Religion has caused more

Byrnzie

angelica wrote:

Does this "response" devoid of actual response to my points mean you are glossing over said points while focussing on your own agenda?

Can I join in your argument??? I'm getting bored! Please, argue with me! :mad: I want to be told I'm wrong! :cool:

angelica

IndianSummer wrote:

no i am not glossing over.

i want the answer in a simple yes or no - "are for or against people of marginalised beliefs systems being made to abandon their beliefs and traditions in favour of alien values, instead of being encouraged to try and keep the flame of their culture and values alive??"

I would love to address your points, when you address mine.

Byrnzie

angelica wrote:

I would love to address your points, when you address mine.

Why don't you just get together and give each other a big hug? Maybe even form a new religion?

mammasan

IndianSummer wrote:

its not religion or mankind's distortion of religion.

its mankind's decision to shove their religion or even a distorted version of their religion, down other's throats and the fact that to that end (the end of proselytising/conversion) they stop at very little - crusades, inquisitions, genocides, witch burning, taking advantage of the poor, hogwash, cunning et al. the best of both the stick and the carrot approaches.

But doesn't that fall under mankinds distortion of religion. I'm pretty sure that when Jesus asked his disciples to spread the word of God he never intended it to be done at the edge of a sword or the barrel of a gun. Mankind has taken that message, and I'm not simply blaming Christians here I only mentioned them because that is what I was brought up and know, and distorted it to use it as an excuse to perpetrate heinous acts against those they deem as non-believers. So in short it is mankind;s distortion of religion, not religion itself, that has taken so many lives.

IndianSummer

mammasan wrote:

But doesn't that fall under mankinds distortion of religion.

its mankinds decision to distort (inflate) the number of followers of his religion thats to blame.

converted people dont follow a different/distorted brand of the religion from the ones who did the converting.

IndianSummer

angelica wrote:

It is interesting to me is how you frame your background with value, integrity and meaning, while you take the meaning and value out of the lives and actions of others and portray them as evil or as victims.

how so??

angelica wrote:

It's too one-dimensional and caricaturish to be realistic.


Are you familiar with the "rescuer/victim/persecutor" triangle?

no.

angelica wrote:

It is a premise whereupon when we see through either of the three views--for example, we see ourself as rescuer of the poor and downtrodden, we end up cycling through all imbalanced views. We are trying to rescue those "poor natives" at least in theory,

yeah the missionaries do flatter themselves with the vainglorious belief that they are trying to save the "unsaved" native from hell fire and eternal damnation, when in reality they are depleting one religious and cultural belief system inch by inch.

angelica wrote:

then we find we've become the victim, ourselves because others won't listen to us championing the poor natives.

yes, when misionaries fail to conevrt, they act victimised - very true in india for example - we have the highest number of missionaries (home grown and imported) for any country in the world, and have held this dubious distinction for 200 years now. yet less than one percent of hindus have fallen for their hogwqsh and been converted.

angelica wrote:

Then we take on the persecutor role, giving our own selves permission to hate and blame, after all, others are "evil" and we are so good.

which is something the missionaries are known to have done all over the "unsaved" world. thats when they resort of inquisitions. eg - goa inquisition in india.

angelica wrote:

Each position represents a lack of realism or of seeing the whole as it is.

yes and that line is best used on the missionaries.

angelica wrote:

The position of health and balance is when we see ourselves and others as equals.

which is something the missionaries never do. to them christians are the highest and the rest are of lesser religions, destined for eternal damnation, unless ofcourse the "rescuer of the por and downtrodden" - ie the missionary manages to salvage our soul.

angelica wrote:

We don't look down on "poor victims" and we don't look up to heroes.

well the missionaries do. their heroes include charlemagne and constantine and other expert proselytisiers.

angelica wrote:

We recognise we're all the same at heart, with the potential to do good, as well as to do bad.

well the missionaries recognise no such thing. to them, only they do good while the unsaved are up to bad and devilious/satanic ways.

angelica wrote:

We recognise that we all have life challenges, and we all do the best we can with what we've got. In other words, we see realistically.

we do, but them missionaries dont. its not realistic at all to think only they are gods children while the followers of other belief systems and culture are damned.

IndianSummer

angelica wrote:

I would love to address your points, when you address mine.

i just did.

so are you for or against.

mammasan

IndianSummer wrote:

its mankinds decision to distort (inflate) the number of followers of his religion thats to blame.

converted people dont follow a different/distorted brand of the religion from the ones who did the converting.

I'm not disagreeing with you. I just think that all that you have stated fall under the heading ofr man's distortion of religion.

IndianSummer

mammasan wrote:

I'm not disagreeing with you. I just think that all that you have stated fall under the heading ofr man's distortion of religion.

not really. cos its clearly stated in 2 religions to go and spread the word and convert the whole wold to the fold. so in 2 religions, proselyting doesnt involve distorting.

hippiemom

IndianSummer wrote:

yes, when misionaries fail to conevrt, they act victimised - very true in india for example - we have the highest number of missionaries (home grown and imported) for any country in the world, and have held this dubious distinction for 200 years now. yet less than one percent of hindus have fallen for their hogwqsh and been converted.

Please explain how you've arrived at the conclusion that the Christian faith is "hogwash" and the Hindu faith is not. You can't possibly insult me, since I'm neither Christian nor Hindu, so have at it. I am curious.

IndianSummer

hippiemom wrote:

Please explain how you've arrived at the conclusion that the Christian faith is "hogwash" and the Hindu faith is not. You can't possibly insult me, since I'm neither Christian nor Hindu, so have at it. I am curious.

a bit of misconstruing involved there ^.

i didnt say the christian faith is hogwash.

i said - "we have the highest number of missionaries (home grown and imported) for any country in the world, and have held this dubious distinction for 200 years now. yet less than one percent of hindus have fallen for their hogwqsh and been converted."


"their hogwash" NOT = christianity.
"their hogwash" = how christianity is the religion to convert to, how the non christians are destined for hell fire, how hinduism (or any non christian ism) is al bad and needs to be abandoned in favour of christianity EDIT : and/or any other apparoach they take in order to convert.

clear now?

mammasan

IndianSummer wrote:

not really. cos its clearly stated in 2 religions to go and spread the word and convert the whole wold to the fold. so in 2 religions, proselyting doesnt involve distorting.

I understand that but do these religions also state that this should be done by force against the will of the people you are attempting to convert. I know Jesus wanted the word of God spread across the known world but would Jesus have approved of the Crusades or the Inquisition. No, that was manking taking what was written as the word of God and manipulating it to fit nicely into thier agenda. Would God or Jesus approve of the bombing of abortion clinics. All of the horrorable acts are done in the name of a god that would never encourage such behavior.

IndianSummer

mammasan wrote:

I understand that but do these religions also state that this should be done by force against the will of the people you are attempting to convert.

in one of the 2 faiths at least the founder led by example and by the sword.

mammasan wrote:

I know Jesus wanted the word of God spread across the known world but would Jesus have approved of the Crusades or the Inquisition.

no idea. but i am pretty sure that the roman emperor - constantine- who ultimately "legalised" christianity and made it the state religion (by passing the edict of milan if i remember right), who not think twice.

mammasan wrote:

No, that was mankind taking what was written as the word of God and manipulating it to fit nicely into thier agenda.

yes. given that the ball (of officially spreading christianity) was set rolling by constantine, its no wonder that acts like inquisitions, genocidal evangelism of charlemagne, and in latin america and phillipines etc etc followed.

mammasan wrote:

Would God or Jesus approve of the bombing of abortion clinics. All of the horrorable acts are done in the name of a god that would never encourage such behavior.

first prove that it was the word of god:P

mammasan

IndianSummer wrote:

in one of the 2 faiths at least the founder led by example and by the sword.





no idea. but i am pretty sure that the roman emperor - constantine- who ultimately "legalised" christianity and made it the state religion (by passing the edict of milan if i remember right), who not think twice.

yes. given that the ball (of officially spreading christianity) was set rolling by constantine, its no wonder that acts like inquisitions, genocidal evangelism of charlemagne, and in latin america and phillipines etc etc followed.


first prove that it was the word of god:P

But wasn't Constatine a man. He was not God or Jesus, so he infact took what was written and applied it to his agenda along the way distorting the word of God. As for your last comment I can't prove it nor am I a Christian I simply used Christianity as an example because that is what I am familiar with growing up in a Catholic family. I myself do not suscripe to any religion but i still don't believe that the religion itself is responsible for the acts carried out by men (or women) who are misguided and use it as they see fit to meet their desired ends.

hippiemom

IndianSummer wrote:

a bit of misconstruing involved there ^.

i didnt say the christian faith is hogwash.

i said - "we have the highest number of missionaries (home grown and imported) for any country in the world, and have held this dubious distinction for 200 years now. yet less than one percent of hindus have fallen for their hogwqsh and been converted."


"their hogwash" NOT = christianity.
"their hogwash" = how christianity is the religion to convert to, how the non christians are destined for hell fire, how hinduism (or any non christian ism) is al bad and needs to be abandoned in favour of christianity EDIT : and/or any other apparoach they take in order to convert.

clear now?

But all that stuff IS Christianity. It's right there in the bible that the only path to heaven is through Christ. It's not an approach they take just when they're out looking to convert people. Proselytizing is also part and parcel of the religion, they are called upon by their faith to spread the word. So I guess you do think it's hogwash after all, at least parts of it.

IndianSummer

hippiemom wrote:

It's right there in the bible that the only path to heaven is through Christ. So I guess you do think it's hogwash after all, at least parts of it.

the part in bold, is very narrowminded and very likely hogwash*, yes.



* a piece of hogwash so as to justify all out proselytisation

IndianSummer

mammasan wrote:

But wasn't Constatine a man. He was not God or Jesus, so he infact took what was written and applied it to his agenda along the way distorting the word of God. As for your last comment I can't prove it nor am I a Christian I simply used Christianity as an example because that is what I am familiar with growing up in a Catholic family. I myself do not suscripe to any religion but i still don't believe that the religion itself is responsible for the acts carried out by men (or women) who are misguided and use it as they see fit to meet their desired ends.

well after the part in bold, (in the previous post), i think much of the carnage would have been avoided if christianity/islam had not explicitly stated that theirs is the only path and that others need to be "Saved".

but it was stated (so its fair to conclude that at least the seeds of proselytisation WERE sowed by the religion itself), and it was left to people like constantine and charlemagne to find out their own ways and methods in which to "Save" others.

angelica

IndianSummer wrote:

does that obtuse answer mean that you are for or against people of marginalised beliefs systems being made to abandon their beliefs and traditions in favour of alien values, instead of being encouraged to try and keep the flame of their culture and values alive??

You've made it quite clear that you would like an "either/or" answer from me: for or against, is it right or wrong? And so on. I would love to accomodate you, however a either/or answer does would not do my view justice on the subject.

I'm for the empowerment of the individual. I'm for the support of each individual being empowered within their own lives, to make the best choices for themselves. I support individuals in unfolding as is in their best interests. I respect each person's profound inner power, and subsequent ability to make the best choices for themselves under any and all circumstances. I support each individual in the hearing of their own inner wisdom, and in following it. I trust that the decisions individuals make under any circumstances they are facing will be the best decisions they can come to, given what they have to work with in terms of inner and outer tools and reSources. I respect the processes of life, and I have faith in natural law and how it plays out all around us.

I see you denigrate missionaries for their arrogance, while you, yourself, look down upon other people's beliefs. Why do you give yourself permission to disrespect and look down on the very people you tell yourself you are defending?

IndianSummer wrote:

my parents taught me values, beliefs, traditions, languages that are mine, that have been practiced by my family line for 1000s of years, that are organically connected to me, and are the ones i was born into. i keep the flame alive.

...its perfect when a girraf born to girrafs, is taught by his parents and grows up to become a girraf and keeps the flame alive.

I hear: my values, beliefs, traditions, languages are valid. They were born into me. I keep the flame of the past alive and therefore have a valid role, living my purpose.

In contrast this is how it appear you assume others are living a legacy that is tainted with ugliness and evil:

IndianSummer wrote:

they were and still are taken advantage of.

...the few remaining natives in canada have today no clue of their religious beliefs, cultural traditions, perhaps even their language and have taken to a faith which has nothing whats so ever to do with them.

their languages are dead, their culture is dead, their mythology is dead (surving only in history books), their religion is dead.

i maintain they dont choose christianity or any other religion over their onw - they are induced/hogwashed to do so.

with native indians, who are induced to giving up their own values, culture, religion and traditions

the native who is poached by the missionary with all sorts of carrots is taught to chuck his own beliefs, traditions, values

they are taught to keep the vatican's flame alive....you know thats like elephants teaching a girraf to become an elephant.

I hear: these people are devoid of a valid values system. I hear: I don't care if they chose it, they were weak and cannot be counted on to make valid decisions because they were "hogwashed". Further, I hear you saying these individuals are not afforded the base human courtesy of having their view respected, because you have prejudged such views as come by in an invalid manner. I hear you saying these people are victims, and that they are not true to themselves.

IndianSummer

angelica wrote:

I see you denigrate missionaries for their arrogance, while you, yourself, look down upon other people's beliefs. Why do you give yourself permission to disrespect and look down on the very people you tell yourself you are defending?

i dunno where you got that from. i dont look down upon them or disrespect them. i think they are perfect as they are and need no "saving". its the missionaries who have no respect lost for natives traditions and values and religions and dont think twice about getting the natives to keep the flame of vatican alive, of course at the cost of keping their own velues and beliefs alive.

angelica wrote:

I hear: my values, beliefs, traditions, languages are valid. They were born into me. I keep the flame of the past alive and therefore have a valid role, living my purpose.

yes and as are the values, beliefs, traditions, languages of the natives JUST AS valid. they were born unto them and they have to keep that flame alive, more so cos they are the last few rememing ones.

only the missionaries dont subscribe to that ^.

angelica wrote:

In contrast this is how it appear you assume others are living a legacy that is tainted with ugliness and evil:

I hear: these people are devoid of a valid values system.

if "valid" here means "a set of beliefs, values etc to which they are ORGANICALLY and intrinsically related", then yes, to them, christianity or any other religion (barring their own) for that matter is not that valid. its not them to be christian or buddhist or hindu.

angelica wrote:

I hear: I don't care if they chose it,

yes they chose it. isnt it funny that only the natives in those parts of the world where the missionaries have been to, and offered free school, food and education are the ones who "chose" to convert.;)

angelica wrote:

they were weak

socially and econically weak yes.

angelica wrote:

and cannot be counted on to make valid decisions because they were "hogwashed".

can be, but its very difficult to resist when someone takes advantage of your economic and social-educational plight and offers to bail you out, in return of conversion.

angelica wrote:

Further, I hear you saying these individuals are not afforded the base human courtesy of having their view respected,

by missianaries??? when its explicitly stated in the bible that christ is the only way out?? not a chance !!

angelica wrote:

because you have prejudged such views as come by in an invalid manner.

oh no they are very valued all right, coming as they do from the bible, which ofcourse comes from about a dozen sources spanning 3-4 civilizations (sumerian, egyptian, iranian, roman,).

angelica wrote:

I hear you saying these people are victims, and that they are not true to themselves.

they are victimised yes. i never said they are not true to themselves.

if someone is victimised, say raped, she need not have been untrue to herself. she just didnt have a choice.

angelica

IndianSummer wrote:

i dunno where you got that from. i dont look down upon them or disrespect them. i think they are perfect as they are and need no "saving". its the missionaries who have no respect lost for natives traditions and values and religions and dont think twice about getting the natives to keep the flame of vatican alive, of course at the cost of keping their own velues and beliefs alive.

What I am talking about is that you are the one who now does not accept the chosen Native beliefs.

yes and as are the values, beliefs, traditions, languages of the natives JUST AS valid. they were born unto them and they have to keep that flame alive, more so cos they are the last few rememing ones.

You accept them having the beliefs they are born to, yet you denigrate the choices they are choosing NOW. As per this:

if "valid" here means "a set of beliefs, values etc to which they are ORGANICALLY and intrinsically related", then yes, to them, christianity or any other religion (barring their own) for that matter is not that valid. its not them to be christian or buddhist or hindu.

You will only accept them having what you feel are acceptable beliefs, you do not accept them having the beliefs they do have.

Can you tell me what you mean by "organically and intrinsically related", please?

IndianSummer wrote:

i never said they are not true to themselves.

You said: "they are taught to keep the vatican's flame alive....you know thats like elephants teaching a girraf to become an elephant." Weren't you meaning that as one-time giraffes, they have now become elephants?