Is Evangelization equal to Cultural Genocide?

brahmin wrote:

not that i know of.. not today... not in india. yes.

Good. We agree on this.

brahmin wrote:

er.. i suppose you meant that "religion of revenge" bit... whatever did u mean?

I meant that you were advocating killing people today for what others long ago did. That is revenge.

I hope that you no longer support this.

0 Replies

refer the "double disgust" and "increasing dosage" post.

0 Replies

I was just wondering about that terrorist group that bombed London recently. They say it was in response to the UK's role in Afghanistan and Iraq, but let's look down at what al Qaida's leader really wants.

An Islamic state where everyone is Muslim.

Is that not only Evangelisation but the destruction of freedom of speech as well?

0 Replies

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

I was just wondering about that terrorist group that bombed London recently. They say it was in response to the UK's role in Afghanistan and Iraq, but let's look down at what al Qaida's leader really wants.

An Islamic state where everyone is Muslim.

Is that not only Evangelisation but the destruction of freedom of speech as well?

If Al Qaida wanted to "evangelize" for the Muslim cause, they would be putting forth their case to explain why their beliefs are correct and superior, in order to change the hearts and minds of those that they wish to convert. And they would do it openly.

They do not really do this. They kill indiscriminately for revenge. This is what they state openly, that their killings are in response to............

They are nothing more than murderers. The fact that they use religion as a cloak to try to justify their deeds means little or nothing, except to gain them political cover.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:
I was just wondering about that terrorist group that bombed London recently. They say it was in response to the UK's role in Afghanistan and Iraq, but let's look down at what al Qaida's leader really wants.

An Islamic state where everyone is Muslim.

Is that not only Evangelisation but the destruction of freedom of speech as well?

If Al Qaida wanted to "evangelize" for the Muslim cause, they would be putting forth their case to explain why their beliefs are correct and superior, in order to change the hearts and minds of those that they wish to convert. And they would do it openly.

They do not really do this. They kill indiscriminately for revenge. This is what they state openly, that their killings are in response to............

They are nothing more than murderers. The fact that they use religion as a cloak to try to justify their deeds means little or nothing, except to gain them political cover.

Ah, but isn't this more or less what the Christians used to do back in the dark days when more than enough Christians went off the deep end of religious fervour?

0 Replies

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

real life wrote:
Wolf_ODonnell wrote:
I was just wondering about that terrorist group that bombed London recently. They say it was in response to the UK's role in Afghanistan and Iraq, but let's look down at what al Qaida's leader really wants.

An Islamic state where everyone is Muslim.

Is that not only Evangelisation but the destruction of freedom of speech as well?

If Al Qaida wanted to "evangelize" for the Muslim cause, they would be putting forth their case to explain why their beliefs are correct and superior, in order to change the hearts and minds of those that they wish to convert. And they would do it openly.

They do not really do this. They kill indiscriminately for revenge. This is what they state openly, that their killings are in response to............

They are nothing more than murderers. The fact that they use religion as a cloak to try to justify their deeds means little or nothing, except to gain them political cover.

Ah, but isn't this more or less what the Christians used to do back in the dark days when more than enough Christians went off the deep end of religious fervour?

Hi Wolf,

This has been a great discussion you began.

There is not a doubt that many wars have been fought where the leaders used Christian rhetoric on one or both sides to motivate, inflame and try to control armies and win battles.

Does the fact that these men acted under the color of religion necessarily make them all Christians? Certainly not. It is obvious from reading the lives of many of these leaders that they were "Christian" in name only.

Does this mean that no true Christian has ever been a leader in war? No. I am not one to make a case that there is no just war, and therefore no just cause for going to war. Sometimes there may be.

Sometimes Christian leaders (true Christians) have led the troops in battle or ruled over troops that went to battle.

Did every one of these leaders only go to war in a just sense? No. Obviously many of them did not. Some went mistakenly.

Absolutely, some had far worse motives even though they were Christians, and not in name only.

Christian people aren't sinless. Even in the Bible, David murdered a man to steal his wife.

I have never and will never make excuses for the many terrible things that have been perpetrated under the guise of Christian principle.

But I am not biased or naive enough to believe that all of these were actually done BY Christians. I am also not naive enough to believe that NONE of them were done by Christians.

What I am against is the perpetual broadbrushing of Christians in general that I see displayed in these discussions. Statements such as yours , made without qualifying, are an example of overstating the case. Probably it is unintentional.

Quote:

Ah, but isn't this more or less what the Christians used to do back in the dark days

This strikes me as very much an overly broad phrase.

Whether the people you are referring to were actually Christians or not, we do not know. This is because your broad statement does not define who you are indicting. They are just "the Christians" to you. But were they really Christian? And who are "they"?

If they are guilty of some crime, no doubt they are worthy of your indictment, and I would heartily agree with your indictment.

But to automatically assume that these nameless someones were Christians simply because they used Christian terminology or held a position of power in a "Christian" nation or ecclesiastical organization is to assume way too much.

I do not assume every time I meet a Muslim "Aha here is a person sympathetic with terrorists and probably one himself." So why would I make the same type of broadbrush where the term Christian is substituted for the term Muslim?

You want to discuss a specific instance? Name names. I will not justify the guilty, whether Christian or not.

But let's look at their lives and see if there is any evidence of Christianity behind the rhetoric.

Christ stated:

16 By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?
17 Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit.
18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit.
19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.
20 Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.
21 "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.

0 Replies

I have nothing against what you said in reply to my statement, however, I do have a problem with your way of quoting what I said.

You quoted:
"Ah, but isn't this more or less what the Christians used to do back in the dark days"

However, the full sentence was:
"Ah, but isn't this more or less what the Christians used to do back in the dark days when more than enough Christians went off the deep end of religious fervour?"

I intentionally put that extra part of the sentence (highlighted in bold in this post) to show that I didn't think that all Christians acted on the impulses of religious fervour and went on Crusades and Evangelisations, killing all those that refused to convert.

However, by focusing only on the first part, you focused only on the part that could be construed as stating that I thought all Christians used to do this.

Obviously this wasn't the case, as during the Witch Hunts, perfectly good people who were more likely than not Christians, were being burnt for being Satanic.

Maybe the wording wasn't clear enough, in which case I apologise fully.

This topic isn't about who did what, though.

It's about the act of Evangelisation, whether it is currently a bit too much like forcing religion down other people's throats, whether there is currently too much of it and whether it is wrong.

There are people out there who would be only too glad to see the other religions die, even if their means to such a method is peaceful and involves only preaching and speaking to people. Is that mentality right?

Frankly, I don't think it's right.

P.S. I thought of this topic when searching for a piece of code for a website I was working on. I came across a nice piece of code, but the demo page was nothing more than a journal about an Evangelist and how he managed to convert a Buddhist and had condescending words considering the Muslim that he tried but failed to convert. Thankfully, I've forgotten where I found it, because I have no intention of going anywhere near that horrible site.

I got the creeps when reading that site. The pictures, though they had nothing horrific like those Abu Ghraib pictures and certainly nothing that would earn condemnation, gave off the same kind of vibe. Maybe it was because they had same kind of lighting and the same bizarre smiles, but it really didn't agree with me.

0 Replies

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

There are people out there who would be only too glad to see the other religions die, even if their means to such a method is peaceful and involves only preaching and speaking to people. Is that mentality right?

Frankly, I don't think it's right.

So if the only thing someone does is speak and persuade, you're still against that?

What then? Are you advocating censorship? Denial of free speech if the topic is religious in nature?

Obviously not every idea or viewpoint is equally valid. We realised that while speaking with Brahmin, if we hadn't known it before. His "turn on the ovens" philosophy was worthy of condemnation from any thinking individual.

If every single adherent of a particular point of view are persuaded that their idea is incorrect and they adopt another point of view, why is it bad that their previous position now has no adherents?

Does every philosophy, no matter how outlandish or dangerous or factually challenged, DESERVE adherents? Do we then FORCE some people to retain ideas that they would rather abandon?

Everybody on this board has ideas that they put forward. Are we all doing a dangerous thing by speaking our mind and possibly inspiring someone to think and change theirs?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

There are people out there who would be only too glad to see the other religions die, even if their means to such a method is peaceful and involves only preaching and speaking to people. Is that mentality right?

Frankly, I don't think it's right.

So if the only thing someone does is speak and persuade, you're still against that?

What then? Are you advocating censorship? Denial of free speech if the topic is religious in nature?

What is wrong with this topic? Perhaps I'm not wording my thoughts correctly, because people keep misunderstanding me and going off on completely different tangents altogether.

If I was advocating censorship, I would have said so.

Besides, do you really think your country is free from censorship? I've seen countless things being censored in America, most of it Japanese Anime that has had its target audience altered.

Ever since your argument with Brahmin, you have become absolutely obsessed with one aspect of the argument, that is the complete destruction of freedom of speech.

This topic isn't supposed to be focused on Freedom of Speech. It's supposed to be about cultural genocide and the destruction of Freedom of Ideas.

It's all good and well having Freedom of Speech, but when everyone thinks the same, is that okay? Is it okay to have only one way of thinking, the Christian way? Because some people want this. They don't want others to go an alternative way.

It has to be the Christian way or else, and they will virilently pursue this dream through constant preaching and ranting.

Quote:

Obviously not every idea or viewpoint is equally valid. We realised that while speaking with Brahmin, if we hadn't known it before. His "turn on the ovens" philosophy was worthy of condemnation from any thinking individual.

All ideas and viewpoints are equally valid, but they may be equal and opposite. The bad ideas are what helps us realise what are good ideas and what to follow.

Quote:

If every single adherent of a particular point of view are persuaded that their idea is incorrect and they adopt another point of view, why is it bad that their previous position now has no adherents?

Might it be because their previous position may have been correct?

Take these Islamic terrorists, for example. Where do you think they recruit their new members from? Mosques in poor areas where the people are poor and helpless. They are angry and they turn to religion and the terror groups use religion to convince them into becoming suicidal maniacs.

Is that right?

These people aren't being forced into becoming terrorists. They are being convinced into becoming terrorists through speech, through convincing, through the presentation of ideas.

Obviously, that is an extreme point. But then again, there are, like with all things, examples that fall in between the extremes and with religion, you can never tell which religious ideas are on the wrong side of the scale and which aren't.

How can you know for sure that the Christian belief is correct?
How can you know for sure that the Hindu belief is correct?

Quote:

Does every philosophy, no matter how outlandish or dangerous or factually challenged, DESERVE adherents? Do we then FORCE some people to retain ideas that they would rather abandon?

Of course, the Islamic terrorists do not deserve adherents. However, Freedom of Speech, guarantees that they would be able to present their ideas and convince people to join them.

They're doing a good job of it too from what I can see of our world.

Quote:

Everybody on this board has ideas that they put forward. Are we all doing a dangerous thing by speaking our mind and possibly inspiring someone to think and change theirs?

Who knows? Maybe you are, maybe you aren't.

But to some people these other ideas are dangerous and they won't have it. They will try their very best to convince you out of these ideas. They could say you're wrong, you'll go to Hell and you'll burn for eternal damnation, or conversely, they'll convince you that their way is right, and that you will ascend to Heaven as a martyr and you will enter Paradise.

You might get the impression that I desire complete censure of ideas and to ensure that people don't get to express their ideas to convince other people to change their mind.

But that would be hypocritical of me.

After all, is this not what I'm doing with this entire topic?

0 Replies

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

It's all good and well having Freedom of Speech, but when everyone thinks the same, is that okay? Is it okay to have only one way of thinking.................

Yes absolutely. Many issues have only one right answer, so it is completely desirable that everybody thinks the same way.

This would seem so obvious, but examples include prohibitions against murder (can you say "suicide bomber" ? ). It is desirable that everyone think this is wrong. Of course that is not the case now, many justify suicide bombings for reasons of revenge, politics and religion.

You still have not answered why you think it is wrong for people to peacefully speak and persuade others. You stated it is wrong. Why is it wrong? And what, if anything, do you think should be done to correct this "wrong" ?

Like it or not, this is a Freedom of Speech issue anytime that you begin to frame as "wrong" somebody's right to speak. Using code words such as "cultural genocide" cannot hide that fact.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

It's all good and well having Freedom of Speech, but when everyone thinks the same, is that okay? Is it okay to have only one way of thinking.................

Yes absolutely. Many issues have only one right answer, so it is completely desirable that everybody thinks the same way.

This would seem so obvious, but examples include prohibitions against murder (can you say "suicide bomber" ? ). It is desirable that everyone think this is wrong. Of course that is not the case now, many justify suicide bombings for reasons of revenge, politics and religion.

Not all issues have only one right answer. In fact, many don't have one right answer.

Religion could be considered one of those issues. You cannot say, this religion is more true than the other ones. These major religions, all preach the same thing and all worship the same God. So if you convert one person from one religion to another, all you're doing, is convincing them to abandon the cultural background that is associated with their previous religion.

Quote:

You still have not answered why you think it is wrong for people to peacefully speak and persuade others.

Perhaps you didn't read my previous post properly enough about suicide bombers. It is wrong for them to peacefully speak and persuade others to join their cause of violence. Though they themselves may act in violence, the means to which they recruit new members is peaceful and persuasion.

It's the end result of that peaceful speech and persuasion.

Though there grand differences between terrorism and religion, I feel that the conversion of one religion to another cannot be justified to the extent that some Conversionists (I didn't want to use the word, Evangelists, coz that has another meaning altogether) believe in i.e. the total destruction of other religions.

It is possibly converting someone from the correct religion to the wrong one. You cannot tell which religion is the one true religion. Vehemently converting people can have undesired effects.

In India, for example, homosexuals weren't treated badly. However, after the Victorians arrived, bringing their brand of Christianity, somehow the Indians became more anti-homosexual to the point of outright discrimination, denying of rights and even physical intimidation.

Christians may believe that homosexuality is wrong. That may be true, or it might not be. However, it doesn't change the fact that discriminating people, denying them their rights and even hurting them just because of the way they are, is wrong.

This topic isn't about denying people's freedom of speech. It's more of a, "where do we draw the line?" topic.

Or maybe we shouldn't draw a line and all those terrorists to recruit more people through persuasion and talking peacefully. (Albeit, the terrorists aren't talking about peace, they're just doing it in a peaceful manner).

Quote:

You stated it is wrong. Why is it wrong? And what, if anything, do you think should be done to correct this "wrong" ?

Like it or not, this is a Freedom of Speech issue anytime that you begin to frame as "wrong" somebody's right to speak. Using code words such as "cultural genocide" cannot hide that fact.

Yes, I stated that I thought it was wrong, for the reasons mentioned above. As for correcting this "wrong" I don't think it should be done.

Just because I think it is wrong, doesn't mean I think it should be censored or banned.

I think some of these crackpot religious guys are wrong to be so vehemently obsessed about denouncing gays, but I never ever once said they should be censored.

I've always thought they should shut up, but of their own volition and never should they be forced to shut up.

The border between right and wrong can be so blurred at times, its best not to advocate the destruction of something that might be seen as wrong. After all, it might seem wrong now, but it may actually be right.

So I advocate nothing, except that those who commit the wrong think more deeply about what they're doing and whether it might have any knock-on effects.

As for "cultural genocide" being "code words", there is no code about it. It means what it looks as if it means, the systemic and planned extermination of a cultural group. True, it is not through death, but through conversion, but the end result is still the same; you don't have that cultural group anymore.

Now I've got to look back and find out how on Earth this post became nine pages long.

EDIT: I've just found a link
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/picture_gallery/05/middle_east_zoroastrians_in_iran/html/1.stm
that suggests that the problem I'm thinking of might not be as widespread as I initially thought.

If it's not as widespread as I thought, then maybe this conversion isn't so bad after all.

It can still get kinda annoying though, regarldess of which religion is which.

0 Replies

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

real life wrote:
Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

It's all good and well having Freedom of Speech, but when everyone thinks the same, is that okay? Is it okay to have only one way of thinking.................

Yes absolutely. Many issues have only one right answer, so it is completely desirable that everybody thinks the same way.

This would seem so obvious, but examples include prohibitions against murder (can you say "suicide bomber" ? ). It is desirable that everyone think this is wrong. Of course that is not the case now, many justify suicide bombings for reasons of revenge, politics and religion.

Not all issues have only one right answer. In fact, many don't have one right answer.

Religion could be considered one of those issues. You cannot say, this religion is more true than the other ones. These major religions, all preach the same thing and all worship the same God. So if you convert one person from one religion to another, all you're doing, is convincing them to abandon the cultural background that is associated with their previous religion.

No not all issues have only one right answer. But as I said, many do. Many moral issues are among these.

It is a fallacy to state that all major religions preach the same thing and worship the same God.

Many religious questions can, for obvious reasons, only have one right answer.

For example, is there NO God, ONE God, or MORE THAN ONE God ? This obviously can only have one right answer.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

No not all issues have only one right answer. But as I said, many do. Many moral issues are among these.

No, you didn't read exactly what I said. I said that many issues do not have one right answer, but you reply as if I had said that all issues have only one right answer.

Morality is also in the eye of the beholder. Some things you think are right, are actually wrong.

For example, the Catholic Church used to think that masturbation is wrong. They said this was the morale answer and the correct answer. We now have evidence to suggest that masturbation isn't wrong, that it decreases the chance of testicular cancer (or was it prostate?) and that though it does waste sperm it doesn't really matter because not every sperm is precious (as they once believed).

So, what was once a right answer is now not so high and mighty.

Quote:

It is a fallacy to state that all major religions preach the same thing and worship the same God.

It is true that it is a fallacy to state that all major religions preach the same thing. They preach similar things.

Both Christianity and Buddhism preach good will to all men, that the meek shall inherit the Earth and that it is easier for a camel to get through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get into the Kingdom of God, as well as a few other things that I can't quite remember.

Also, early Christians used to meditate just like Buddhists did.

Also, both Judeasm and Islam preach the concept of kosher (and Halal) foods. Both also have the same Biblical prophets and both forbid drinking alcohol to excess (as does the Christian Bible), although I think in Islam, any alcohol is considered excess due to the fact that the sole purpose of drinking in the ancient Arab world was to get drunk.

Judeasm, Christianity and Islam all have the same origins. Both Christianity and Islam evolved from Judeasm and both worship that Judeastic God. You can argue that the Christian and Islamic Gods are no longer the same, but why is that?

Some say that the God of the Old Testament is not the God of the New Testament, which kinda states that the Old Testament is bunk and should not be trusted (though we trust the Ten Commandments, don't we?)

Quote:

Many religious questions can, for obvious reasons, only have one right answer.

For example, is there NO God, ONE God, or MORE THAN ONE God ? This obviously can only have one right answer.

Yet we do not know the answer to that question. Religious people may claim to know the answer, but how can you?

The very definition of God and gods makes it impossible to know whether they are there or not and whether or not there are more than one. So therefore this conversion is persuading someone to believe in something that has no real answer and only pretends to be the real answer.

I'm not saying my view is the right answer, but I do say that my view is valid and currently more true than its antithesis.

0 Replies

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

real life wrote:
Many religious questions can, for obvious reasons, only have one right answer.

For example, is there NO God, ONE God, or MORE THAN ONE God ? This obviously can only have one right answer.

Yet we do not know the answer to that question.

Are you stating that you do not know, or that it is impossible for anyone to know?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:
real life wrote:
Many religious questions can, for obvious reasons, only have one right answer.

For example, is there NO God, ONE God, or MORE THAN ONE God ? This obviously can only have one right answer.

Yet we do not know the answer to that question.
Are you stating that you do not know, or that it is impossible for anyone to know?

It is impossible for anyone to know at the current time or in the near future. The entire issue is a vague mystery of the likes that cannot be solved through empirical evidence at ths current time or in the near future.

Who knows? Maybe we might found out after we die, or humanity in general might found out the true answer centuries from now on. But as for now, it's impossible to know.

0 Replies

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

real life wrote:
Wolf_ODonnell wrote:
real life wrote:
Many religious questions can, for obvious reasons, only have one right answer.

For example, is there NO God, ONE God, or MORE THAN ONE God ? This obviously can only have one right answer.

Yet we do not know the answer to that question.
Are you stating that you do not know, or that it is impossible for anyone to know?

It is impossible for anyone to know at the current time or in the near future. The entire issue is a vague mystery of the likes that cannot be solved through empirical evidence at ths current time or in the near future.

Who knows? Maybe we might found out after we die, or humanity in general might found out the true answer centuries from now on. But as for now, it's impossible to know.

To state that you do not know is perfectly reasonable.

To maintain that this cannot possibly be known is to presume omniscience. Are you?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

To state that you do not know is perfectly reasonable.

To maintain that this cannot possibly be known is to presume omniscience. Are you?

You obviously didn't read the post previous to my reply fully enough. To maintain that it cannot possibly be known is not to presume omniscience. It is to presume and rightly so that there is not enough evidence to prove that the existence of God is true.

Therefore one cannot have true knowledge of God's existence. One can only think he knows that God exists, but if God doesn't exist, is knowing that God exists actually knowledge?

Is knowing something that isn't true and that doesn't exist, actually knowledge?

I can maintain that not everyone knows the truth about the localisation of the cell cycle checkpoint proteins, Crb2 and Rad4. I can know this because there isn't no evidence to prove that anybody knows the truth about their effects. Does that presume omniscience? No, it merely shows that I've done research on the matter and I've done research on the matter, which shows there isn't enough evidence to prove without a doubt that God exists.

There's enough evidence out there to prove that there is something out there called God and He may be a fictional character or he might not be. The concept of God certainly exists, but does an actual God exist?

I have noticed that for the entire duration of the topic, you have avoided answering the main thrust of the question.

"Is Evangelisation tantamount to cultural genocide?"

All you have done is attack other people's views. You have given no view on whether Evangelisation is equal to the gradual erosion and destruction of other cultures, especially highly funded Evangelisation ventures like the Holy Land Experience Theme Park (the linked webpage contains an actual link to the Theme park's website).

You must agree with me that this thread is starting to turn into a "Does God exist?" and a "Why do people force religion down others throats?" thread, both of which already exist on the forum.

It is vital to steer back towards the main topic.

0 Replies

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

real life wrote:
To state that you do not know is perfectly reasonable.

To maintain that this cannot possibly be known is to presume omniscience. Are you?

You obviously didn't read the post previous to my reply fully enough. To maintain that it cannot possibly be known is not to presume omniscience. It is to presume and rightly so that there is not enough evidence to prove that the existence of God is true.

Therefore one cannot have true knowledge of God's existence. One can only think he knows that God exists, but if God doesn't exist, is knowing that God exists actually knowledge?

Is knowing something that isn't true and that doesn't exist, actually knowledge?

I can maintain that not everyone knows the truth about the localisation of the cell cycle checkpoint proteins, Crb2 and Rad4. I can know this because there isn't no evidence to prove that anybody knows the truth about their effects. Does that presume omniscience? No, it merely shows that I've done research on the matter and I've done research on the matter, which shows there isn't enough evidence to prove without a doubt that God exists.

There's enough evidence out there to prove that there is something out there called God and He may be a fictional character or he might not be. The concept of God certainly exists, but does an actual God exist?

I have noticed that for the entire duration of the topic, you have avoided answering the main thrust of the question.

"Is Evangelisation tantamount to cultural genocide?"

All you have done is attack other people's views. You have given no view on whether Evangelisation is equal to the gradual erosion and destruction of other cultures, especially highly funded Evangelisation ventures like the Holy Land Experience Theme Park (the linked webpage contains an actual link to the Theme park's website).

You must agree with me that this thread is starting to turn into a "Does God exist?" and a "Why do people force religion down others throats?" thread, both of which already exist on the forum.

It is vital to steer back towards the main topic.

I had read and understood your post very well, thank you very much.

think I have made it abundantly clear what my position is.

Your topic question is a yes or no question. If all posters did was answer your question the way it is framed, this would be a boring thread. (Yes, No, No, Yes, Yes , Yes, No, No,etc )

I've made it very plain. But if you haven't figured it out, my "yes or no" answer is No.

I think the question is framed , as I stated earlier, using code words for suppression of Freedom of speech. You have admitted as much when you stated your opposition to even peaceful speech and persuasion.

-------------

To follow up on your other point, the reason I addressed the possibility of knowing God is because you brought it up.

To state as you have that there is no possibility of knowing God, presumes that you have full access and understanding of all possible knowledge and evidence in every place and at all times, in order to totally preclude that any evidence exists.

This full access and understanding is called omniscience, which I believe you do not possess.

0 Replies

interesting article -

http://koenraadelst.voiceofdharma.com/articles/chr/missionaries.html

0 Replies

real life wrote:

I had read and understood your post very well, thank you very much.

think I have made it abundantly clear what my position is.

You did?

Oh yeah. So you did. From the way you argued, I would have expected you to say "No", now that I think about it, but you didn't really argue over the issue, did you? You got side-tracked into arguing against Brahmin's viewpoint, which is an altogether different question.

Quote:

I think the question is framed , as I stated earlier, using code words for suppression of Freedom of speech. You have admitted as much when you stated your opposition to even peaceful speech and persuasion.

I admitted my opposition to peaceful speech and persuasion? No, I was in opposition to peaceful speech and persuasion, where the sole purpose was wrong.

Where did I say, "I oppose Freedom of Speech"?

Did I not argue with you against Brahmin's views on the suppression of what you saw as Freedom of Seech i.e. preaching one's viewpoints in the attempt to convert someone's ideals? Did I join you in that condemnation?

If that is so, why would I oppose freedom of speech?

Or is it that you are accusing me of being a two-faced liar and a hypocrite?

You and your code words. I think that paragraph is clearly framed so as to subtly call me a hypocrite and a liar.

Quote:

To follow up on your other point, the reason I addressed the possibility of knowing God is because you brought it up.

In the context of attempting to prove that religious conversion is wrong.

Quote:

To state as you have that there is no possibility of knowing God, presumes that you have full access and understanding of all possible knowledge and evidence in every place and at all times, in order to totally preclude that any evidence exists.

This full access and understanding is called omniscience, which I believe you do not possess.

Likewise, if you were to state that there is a possibility of knowing God, this presumes that you have full access and understanding of all possible knowledge and evidence in every place and at all times, in order to conclude that enough evidence exists.

This full access and understanding is called omniscience, which I believe you do not possess.

0 Replies

Is Evangelization equal to Cultural Genocide?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know