Hindu's to Christians in India: "convert or die"

[kermitology]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Your example of religious intolerance is a poor one. This Quebec family was wise to pull their children out of that school. It is impossible to teach religious positions without bias. It is not the States responsibility to provide the bias. I don't know how you can see that the absence of the States interference will lead to these children to killing heathens. I know a few devote Catholics and have never felt at risk around them.

Not a comment in the literal sense. But it certainly does breed intolerance. Religions can be presented from an unbiased point of view depending on the depth and conviction by which they are delivered. All it does is restricts the parent's ability to impose their own thought process upon the children. While that is within their rights to do so, I don't think it's fair to the child to not provide them with alternate information. I don't understand why religion shouldn't be an informed decision.



I don't know of anyone who believes that humans being created in the image of God equates to any of us being equal in substance. The same book that that says that clearly shows mankind as fallen creatures.

I never said equal in substance. But even the sheer notion that we are created in the same visual image is something I can't agree with.

My or someone else's inability to adapt from the tenants of their Holy Book should only be a problem if that book instructs them to harm their fellow man. The times in history when Christians have wrongly taken up arms for religious reasons are the times when their leadership has lead them away from the instructions and values of the Bible. Adaptation is not necessarily a good thing.

Corruption, greed, quest for power. The Catholic church has a well documented history of doing all that. In effect the same thing that dilutes Utopian Communism into murderous socialism. Sticking to your guns so devoutly even in the presence of empirical evidence to the contrary turns people against one another. It breeds conflict because one group or the other cannot admit they are wrong.

At the end of your paragraph you throw out some of your personal doubts about the accuracy of the Bible we have today. I don't agree but, this is probably not the place to start comparing manuscript evidence. Something that large in scope would need its own thread.

Ever play telephone? Purple Monkey Dishwasher FTW. But to add, it doesn't mean that the ideas are wrong, but that the likelihood of them being literal is incredibly small...even for a holy text.

Comments in RED.

Care to respond to my comments regarding the reasoning for the removal of religion in Communism?

[Lithium]

Originally Posted by cyclone3483

ya, even morons (like Lithium) have one

Ouch...my feelings.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by cyclone3483

I find that offensive and not the least bit funny IMHO

Aw, that's terrible. Unfortunately, you don't have the right to not be offended.

Aren't you the one who suggested some of us are going to be suffering for eternity in a lake of fire?

I don't really find it offensive, because I laughed, but some people could be offended by it.

[photon]

Originally Posted by cyclone3483

ya, even morons (like Lithium) have one

Calling someone a moron is against the guidelines for this form... because I'm actually active in this thread I don't want to give out an infraction for it so I'll just give a warning: if you can't talk about a topic without resorting to name calling then it's best to not participate.

[alltherage]

I just don't understand how people like Lithium can move all the Bibles to the fiction section, and then bitch about how Christians try to "spread the word." It's ridiculously hypocritical and I just don't understand the agenda behind un-converting people from what is, in most cases, a fairly constructive thing.

If you look at civilization as a whole, most of the countries that are more developed in terms of educational systems, stable governments, etc, were built on foundations of Christianity. Could it be because (nevermind the concepts that can't or won't be grasped by non-beleivers, like "eternal life" and "a higher being") there are core values in place like love and respect for one another, rather than some chaotic smorg of selfish culture based on dog-eat-dog mentalities that ultimately doom themselves?

[HotHotHeat]

I think all this discussion has strayed off topic from the original thread title, which basically states that there is a group of believers threatening to take the lives of another group of believers, despite the fact that neither group possesses the ability to prove their side (not that it should matter who's right - that seems to be the justification). This type of thinking is dangerous and irrational.

In my mind, regardless of what name the religion takes on - or what it claims to be true, there is a common trend among all religions that advocates spreading the word of their religion. This idea alone directly creates competition, which in a public arena is confrontational, and therefore causes tension. Tension leads to conflict, and for that fact religion is guilty of creating conflict. Not war, but conflict. I'll stop short of war because holy war is not war, apparently, it's just following guidance and carrying out orders.

Obviously people most people won't fight for their religion, at least in this part of the world, but I have to wonder, if we're speaking about religion in general, why you'd want to attach yourself to something that enables people to do terrible, destructive things. To admit religion is flawed in this sense, and then defend it's nature is self-defeating IMO.

EDIT: ATR makes the point that religion can be constructive because the core, moral values of religion are well intended - which is to suggest that a non literal position is a healthy foundation to create a society on (I assume). That's all fine and dandy, but why call it religion then? You're taking out the spiritual, super natural part of the equation. All you're left with is a set of rules to follow that creates a more or less civil society. Nothing about that is religious. It's just a set of fairy tale children's stories.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by alltherage

If you look at civilization as a whole, most of the countries that are more developed in terms of educational systems, stable governments, etc, were built on foundations of Christianity. Could it be because (nevermind the concepts that can't or won't be grasped by non-beleivers, like "eternal life" and "a higher being") there are core values in place like love and respect for one another, rather than some chaotic smorg of selfish culture based on dog-eat-dog mentalities that ultimately doom themselves?

It is just not true that "love and respect for one another etc" is the exclusive innovation of Christianity. Our ethics and morals have their roots in the natural world, not religions.

My oft-cited quote:

Sam Harris in The End of Faith:

The pervasive idea that religion is somehow the source of our deepest ethical intuitions is absurd. We no more get our sense that cruelty is wrong from the pages of the Bible than we get our sense that two plus two equals four from the pages of a textbook on mathematics. Anyone who does not harbor some rudiementary sense that cruelty is wrong is unlikely to learn that it is by reading - and, indeed most scripture offers rather equivocal testimony to this fact in many cases. Our ethical intuitions must have their precursors in the natural world . . . concern for others was not the invention of any prophet. [Harris, p. 172]

http://www.penguin.ca/nf/Book/BookDi...051275,00.html

CAN WE BE GOOD WITHOUT GOD

Behaviour, Belonging and the Need to Believe
Dr. Robert Buckman - Author

Buckman also examines the relationship between beliefs and ethics. Many of us use rules set by our religion to guide our behavior, yet now, more than ever, religious doctrine can seem out of alignment with our sense of ethical conduct. If you don't believe in God, can you still behave decently and ethically?

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn
Your example of religious intolerance is a poor one. This Quebec family was wise to pull their children out of that school. It is impossible to teach religious positions without bias. It is not the States responsibility to provide the bias. I don't know how you can see that the absence of the States interference will lead to these children to killing heathens. I know a few devote Catholics and have never felt at risk around them.

Not a comment in the literal sense. But it certainly does breed intolerance. Religions can be presented from an unbiased point of view depending on the depth and conviction by which they are delivered. All it does is restricts the parent's ability to impose their own thought process upon the children. While that is within their rights to do so, I don't think it's fair to the child to not provide them with alternate information. I don't understand why religion shouldn't be an informed decision.

I disagree that you can teach religion without bias. Look at the example of Atheists on this sight. Of all the religious sects you would think the "un-religion" would be the most balanced in a discussion. Most of the discussions regarding religion on this site are started by atheists. They appear to have more zeal to proselytize than any other religious group. In a school setting you would have the influence of the teacher and curriculum. Like politics it would be impossible to present it with balance.




I don't know of anyone who believes that humans being created in the image of God equates to any of us being equal in substance. The same book that that says that clearly shows mankind as fallen creatures.

I never said equal in substance. But even the sheer notion that we are created in the same visual image is something I can't agree with.

Again because God is Spirit not too many Christians would interpret that passage in Genesis to mean that God looks like a man. We are like God in that unlike other creatures we are eternal and have a personal volition that can defy both instinct and environmental conditioning. We are also self aware.


My or someone else's inability to adapt from the tenants of their Holy Book should only be a problem if that book instructs them to harm their fellow man. The times in history when Christians have wrongly taken up arms for religious reasons are the times when their leadership has lead them away from the instructions and values of the Bible. Adaptation is not necessarily a good thing.

Corruption, greed, quest for power. The Catholic church has a well documented history of doing all that. In effect the same thing that dilutes Utopian Communism into murderous socialism. Sticking to your guns so devoutly even in the presence of empirical evidence to the contrary turns people against one another. It breeds conflict because one group or the other cannot admit they are wrong.

Corruption greed and the pursuit of power are the causes. Strong differences in beliefs: not so much. For the record; I'm the guy who will invite the Mormon or the Jehovah Witness in when they come to my door. I am civil and don't jump all over them when they don't have an answer. They have to come to their own conclusions. What I won't do is allow them to talk to my children.


At the end of your paragraph you throw out some of your personal doubts about the accuracy of the Bible we have today. I don't agree but, this is probably not the place to start comparing manuscript evidence. Something that large in scope would need its own thread.

Ever play telephone? Purple Monkey Dishwasher FTW. But to add, it doesn't mean that the ideas are wrong, but that the likelihood of them being literal is incredibly small...even for a holy text.

I have never played telephone.

Comments in Blue

Care to respond to my comments regarding the reasoning for the removal of religion in Communism?

You may very well be right. Most people when they think of the Christian church think of the Roman Catholic church or the Greek Orthodox church. Both of these institutions have highly developed cast systems. I suppose any organization Christian or otherwise has by their very nature an authority or cast built in. Of course the communist party becomes its own oppressive cast system once it grabs power.

[Nancy]

Wow Calgaryborn has now literally resorted to posting in red, white, and blue.

[slikster]

Originally Posted by troutman

We no more get our sense that cruelty is wrong from the pages of the Bible than we get our sense that two plus two equals four from the pages of a textbook on mathematics. Anyone who does not harbor some rudiementary sense that cruelty is wrong is unlikely to learn that it is by reading - and, indeed most scripture offers rather equivocal testimony to this fact in many cases. Our ethical intuitions must have their precursors in the natural world . . . concern for others was not the invention of any prophet. [Harris, p. 172]

This is absurdly wrong on so many levels. To say that human ethical beliefs are natural laws akin to mathematics? Please. And this in no way takes into account anything evil that people around the world do every day.

Humans must be taught right and wrong, it is not innate. If we did not have the capacity to teach our children right from wrong, we would be no better than animals (whom we as humans also have to teach.)

[photon]

Originally Posted by alltherage

I just don't understand how people like Lithium can move all the Bibles to the fiction section, and then bitch about how Christians try to "spread the word." It's ridiculously hypocritical and I just don't understand the agenda behind un-converting people from what is, in most cases, a fairly constructive thing.

I didn't see Lithium bitching about Christians spreading the word, so to call it hypocritical doesn't make any sense. Wait until someone actually does something before calling them out for it.

And most people who would actively try to un-convert people have reasons to do so, they probably wouldn't agree that religion is constructive and have well thought out reasons for thinking so. You may agree or disagree with their reasons, but you can't disagree that those reasons exist.

If you look at civilization as a whole, most of the countries that are more developed in terms of educational systems, stable governments, etc, were built on foundations of Christianity.

Correlation does not equal causation. Christianity was a huge component of society the last 2000 years, I'd be shocked if Christianity wasn't at the roots of most of the countries founded while Christianity was very strong.

And that's just an appeal to consequence fallacy; just because a Christian worldview results in more developed countries (I don't think that's true but just making a point), doesn't mean there's any truth to it.

Plus studies show that there's an inverse correlation with the religiosity of a country and the quality of life in that country; the more religious a country things like teen pregnancy and life expectancy and such get worse, not better.

Could it be because (nevermind the concepts that can't or won't be grasped by non-beleivers, like "eternal life" and "a higher being")

Why does one have to be a believer to grasp a concept? I don't believe in a flat earth but I can understand the concept.

there are core values in place like love and respect for one another, rather than some chaotic smorg of selfish culture based on dog-eat-dog mentalities that ultimately doom themselves?

Most of the world doesn't believe in the Christian God, but those places that don't aren't a "chaotic smorg of selfish culture based on dog-eat-dog mentalities that ultimately doom themselves".

[GGG]

Originally Posted by HotHotHeat

Obviously people most people won't fight for their religion, at least in this part of the world, but I have to wonder, if we're speaking about religion in general, why you'd want to attach yourself to something that enables people to do terrible, destructive things. To admit religion is flawed in this sense, and then defend it's nature is self-defeating IMO.

In modern times we could replace the word religion with the word Democracy, Class, or Socio Economic Status. Why would I want to attach myself to any of the groups when they can do destructive things. The answer is that you believe that the groups you belong to do more harm then good.

Zimbabwae at the start of Mugabe's government is a good example of a non-religous conflict similar to the Hindu Christian one that is now occuring. You had poor Black farmers siezing with government help kicking out the rich white Land owners. (Note that this is a gross over simplification of all the issues that were happening) but here you had a few means of control being used to exert power Poverty, Class and Race. In the Hindu Christian Crisis you have Religion, Poverty and Class.

So to inherently blame religion for the conflict is very misleading as I will reiterate people who want power will use whatever means of control are available to them. If you take away religion they will use something else the most common lately becoming socioeconomic status.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

I disagree that you can teach religion without bias. Look at the example of Atheists on this sight. Of all the religious sects you would think the "un-religion" would be the most balanced in a discussion. Most of the discussions regarding religion on this site are started by atheists. They appear to have more zeal to proselytize than any other religious group.

There are approximately 600 churches in the Calgary yellow pages.

There isn't a listing for "Atheists". No associations or anything like that. At least that I could find. But for the sake of argument, let's say there is one.

That means the score is 600 - 1. So really, who has more zeal to proselytize?

[kermitology]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn
Ever play telephone? Purple Monkey Dishwasher FTW. But to add, it doesn't mean that the ideas are wrong, but that the likelihood of them being literal is incredibly small...even for a holy text.

I have never played telephone.

Comments in Blue

The phrase "purple monkey dishwasher" is uttered by Edna Krabappel, after a message originating with Bart is passed down a line of people. The nonsensical nature of the comment is similar to the end product of a game of "Chinese Whispers or "Telephone"), where a story or phrase passed sequentially from one member of a group to another is often grossly distorted once it reaches the intended recipient.

Simpsons reference..

I respectfully mus disagree that you cannot be informed of other religions without a biased viewpoint. If the teacher is objective and presents equal arguments and viewpoints of each religion, the student can be informed without one viewpoint being more heavily featured. In terms of practicing the faith, that seems quite impossible. But the scale of that the teaching in question would likely be a skimmed over view anyways. On a more detailed level, study of multiple religions is something that many people pursue.

It seems that your convictions and views of Atheists is causing you to lack objectivity. You lump the few in with the many, something that Atheists are guilty of as well, and it is not an accurate portrayal of the group. It's the same thing as the threat of association with Islam is direct association with terrorism.

Because I challenge your faith does that mean that I am an Atheist? Because I challenge all faith does that mean I'm an Atheist? Are you a better person because you allow a JW or Morman into your home even though you know they won't convert you, while I would politely tell them that I'm not interested in their spiel?

In my opinion, you invite negative responses toward yourself because you present your arguments in a holier than thou manner (pun ). Just because you're a Christian doesn't mean you're right. Perspective changes everything.

[photon]

Originally Posted by slikster

Humans must be taught right and wrong, it is not innate. If we did not have the capacity to teach our children right from wrong, we would be no better than animals (whom we as humans also have to teach.)

Animals have their own sense of right and wrong... higher primates have very complex systems that show many resemblances to our own, even things like altruism.

Feral children which have never been taught by humans still show innate values.. so there is some innate portion of value systems.

I wouldn't go so far as to equate them with mathematics, it is interesting that different groups of primates developed similar sets of values over time.

Which makes sense, as an intelligent species evolves things like values that benefit the whole species would become part of the basic structure of the brain, in the same way that "instincts" in animals occur.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

There are approximately 600 churches in the Calgary yellow pages.

There isn't a listing for "Atheists". No associations or anything like that. At least that I could find. But for the sake of argument, let's say there is one.

That means the score is 600 - 1. So really, who has more zeal to proselytize?

These 600 churches serve a group of people who are already converted so their primary purpose isn't conversion. Now if you could go through the list of churches and find which ones have very active recruitment and have missions set up in Calgary you might be able to find an accurate score.

( I really tried to avoid the off-topic discussions in this thread but this comment was too ridiculus for me)

[kermitology]

I actually hold Atheism as a faith of sorts.. faith is something you believe in despite concrete evidence supporting it.

There is no empirical proof that God exists or does not exist. The absence of proof does not in itself prove that God does not exist.

So by that logic, an Atheist, claiming that there is no God, despite a lack of proof, is taking a leap of faith. Therefor, Atheism can be classified as a faith. A faith that there is nothing to have faith in. Odd..

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by GGG

These 600 churches serve a group of people who are already converted so their primary purpose isn't conversion. Now if you could go through the list of churches and find which ones have very active recruitment and have missions set up in Calgary you might be able to find an accurate score.

( I really tried to avoid the off-topic discussions in this thread but this comment was too ridiculus for me)

Sorry for being so ridiculous.

The notion that atheists "proselytize" more than any religious group is ridiculous too. I figured the whole infrastructure of Christianity might demonstrate just how ridiculous it is. I guess you don't agree.

I suppose Peter's Drive-In sells more burgers than McDonald's.

[FlamingLonghorn]

nm don't want to get involved in this...

[photon]

Originally Posted by kermitology

I actually hold Atheism as a faith of sorts.. faith is something you believe in despite concrete evidence supporting it.

There is no empirical proof that God exists or does not exist. The absence of proof does not in itself prove that God does not exist.

So by that logic, an Atheist, claiming that there is no God, despite a lack of proof, is taking a leap of faith. Therefor, Atheism can be classified as a faith. A faith that there is nothing to have faith in. Odd..

I would agree for the most part, but some things would need to be clarified.

First, what kind of atheist? There's the atheist that says exactly as you say, there is no empirical evidence that God exists, therefore they take the default logical position that there is no God until more evidence comes to light (weak atheist).

Then there's the strong atheist who would make a positive statement that there most probably or definitely is no God.

Which might seem like a position of faith, until you dig a bit deeper.

The first question to ask a strong atheist is "which God". Even Dawkins, probably as strong an atheist as you can get, says his confidence level in his position of no God depends on what definition of God you are using.

He says if you are using a vague pantheistic definition, or the idea of a God that watches but doesn't interfere with the universe, then his atheism isn't strong because as you say there's no way to tell. So Dawkins' atheism with respect to a deist's God might only be a 6 out of 10.

But if you use the definition of God as given in a set of scriptures (such as the Bible) then you CAN make a more definite judgment because there is in fact empirical evidence. There are specific claims about the properties of the God of the Bible, and if those claims can be demonstrated to be false, then that would be evidence against the God.

So an atheist may say a God may exist, but it isn't the God of the Bible (or Zeus or Odin or whoever else). An individual atheist may vary from weak to strong depending on which God it is.