sex with her with 'gods' blessing?

So it's ok to objectify women in your world of "no right and wrong"? (could the feminist in the room please rise) Is slavery not wrong? It's the same basic philosophy, poeple are products or objects to be used and consumed.

How did I define (per the Bible) sexual immorality? So no your lust wouldn't be "ok". But I'm not saying you have to believe that, your missing the whole point of the posts.

No where have I said you have to believe what I do, and no where have I said you are "less smart" if you don't believe what I believe. You however have made that assertion. You claim to be open minded and flexible, but in fact at the core of it you are not. That's fine, but don't put on the show like you are Mr. Tolerance and Enlightenment when comparing yourself with a Christian. I'm not talking content of the beliefs, I'm talking the attitude behind the beliefs.

Originally posted by Changleen
Secondly - why do you not question what the bible defines as sexual immorality? I tend to define my own idea of what I consider acceptable and unnaceptable, based on things like 'they're not doing themselves or anyone else any harm.'

I question alot of what is in the Scriptures. I compare it to the orginal manuscripts and orginal language when I can. I study the contemporary historians and writers of those times, I study Jewish culture in the 1st century so I can have a better understanding and context of the Text.

As you say you define your own idea, that that is fine (how many times am I going to say that), but it is just that your own idea. Your faith (there is that word again) is in your own understanding, which is fine. But it is faith none the less.

Originally posted by Changleen
So people who are unattracted to the opposite sex should just 'control themsleves' their whole life? Are you serious?
Let me refine my question:

How are they hurting you or anyone else?

So we are nothing more than animals? Just free to wander around and have sex with whoever we please when ever we want? Where do you think the "F" word came from? It's an agricultural slang used about 100 years ago to describe animals having sex. Are we all just animals now free to "F***" whoever we want?

Society not falling apart is based in large part all of us having self control to one degree or another. If not it would be anarchy.

 

[Tenchiro]

Originally posted by Andyman_1970
So your an anarchist (sp?)?

Originally posted by Andyman_1970
Society not falling apart is based in large part all of us having self control to one degree or another. If not it would be anarchy.

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

 

[Silver]

About the plane example:

That isn't faith. I know that the airline has trained pilots and mechanics that work to ensure a safe flight. But, at the back of my mind, I also know that there is a small chance that a critical component could fail. I'm willing to take that risk, because I know the odds are small. I know the odds of failure are small not by faith, but by experience and analysis.

The same way I don't have faith in my bike...God isn't the one that taco'd my wheel last week, the way I landed was the problem. I overstressed the material to a point of failure. While I may not understand all the physics behind it, there are people who could explain it very well, even on this board. Faith has nothing to do with it.

Faith would be trusting a pilot with no training and a Bible to get you off the ground and home safe. Faith would be the mechanics praying over the engines, instead of taking them apart for an overhaul.

 

[Changleen]

You don't have faith in anything? You understand how everything in the universe operates?

No, but I don't need to! I experience that it works well enough to stop my component atoms disassociating or whatever. I don't need to have 'faith' in it! I have experience.

Excuse the lack of quotes on this one:

Have you ever flown on an airplane?
-Many times

Do you know how every system works on that airplane and the theroies of aerodynamics,
-Most of them

fluid dynamics,
-Yup

statics,
-I have an Engineering degree level grasp of Statistics

physics,
-Yup

mechanics of materials,
-I have a degree in materials Engineering

thermodynamics etc?
-Yup

Did you inspect the engines to make sure there was no foreign material in there?
- No but I ususally see the captain or a member of the groundcrew do it, and it's my experience that he doesn't want to die either.

Were you there when they mined the aluminum out of the ground, are you sure the engineers and inspectors did their job when they designed and assembled that airplane?
-They mined Bauxite out of the ground and used chemical processes to extract first aluminium oxide from it, then (probably) preferential oxidation in a blast furnace to extract the pure Aluminium, before alloying it, probably with Copper and a few rare earths to produce a variety of aerospace grade aluminiums and duralumins used to make the plane. I know that for sure - I can see the plane. I can count how many flights it has made. I can calculate the statistical probability that the plane won't fall appart or the pilot mess up. I can (if I felt the need) find out about the pilots training. I don't need to have 'faith' in it!

You don't have to be religous to have faith, like I said everyone to some degree or another has faith in something.

ARGHH! Please accept that our brains work differently. I don't have 'faith' in stuff. If I wonder I try to find out about what I'm wondering about. I have a logical, engineer type of brain. If I can't find out a specific answer to my query, I don't rely on 'faith' -I can rely on statistical probability or a host of other experiential based opinion making processes.

Faith: Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

I DO NOT 'believe' anything! Is that so hard for you to understand? My mind is a store of evidence that I use to evalute situations. I use my senses to gather more information, which I continue to use to make judgements.

Please, enough with the faith already! Your world view and the way you look at things allow you to beleive in a god there is no rational proof for. I do not, cannot accept that he/it/whatever exists. Do you see the difference that makes in the way we think, and probably perceive the world?

I don't begrudge you your faith, I'm sure it's nice to accept things without question - just please accept I don't do that!

You're going to hate this statement, but you have your faith in what you can experince and what you can understand.

No! Again, I form opinions and draw conclusions from physical and measurable evidence! I don't have 'faith'! I don't think you're using the word in the same way as me.

In your opinon (and it is that an opinon, just like mine is) you believe my morals are inappropraite.

I think, based on my observation of relgious societies, that overtly relgious viewpoints are considerably less likely to be sucessful in the modern world. Evidence: Isreal/Palestine, Nearly all Middle eastern economies, Eastern Europe... I'm not going to go into miniscule detail but surly you can see what I'm getting at here?

The conclusion I draw from this is the increasing presence of people holding more fundamentalist religious viewpoints in the country where I reside is not good for the continued sucessful growth of the country or the world as a whole.

So, if your morals truly are those of the Bible, and you apply no independant though or judgement before applying them, then as you put it, yes, I do think that your ideas are innapropriate and possibly even dangerous. However, I don't think you personally are so minded, are you?

The context maybe different but the attitude is the same, both bigoted to some degree.

'Bigoted' implies the formation of an opinion without knowledge, or more importantly, consideration of the opposing opinion. I have thoroughly reviewed various religious viewpoint from the world over, and drawn my own conclusions. Fundamentalist Christians take their opinions from the Bible, no questions asked. I think you can appreciate the difference?

Are not the physical laws of the universe (gravity and the like) fixed?

Nope. They're not. In our relatavistic circumstances, they tend to hold true. Have a look at special relativity sometime. But this is really beside the point.

But again your making an absolute statement, which is fine, but don't assert that you're somehow on a high plane of understanding.

If I consider more things, allow myself to experience more viewpoints, allow my view of reality to be altered by fresh data and ideas, how can I possibly be on the same plane of understanding as someone who refuses to accept evolution despite the ridiculous volume of hard evidence to the contrary?

Who is to judge which is 'higher'? What does that even mean? I judge mine will most likely make me more sucessful in the modern world.

So it's ok to objectify women in your world of "no right and wrong"?

And I'll post it again:
When I look at a women lustfully it may be because she is really clever, and that excites me. It is precisly because of her 'personality' and 'humanity' that I am attracted to her.

Where's the 'objectification' in that?

That's fine, but don't put on the show like you are Mr. Tolerance and Enlightenment when comparing yourself with a Christian.

When it comes to Fundamentalist Religion, I don't consider myself Tolerant. I think the world would be a lot better off without fundamentalists.

So we are nothing more than animals? Just free to wander around and have sex with whoever we please when ever we want? Where do you think the "F" word came from? It's an agricultural slang used about 100 years ago to describe animals having sex. Are we all just animals now free to "F***" whoever we want?

Society not falling apart is based in large part all of us having self control to one degree or another. If not it would be anarchy.

DUDE! Is that what you think gay people are like? Obsesed with sex and promiscuity? They wander round f*cking anyone? Here in reality, they have the same relationship conflicts, values and standards as anyone. They just happen to like people of the same sex. That's all!

Please answer the question:

How are gay people harming you or other people?

Until you can answer this I can't have much respect for your opinion - you're endorsing restricting the rights and freedoms of upto 10% of the worlds population when they pose no threat to you, you family or your lifestyle.

 

[Andyman_1970]

This has been a great discussion, I'm glad we had it today.

I apologized for the airplane example, it was poor and didn't quite make the point I was after. Anyway.......

Originally posted by Changleen
No, but I don't need to! I experience that it works well enough to stop my component atoms disassociating or whatever. I don't need to have 'faith' in it! I have experience.

Not to beat the faith thing to death.

Faith from Websters (but your a smart guy so this is not nessecary)

1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : LOYALTY b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs
synonym see BELIEF
- in faith : without doubt or question : VERILY

The definition does have it's roots in matters of religon but, can also mean things like "complete trust". By definition if you have complete trust in yourself and your experiences you have faith.

Ok I'm done with that.

Originally posted by Changleen
mechanics of materials,
-I have a degree in materials Engineering

Sweet, I'm and engineer also.

Originally posted by Changleen
ARGHH! Please accept that our brains work differently. B]

Oh I have.

Originally posted by Changleen
Faith: Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

It can also mean other things, see above.

Originally posted by Changleen
Please, enough with the faith already! Your world view and the way you look at things allow you to beleive in a god there is no rational proof for. I do not, cannot accept that he/it/whatever exists. Do you see the difference that makes in the way we think, and probably perceive the world?

That's fine my whole point was not to prove or disprove His existence, or to "sell" you on Him. Again, faith and religon are not always connected.

Originally posted by Changleen
I don't begrudge you your faith, I'm sure it's nice to accept things without question - just please accept I don't do that!

Like I said that's cool that you don't accept that, I am not doing a sales pitch on you. I don't accept things without question, you indicate your anylitical and such, well I'm the same way in the study of the Scriptures and the history and culture surrounding it, esspecially Judiasm. So I'm not forming these beleifs based on what someone told me to think, anyway.........

Originally posted by Changleen
I think, based on my observation of relgious societies, that overtly relgious viewpoints are considerably less likely to be sucessful in the modern world. Evidence: Isreal/Palestine, Nearly all Middle eastern economies, Eastern Europe... I'm not going to go into miniscule detail but surly you can see what I'm getting at here?

I agree, but what about the US, this was a country founded by Christians and upon Christian beliefs, I would say we have been successful. But I don't want to open that whole can of worms, it's Friday, and I'm pooped.

Originally posted by Changleen
So, if your morals truly are those of the Bible, and you apply no independant though or judgement before applying them, then as you put it, yes, I do think that your ideas are innapropriate and possibly even dangerous. However, I don't think you personally are so minded, are you?

My morals are those of the Bible, as a follower of Jesus how could they be different? Do I make those decisions based on what someone has told me is the truth, or do I research it for myself......I study and research carefully, I am an engineer that's how I'm wired.

Originally posted by Changleen
'Bigoted' implies the formation of an opinion without knowledge, or more importantly, consideration of the opposing opinion. I have thoroughly reviewed various religious viewpoint from the world over, and drawn my own conclusions. Fundamentalist Christians take their opinions from the Bible, no questions asked. I think you can appreciate the difference?

Ok if not bigoted how about one sided? I do take my opinions from the Bible, only after they have been throughly examined.

Originally posted by Changleen
If I consider more things, allow myself to experience more viewpoints, allow my view of reality to be altered by fresh data and ideas, how can I possibly be on the same plane of understanding as someone who refuses to accept evolution despite the ridiculous volume of hard evidence to the contrary?

Macro evolution can no more be proved measured or any of the other criteria you use than proving the Bible to be false. Macro evolution is still a theroy, no one has seen a cat turn into a horse (not in the same family I know, just using the example), or a lizard turn into a bird as some speculate.

You're going to hate this, it takes just as much faith to believe evolution as it takes to believe the Bible (there is lots of historical and archeological evidence to support the autheticity of the Scriptures we have today).

What was definition number "1" of faith? Sorry, I'm done with that, it's not really my point anyway.

Originally posted by Changleen
I judge mine will most likely make me more sucessful in the modern world.

Again your understanding, and that's cool. But it doesn't make it the "truth".

Originally posted by Changleen
And I'll post it again:
When I look at a women lustfully it may be because she is really clever, and that excites me. It is precisly because of her 'personality' and 'humanity' that I am attracted to her.

Where's the 'objectification' in that?.

I don't know how we got to chasing this rabbit. But we obviously have differnt points of view, which is fine.

Originally posted by Changleen
When it comes to Fundamentalist Religion, I don't consider myself Tolerant. I think the world would be a lot better off without fundamentalists.

So is it ok to be intolerant about somethings? What is it that most people have a problem with Christianity? The intolerance, "those Godless gays" or "those Baby killin abortion Dr's". Those are the very things about "Christianity" that people hate, and yet you freely admit you are intolerant (which is fine) but that makes you no better than those you are intolerant of. Do you see the irony in your postion?

Originally posted by Changleen
DUDE! Is that what you think gay people are like? Obsesed with sex and promiscuity? They wander round f*cking anyone? Here in reality, they have the same relationship conflicts, values and standards as anyone. They just happen to like people of the same sex. That's all!

No not at all, the point I was making was regarding sexual immorality in general.

Originally posted by Changleen
Please answer the question:

How are gay people harming you or other people?

Until you can answer this I can't have much respect for your opinion - you're endorsing restricting the rights and freedoms of upto 10% of the worlds population when they pose no threat to you, you family or your lifestyle.

I am not endorsing restricting the rights of anyone. Where is it written we have the right to sleep with whoever we are attracted to? I don't think I have stated in this thread anything about restricting the rights of gay people.

How are gay people harming others? I can't see that they are. As a Christian (this may shock you, and I am a "fundamentalist" i.e. I take the Scriptures literally) I am called to love these peolpe, not stand around and say all fags are going to hell. You see those "Christians" that do that are not acting in accordance with what Jesus taught. Granted they give us all a bad name, but that is not how we are to treat them.

You probably read on the abortion post where I wrote we (Christians) are to treat everyone with respect and dignity. That is what the Bible literally says, that is what Jesus literally taught -I'm what you call a "fundamentalist" and I take that literally. How is treating EVERYONE with respect and dignity bad?

Anyway, this has been a great discussion. I respect your point of view and the context of your arguements. My humble advice is (and I dislike the actions those "kinds" of Christians as much as you) don't lower yourself to their level with the whole intolerance thing. Don't be like those you hate. Be open minded about people of faith, they might just surprise you. We all don't stand on the street corner beating a Bible yelling "God hates fags".

Some of us who take Jesus' teachings seriously are out there where the "rubber meets the road" caring for and loving those people that Jesus would have (gays, unwed mothers considering abortion, drug addicts etc.).

Have a good weekend, and hope you get a good ride in.

 

[Changleen]

Yes, thank you too!



Good discussion and I hope you have a good weekend too. Unfortunatley it looks like it's gonna rain cats and dogs here all weekend so riding is probably out, and bike maitainence is probably in.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Changleen
ARGHH! Please accept that our brains work differently. B]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Oh I have.

LOL!

See you next week!

 

[MikeD]

Originally posted by ALEXIS_DH
i think is anything that gives the people a sense of ultimate truth and turn them into fanatics.

like, make them feel absolutely right, so in the name of absolute true they do stuff they do. no religion only.

That's the bizarre thing...buddhism is in many ways the ultimate relativism. Forcing people to convert? That's not buddhism, it's politics.

 

[MikeD]

Originally posted by Andyman_1970


For example the whole "tolerance" deal (not to open that whole can of worms), if for example I disagree with the idea of say homosexuality I'm labeled as intolerant.

No, you're intolerant if you think homosexuals should be prosecuted by law, or should be afforded fewer civil rights, or if you constantly and agressively harass homosexuals Just disagreeing with or finding something distasteful doesn't make you intolerant. (Although I understand the term might be applied to you by an overzealous PC prig...)

And not all intolerance is bad...I don't think we should be tolerant of pedophiles, for example. (Now I'm begging the question of an essential nature vs. definition by action...but that's another book to write.)

MD

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

well, a huge point in this argument is the overlapping of some beliefs.

Me (an almost engineer) believes that science and human experience answer the HOWs of life. it took me hours of chatting to my rabbi to get to that point!.

Religion, faith, or whatever you want to call "believing in something just because" will give you WHYs.

people gotta grasp this concepts before forcing religion or faith crap into the realms of HOW something happen. its not its ground, and while it was intented to be so, it was because of our primitive grasp or reality at that time.

same thing, if i try to justify actions, or founding WHYs of life in science. well, its like trying to extract blood from a stone.

If you want to prosecute gays BECAUSE (pay attention here, because because is the answer to WHY) the bible, qoran says so, well, they are strechting it too much the purpose of belief.

if gayness should be ilegal, it should be because (note how the HOW works pretty good here), according to our experience that kind of behavior is dangerous, or problematic. and it is not.
thus, following the logical tree based on this tautology, which is based on experience, gayness should not be illegal.

what am trying to say, but my grasp of english doesnt allow me to i think, is that religion and science are diametral opposite. one is based on axioms based on experience. and the other is based on guesses of ancient people (its supposed to be G-d, but we dont know that from other source than those who said they talked with him)

guess which one is closer to the truth?

 

[Silver]

Allright, that's it. I'm taking my golden tablets and special glasses and going home...:devil: