Fundie shithead uses tsunami as excuse to bash earth-centered faiths!

it might be wise to consider that often the kind of opportunistic proselytizing we are talking about comes is frequently not the policy of the organization in question, but the religous culture (which is different from the religion itself) that it is immersed in. for example, the salvation army has a policy against proselytizing to those it helps, nonetheless i have had some very horrible experiences with them, due to the invasive zeal of some of its individual members.

 

Indeed, christians can ofcourse do un-christian things, also when doing evangelism (which is on itself not un-christian, it's the way how it's done).

Note that I mean with the word un-christian: un-biblical.

But the point is: what about evangelism during or shortly after such a situation?
In philippians, a letter of Paul (an evangelist himself), Paul is explaining that there are people who preach the gospel with bad motives (envy, rivalry, selfish ambition, not sincerely), and some with good motives (goodwill, love). So every evangelist should always look at his/her own motives, checking if they're good or bad.

But one should always remember that evangelism on itself is not un-biblical: it's a mission. Just like , for example, giving food to hungry african children is a good thing. Even if the food is given out bad motives, the food is given anyway. So even is the food is given out of bad motives, it is a good thing for the receiver of the food anyway.

I don't know if this counts fully also for evangelism, maybe unto a certain level it does, because of this:
"But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice." -philippians 1:18

but on the other hand, in the 2nd letter to timothy it says that christians, evangelists, shouldn't get into useless arguments, and should always be patient and kind and loving.

Got to do some studying and thinking about this because I don't really fully get it yet.

 

I really wish someone here would attempt to interact with my previous post about the philosophical problems inherent in pantheism/monism, which I thought was the original topic of this thread.

Anyway, on the subject of evangelism, why is it so "unethical" for Christians to let those in need know that the help they are receiving is an expression of the love of Christ? The only possible ethical problem I could imagine would be to give aid as a "reward" for professed conversion, and I seriously doubt that any Christian relief organization does such a thing.

 

quite frankly huck, i didn't respond to your post because i've already seen how you "debate" an issue in other forums, and figured it not worth my time to discuss it with you, although i'll gladly discuss it with someone who is genuinely interested in real discussion. i don't feel i have to defend my faith or explain it to the likes of you. however, you're welcome to click on the article i posted previously, in response to relief activity by pagans.

 

sorry about the double-post. lost the connection on this dinosaur just as i hit "send" and didn't think it went through.

edited again: here's the essay i posted earlier; the link is in a previous post. this essay is from a website called the witches voice. i'm posting this for discussion by those interested in real dialogue. please accept that it is written from the perspective of a different worldview.

that's the answer to your queation, huck: "because our wordview is different from yours." beyond that, i'm not taking your bait, nor am i interested in debating the "rightness" or "wrongness" of any given faith or worldview.

 

just curious as to what people of various faiths think of this:


http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=564&ncid=564&e=3&u=/nm/20050113/ts_nm/quake_usa_orphanage_dc

i'm interested in seeing discussion, but play nice, boys and girls.

 

I find it extremely supsicious, to say the least. If you want to help orphans, great, go for it.. but why always the religious stuff? I'd like to bet that when a pagan group wanted to do something like that they would set it up like a pretty seculiar thing and maybe even teach the muslim kids about their roots (give them acces to the Koran etc, because that would be their parents wish).. or at least.. that would be my choice.. same for Christian kids. Besides that I'd inform them in the most objective way about other religions and why I chose mine.

Example: I'm a vegetarian but I'm not gonna raise my kids that way (when I become a mom) since they have to make their own choice. Ofcourse I will have a great influence on them.. but I'd like them to explore other believes as well.

Again.. this project... HIGHLY suspicious... to be blunt: I'd NEVER give money to this project.

 

The article says "Many religious charities prohibit mixing relief efforts with proselytizing." But don't these organisations have evangelism on their 'list of things to do' ? For you people, how would you explain the difference between proselytizing and evangelism? And what are your opinions on evangelism itself?

what would you say about this:

"We're really not trying to proselytize," Brewer said of the group's orphanage plans. "It's no different than what Mother Theresa did by taking Hindu orphan children and placing them in a Roman Catholic children's home in Calcutta, and she won the Nobel Peace Prize for doing that."

 

Yeah true.. I mean.. there is a difference between a Christian funded orphanage and an orphanage exclusively RUN by Christians.. as I said.. I don't condemn it because I don't know all the facts, but I'm very sceptical and very suspicious about it. How would you feel to bring your kids to a muslim school here in the Netherlands? They are surely good people with every right intention, but their religion IS different.. and unless I'd have some proof that they don't evangelise constantly but are pretty much seculiar in their teachings or teach about each religion equally, I'd prefer another school.

This isn't anything against Christians, it's about raising a kid the way the parents would have wanted it (in the case of orphanages).. how can you raise a kid if you don't respect their parents?

By the way.. I was thinking about this.. and I've 'adopted' a child (through a Dutch fosterparentsplan like organisation called 'Wereldkinderen') I think they are seculiar but the girl I 'adopted' is muslim I think (she's from Java, Indonesia) and the women in charge over there is a Christian nun I think. Ah well.. that's ok because the kid still lives in a very much muslim surrounding and the main organisation is still seculair so.. whatcha gonna do about it?

 

If you wish to look at it from that angle, the constant insisting of one reading Age of Reason would be considered as pushing your views on them. Someone who is witnessing does not usually do so to a party that is unwilling to listen. I have friends who do not wish to hear about the Lord and I respect their wishes. They know that I am there if they decide to take part in a discussion, but unless they do, I do not harp on them.

Sharing a point of view with someone is in no way, shape, or form unethical. If you were to try a new diet and it worked, would you not share it with a friend for fear of thinking that you are pushing your views on someone else?

 

True epiphany and I very much respect the way you deal with religion.. (and yeah, there is a 'but' coming now').. but if you want to have a discussion about religion (for example 'atheisme' vs 'christianity') it would be logic to know the basics of eachothers views. For you that would mean that the other party (being Amanda here) would have to know a bit about the Bible.. for you, that would mean that you'd have to know a bit about their 'holy book'.. which in this case seem to be that book, 'Age of Reason'.

You know what I mean? Maybe she IS trying to convert you (or de-convert or whatever) but if you're very confident in your religion it wouldn't matter if you would read that book, because A) you would understand Amanda better and B) have more ammunition in a discussion because you already read the book and still don't share Amanda's views. Right? To me, knowledge is power.. so knowing all about your 'opponents' views gives you all the more power

Just a thought.. whatcha think?

 

You hit it right on the nose.. it's very hard for me to get my point across unless they know where I'm coming from... and most of what I'm trying to say can be found in the book.

I'm not trying to do anything other than explain my point of view... the way that I see it, anyone reading/posting in this thread are doing so on their own accord... i'm not in control of what they do.

Again - exactly.

My main problem at the moment is trying to get you (Epiphany, or whoever) to look at the bible in another way, so that you can see it like I do, and so understand what I'm saying.. right now, you view it as the word of god, "faxed down from heaven" ( to borrow something from dan brown), in english, and as you see it in front of you. and so, because of this, you feel it's your duty to do what it says, follow it like an instruction manual... and if you want to live your life like that, then great...

But just imagine, for a moment, that maybe the bible you have is not directy the word of god... but the word of man - many men in fact, edited and re-edited, translated, and maybe even with huge bits missing/added. Now there is nothing stopping you from following the "guidance" and "advice" the book gives, and you can still choose to lead a sin-less life, as suggested in the bible... but realise you're doing it because YOU want to, and because YOU have the power... not because god gives you the power.

Anyway, that's not even the point, the point is that the bible is not the word of god, and so what it says (things like the story of creation, noah's ark, etc..) is all mythology (yes, i'm using that word again), and that there WERE dinosaurs, we ARE evolved from apes, there IS a whole universe (many many universes) out there, and there might be life on them too..

I'm going to have to cut this short as i'm running out of time... but think about what I said... and i'l catch up with the latest when I can.

(PS, why was Brocktoon banned?)

 

to add some input from a pagan perspective: the challenge for us in this kind of discussion is that we don't have any written dogma or doctrine. our faith is centered around ideas, and it is a religion of poetry, as starhawk put it, not theology or dogma. i think this is one of the things that contributes to the misunderstandings between christians and pagans - they assume because we don't have a sacred text we have no solid basis for our faith, and that it's an "anything goes" religion, and we might see them as inflexible and limited in their spirituality. neither of those assumptions are necessarily right. our worldview is so drastically different from theirs that we sometimes completely miss each other, even when both parties genuinely are trying to reach out.

again, this is pagan input, and i'm not trying to contest or invalidate what you are saying, but there's an assumption here that God is somehow separate, removed, above, and not immanent. and i acknowledge that that's how a lot of christians see it, and atheists see it as them mistaking their personal power for god. but from the pagan worldview, their isn't that much of a difference: god/dess is immanent; s/he is that deepest, innermost power and highest potential, that which is in perfect love and perfect trust.

now as a former biology student, i do have to contest this statement, because it is actually false. we are not evolved from apes, we share a common evolutionary ancestor. big difference, from a scientific viewpoint.

by the way, i just want to say thank you to everyone here for peacefully and respectfully sharing their beliefs, even though we obviously don't agree. we pagans actually treasure this kind of dialogue; as long as its kept respectful, it's a real gift.

 

Velvet....when I would have children, would I put them on a muslim school....mmm interesting question. But in Holland we've got public schools, and you can call them neutral if you wan't, but they teach humanism, relativism, kick down christianity, teach evolutionism...that's not neutral. That's secular. I've experienced it a little bit for I've been on a public school for 2 years and on a christian school for....it's about 3.5 years now.

I don't know why Brocktoon was banned. He was banned just like that, no warning, no anouncement, no reason why, just KABOOM and gone. I and HuckFinn asked about it on the user support forum, as can be read here:
http://hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=59689

but that was replied by this:
"Questioning why someone was banned is a bannable blah blah blah. we don't need to justify blah blah blah"
which means "shut up, don't ask".

The last discussions he participated in was this one overhere, and the one about homosexuality on the christianity forum. As HuckFinn said about it:

"I don't see anything in his recent posts that would warrent expulsion. Defending the clear testimony of Scripture (and nature) on the perverse nature of homosexuality is evidently considered a thought crime by the self-proclaimed champions of "tolerance" that run this site.

I see that Dutch Disciple's thread inquiring about this on the user support forum has been closed! So much for "free speech" . . ."

Banning someone without giving the reason, come on, isn't this site supposed to be free-speech? If they have a reason, they could give it, or....don't they have a good reason?

 

I don't have a lot of times at the moment but I just wanted to give you (dutch diciple) a quick link that I)ve been very frustrated about, that issues the moderator thing as well. if you could mainly red my post and ChiefCowpie's posts there.. http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=59614

I'm totally with you on the fact that mods need to explain themselves sometimes.. most of the time.. because it seems way random why they ban people or close threads every now and then. I've seen this happening many times.. it would be ok if it were personal fora but they're not. I'm actually thinking of taking this up with some of the supermods of Skip, but to be honest.. I'm afraid of being banned for that myself.. or to be brushed of like the regular mods do with these kinds of complaints most of the time.

Ok.. back ontopic: public schools are said to be 'neutral' and I see where you coming from when you question that.. they DO teach evolution theory so that makes them kinda deny the whole theory of Intelligent Design (Creation). This is a tricky subject, 'cause it's impossible to be completely objective or spend time in every course highlighting all the views there are on a certain subject (since I can't imagine that you want your kids to grow up NOT knowing anything about the evolution theorie.. but I think you want them to know about ID as well.. right?)..

Anyway.. my whole point with this example was that you, as a Christian, wouldn't be comfortable with having your kids in a non-christian school. Right? So that way, you can imagine how it's the same with muslim orphans being taken care of by Christians. True? Ofcourse being raised Christian instead of Muslim is better than dying or wandering the streets.. but you get the point...

Gotta run.. maybe we can start a thread somewhere to address the moderating problem? Preferable a personal forum.....

See ya!

 

if my only option for my child's survival was a home run by people of a different religion, who am i to bitch. i'd just say "thanks." but then, that's just me.

 

In which case, they are taking advantage of you.. surely that's unethicle?

 

I might be a little bit off track here (I've been drunking, smoking weed - which is very rare for me - and watching indie music videos).. but is this the same as the idea that you can create god by thinking about god?

I.e. people don't believe in god because he exists... but rather, he exists because people believe in him?

I might be way off track (LOL, like this thread, although i have to admit it's been very interesting to read)... but even if it is, what do you think about the idea?

 

"God exists because people believe in him"

Yes.. that would be an atheist argument and that's not really a good argument for a discussion now is it The point of having an inter-religious discussion is trying to step out of your own box and use arguments that are 'real' to everyone. For example, the Christian answer of "Gods way are mysterious" to the question "why is this or that" is just a complete dead-end in a inter-religious discussion. Therefor, the atheist argument "hey, maybe you just made him up yourselves" isn't really an argument either... agree?

In these kinds of discussions you have to accept that no one is going to change their mind about their core believes, being their religion. So, you have to work with that in mind. If you are talking about the ethics concerning wellfare or helping third world countries or whatever, you have to avoid attacking the religion itself. It doesn't matter in this discussion if God exists or not and if so, how he came to exists. It's about what to do with the set facts: There are all different sorts of religions.. there are orphans.. there is help needed.. etc etc..

Or am I way off track here?

 

no, your doing fine here! We need to get focused on the topic. Hmmm but we got off-topic to....kind off. Whatever.

So in the areas hit by the disaster, help is ariving, body's are identified and buried, the first aid is getting set up. Then will be the job to get buildings and homes built and repaired, infrastructure to be put up again, and people need to provide for their own needs again (for example fishers that need boats again).

What do you people think that the changes will be on the lon term for the hit areas? Especially religous/spiritual changes ofcourse, that's after all what this thread is about.