Originally posted by BroInChrist:Oi! Trying to put a wedge between me and the badz?
That's not cool man.
BIC
Seriously, look at what he said about appeal to authority fallacies..Omg.
guys... Take a look at this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
BIC oso anyhow whack one....
Originally posted by BadzMaro:So tell me my learned friend, do you have legimiate authority on this subject matter at all then ?
Did I not say that u were not wrong in suggesting that family should be taken into consideration of ?
So u think all Christians all have the same innate ability to commune to God directly ? Not suprised that you hold such high regard for Christians. Because you seem to expect alot of things from Christians.
Ok. So u now say that dying for a belief... IN RELIGION.... is bad. Ok. So I accept that. And your reasoning is, it will be selfish. Thats pretty much it right ? Anything else to add ?
BM
All religions have their beautiful scriptures.
But I just stop at encouraging religious people to die for their beliefs.
Look at the tibetian buddhists dying for their faith by burning themselves. And a few years ago, a group of korean christians went into afghanistan recklessly and in the end got hijacked and one of their pastors got killed. Senseless loss of lives.
If however, they die in the process to save other people's lives, then it's definitely noble.
That's all I AM SAYING.
Originally posted by Tcmc:BM
All religions have their beautiful scriptures.
But I just stop at encouraging religious people to die for their beliefs.
Look at the tibetian buddhists dying for their faith by burning themselves. And a few years ago, a group of korean christians went into afghanistan recklessly and in the end got hijacked and one of their pastors got killed. Senseless loss of lives.
If however, they die in the process to save other people's lives, then it's definitely noble.
That's all I AM SAYING.
Fair enough. Again I am not saying u are wrong. This world pretty much is split into two kinds of people. The realist... and the idealist. One believes and trusts in humanity, the other is wary and suspicious.
Sometimes the consequences is not immedaite, and we are unable to see what effects it has after the ripple.
For example: Missionary Dr goes to some 3rd world country believing in his religious belief of love and kindness and helping those in need. Goes over, helps the village but got killed by some rival village people. Is his death worth it ? From different dimensions, sure from a realist point of view, he was being selfish... but on an idealist pov, he died helping because he believed in helping. How about the villagers point of view ? Mainly the people he managed to save.
Equally, a person who drove on with his family in the car will no stop to help the person on the road side because he fears for his family's safety. That is not wrong too. More importantly I believe is the consequences of an omission that will be more important.
I find it silly and stupid to die for something that is is unproven, unreal and unprovable.
Originally posted by Jacky Woo:I find it silly and stupid to die for something that is is unproven, unreal and unprovable.
Jacky, would you die for your atheistic beliefs? Would you make the ultimate sacrifice for atheism?
Originally posted by BroInChrist:Jacky, would you die for your atheistic beliefs? Would you make the ultimate sacrifice for atheism?
BIC
I dont know about Jacky but i certainly wont die for my atheistic views...
I would even go as far as denying my atheistic views if a religious person threatens me with death, to save my life and be with my dear ones.
Originally posted by BadzMaro:Fair enough. Again I am not saying u are wrong. This world pretty much is split into two kinds of people. The realist... and the idealist. One believes and trusts in humanity, the other is wary and suspicious.
Sometimes the consequences is not immedaite, and we are unable to see what effects it has after the ripple.
For example: Missionary Dr goes to some 3rd world country believing in his religious belief of love and kindness and helping those in need. Goes over, helps the village but got killed by some rival village people. Is his death worth it ? From different dimensions, sure from a realist point of view, he was being selfish... but on an idealist pov, he died helping because he believed in helping. How about the villagers point of view ? Mainly the people he managed to save.
Equally, a person who drove on with his family in the car will no stop to help the person on the road side because he fears for his family's safety. That is not wrong too. More importantly I believe is the consequences of an omission that will be more important.
BM,
Why missionary Dr got killed? What was the reason for the villagers to kill him? Was it because of money or because he was spreading his religion insensitively and offending the native people?
I am not saying killing him is correct. But was he being insensitive when he spread his religion while doing "social work"?
Also, it depends on whether his family members agree with what he was doing. If they dont agree and he insists on going and got killed, then he's a bit self-centred.
Originally posted by Tcmc:BM,
Why missionary Dr got killed? What was the reason for the villagers to kill him? Was it because of money or because he was spreading his religion insensitively and offending the native people?
I am not saying killing him is correct. But was he being insensitive when he spread his religion while doing "social work"?
Also, it depends on whether his family members agree with what he was doing. If they dont agree and he insists on going and got killed, then he's a bit self-centred.
These are just very vague, general and loose examples. There is no need to get pedantic and open up a whole lot of irrelevant considerations in this discussion.
He can just be killed while crossing the road innocently by someone who just happen to hate his skin colour. How about that ?
Anyways, i never said killing him is correct. Was he being insensitive for example to treat the sick and dying children that lack any kidn of developed medicinal and hygiene care ? Come on... really ? We going to discuss about his "insensitiviness"?Havent u thought that perhaps.. just maybe perhaps they went willingly not necessarly to spread religions right ? Why confine yourself to a very narrow and strict analogy that even you cannot accout from every conceivable dimension possible ?
Whether or not the family agree's is between him and his family. Just because they disagree does not mean they do not feel proud of what he has done. Equally a family may not feel proud for him for staying with the family when everyone else have gone to answer the call.
Whether or not being self-centered is not for us to decide.Everyone can have thier "reasons". Thier family will decide. History will decide. The far reaching consequences will decide whether close or afar, wide or narrow. Not you not me not anyone. We only know how to point fingers and say negative things.
Originally posted by BadzMaro: Sure. If u want to argue for arguments sake, by all means go ahead. All I am saying, is that are u going to accept the good that have come out of all this, or are u just going to harp on the what if's and the bad stuff.Saying no positive effect at all is making a bold statement. And if I were to use TCMC's "appeal to authority", we will end up comparing data. Theological, philosophical and sociological comparisons with numbers and journals and what nots/
Are u willing to go down that path ? You are pretty much saying that all the religions are tools to pacify the indiegnous people full stop.
So what kind of discussion are we going to get out of this ? Are we going to now argue about whether religoins are tools of oppresion ?
I hope u know what I am trying to say. But if you still believe that no good has come out of it. Then I accept your reasoning. Simple.
I am not afraid to make my stand.
1. I do not imply that religion itself were made to pacify a populace, but they were certainly applied to this purpose.
2. It is certainly true that priests at home were agents of their rulers, and missionaries abroad were encouraged or sponsored by colonialists. The church has been a powerful political force for more of its history than not.
I do not deny that some missionaries were not mercenary.
3. I am not debating the merits of colonialism. It brought us into modernity if not the developed world. However, missionaries played little part in it. Commercial motive was responsible for the development of our infrastructure.
Originally posted by alize:I am not afraid to make my stand.
1. I do not imply that religion itself were made to pacify a populace, but they were certainly applied to this purpose.
2. It is certainly true that priests at home were agents of their rulers, and missionaries abroad were encouraged or sponsored by colonialists. The church has been a powerful political force for more of its history than not.
I do not deny that some missionaries were not mercenary.
3. I am not debating the merits of colonialism. It brought us into modernity if not the developed world. However, missionaries played little part in it. Commercial motive was responsible for the development of our infrastructure.
I know u think Uniquely Singapore is unique, but there are many other driving factors than just merely commercial.
You talk as if missionaries are all military agents devoid of any human feelings and emotions to do good, love and help those in need.
While I appreciate the good, I also acknoledge the bad. Thats all.
If you think missionaries have no positive impact whatsoever in the entire Asia continent, I respect your stand.
Originally posted by alize:The missionaries were a tool for colonial control of Asia. It made the exploitation of the people an easier task for the colonizers.
Singapore is the exception and only because it was a strategic asset, most missionized Asian countries don't live in comfort.
No positive effect of missionaries can be claimed. Compared to non-missionized countries, the missionized ones are no better off.
How did the missionaries 'exploit' people for the colonisers?
Which non-missionised countries are 'better off' than missionised ones?
Originally posted by alize:I am not afraid to make my stand.
1. I do not imply that religion itself were made to pacify a populace, but they were certainly applied to this purpose.
2. It is certainly true that priests at home were agents of their rulers, and missionaries abroad were encouraged or sponsored by colonialists. The church has been a powerful political force for more of its history than not.
I do not deny that some missionaries were not mercenary.
3. I am not debating the merits of colonialism. It brought us into modernity if not the developed world. However, missionaries played little part in it. Commercial motive was responsible for the development of our infrastructure.
Sorry, I'm a little confused here. So missionaries were 'sponsored' by the colonialists, but the benefits of colonialism cannot be attributed to the missionaries?
Originally posted by BadzMaro:These are just very vague, general and loose examples. There is no need to get pedantic and open up a whole lot of irrelevant considerations in this discussion.
He can just be killed while crossing the road innocently by someone who just happen to hate his skin colour. How about that ?
Anyways, i never said killing him is correct. Was he being insensitive for example to treat the sick and dying children that lack any kidn of developed medicinal and hygiene care ? Come on... really ? We going to discuss about his "insensitiviness"?Havent u thought that perhaps.. just maybe perhaps they went willingly not necessarly to spread religions right ? Why confine yourself to a very narrow and strict analogy that even you cannot accout from every conceivable dimension possible ?
Whether or not the family agree's is between him and his family. Just because they disagree does not mean they do not feel proud of what he has done. Equally a family may not feel proud for him for staying with the family when everyone else have gone to answer the call.
Whether or not being self-centered is not for us to decide.Everyone can have thier "reasons". Thier family will decide. History will decide. The far reaching consequences will decide whether close or afar, wide or narrow. Not you not me not anyone. We only know how to point fingers and say negative things.
BM
I dont know man, but i hope that verse which says "if you deny me, i will deny you" isn't literal then.
Cos a christian should deny god in the face of death, to be responsible, to be able to go back to his loved ones.
I think god as being all-merciful will understand why he denied his existence there and then
Originally posted by Tcmc:BM
I dont know man, but i hope that verse which says "if you deny me, i will deny you" isn't literal then.
Cos a christian should deny god in the face of death, to be responsible, to be able to go back to his loved ones.
I think god as being all-merciful will understand why he denied his existence there and then
In the Gospels how did Jesus treat Peter's denial of Him? Overlook and say "No worries, we are cool, you are right to save your own skin by denying me, you still got wife and family members to think about"??
Originally posted by BroInChrist:In the Gospels how did Jesus treat Peter's denial of Him? Overlook and say "No worries, we are cool, you are right to save your own skin by denying me, you still got wife and family members to think about"??
BIC
Huh, you mean when someone puts a gun to your head, asks you to deny jesus, and then you have a newborn baby at home and a wife, god will not allow you to deny him?????????
He doesnt understand that you need to stay alive to take care of ur loved ones? I thought god says life is precious too?
Originally posted by Tcmc:BIC
Huh, you mean when someone puts a gun to your head, asks you to deny jesus, and then you have a newborn baby at home and a wife, god will not allow you to deny him?????????
He doesnt understand that you need to stay alive to take care of ur loved ones? I thought god says life is precious too?
I would rather trust God to take care of my family than trust the guy holding a gun to my head. What makes you think he won't pull the trigger and kill off everyone despite a denial? You would trust the man who points a gun at your head to keep his promise to you? How gullible you are. Next he ask you to list down all the believers you know so that he can kill them or else he kills you. So you gonna give in too for the sake of your baby and wife?
Jesus taught that the man who saves his life will lose it. But he that loses his life for God will gain it. Those who want to follow Jesus must carry their own cross, which basically means being willing to forfeit his life to follow Jesus all the way. Remember, Jesus is the source of life. He is the Life!
Originally posted by BroInChrist:I would rather trust God to take care of my family than trust the guy holding a gun to my head. What makes you think he won't pull the trigger and kill off everyone despite a denial? You would trust the man who points a gun at your head to keep his promise to you? How gullible you are. Next he ask you to list down all the believers you know so that he can kill them or else he kills you. So you gonna give in too for the sake of your baby and wife?
Jesus taught that the man who saves his life will lose it. But he that loses his life for God will gain it. Those who want to follow Jesus must carry their own cross, which basically means being willing to forfeit his life to follow Jesus all the way. Remember, Jesus is the source of life. He is the Life!
Huh but in that situation, denying would be better than not denying cos you will further anger the bad guy?
Then how about a muslim who doesn't deny his God and gets killed for it? Is it noble? Or special case for christians only?
Originally posted by Tcmc:Huh but in that situation, denying would be better than not denying cos you will further anger the bad guy?
Then how about a muslim who doesn't deny his God and gets killed for it? Is it noble? Or special case for christians only?
Why drag in a Muslim into the picture? Am I obligated to speak for Islam?
There's no end to hypothetical scenarios. What do they prove anyway? The point is that the Bible teaches that we owe God our lives. The Bible also teaches that it is far better to fear God than to fear man, or the devil.
Originally posted by BroInChrist:Why drag in a Muslim into the picture? Am I obligated to speak for Islam?
There's no end to hypothetical scenarios. What do they prove anyway? The point is that the Bible teaches that we owe God our lives. The Bible also teaches that it is far better to fear God than to fear man, or the devil.
BIC
Just seeking your opinion on other religiouss ppl dying for their Gods?
Very weird lei.. why would an allknowing, all-kind god not understnad that you wanna stay alive for your loved ones?
Originally posted by Tcmc:BIC
Just seeking your opinion on other religiouss ppl dying for their Gods?
Very weird lei.. why would an allknowing, all-kind god not understnad that you wanna stay alive for your loved ones?
I will speak for only Christianity.
Since when is the issue about God not being understanding? The follower of Jesus must first count the cost of following Jesus and take up his own cross.
Originally posted by BadzMaro:I know u think Uniquely Singapore is unique, but there are many other driving factors than just merely commercial.
You talk as if missionaries are all military agents devoid of any human feelings and emotions to do good, love and help those in need.
While I appreciate the good, I also acknoledge the bad. Thats all.
If you think missionaries have no positive impact whatsoever in the entire Asia continent, I respect your stand.
For correction, I am not a believer in Singapore being exceptional or unique.
I believe that for reasons of importance to the colonizing power, Singapore benefitted from more development in the colonial era than its neighbours.
This is not to imply that Singapore is special or specially deserving for any other reason, nor does it imply any special affection for Singapore.
Originally posted by BroInChrist:would rather trust God to take care of my family than trust the guy holding a gun to my head. What makes you think he won't pull the trigger and kill off everyone despite a denial? You would trust the man who points a gun at your head to keep his promise to you? How gullible you are. Next he ask you to list down all the believers you know so that he can kill them or else he kills you. So you gonna give in too for the sake of your baby and wife?
Jesus taught that the man who saves his life will lose it. But he that loses his life for God will gain it. Those who want to follow Jesus must carry their own cross, which basically means being willing to forfeit his life to follow Jesus all the way. Remember, Jesus is the source of life. He is the Life!
BIC, you don't get it. The discussion is on whether you would deny your religion to save yourself, not whether you will depend on someone's honesty.
Your example of a terrorist not keeping his word is not definitive.
Let's get back on track:
If for instance a terrorist hijacked your plane and asked for all the believers in XX because he would execute one passenger every hour beginning with them, would you raise your hand?
A biblical counter-example to your decision can be found in God stopping Abraham at the last moment, knife in hand, from sacrificing his son to God.
Originally posted by alize:BIC, you don't get it. The discussion is on whether you would deny your religion to save yourself, not whether you will depend on someone's honesty.
Your example of a terrorist not keeping his word is not definitive.
Let's get back on track:
If for instance a terrorist hijacked your plane and asked for all the believers in XX because he would execute one passenger every hour beginning with them, would you raise your hand?
A biblical counter-example to your decision can be found in God stopping Abraham at the last moment, knife in hand, from sacrificing his son to God.
And I believe I have already given the answer from the Bible.
My example of the gunman not keeping his word is to tell Tcmc not to be so naive.
As for your two examples, I shall dismiss the first since it is hypothetical and has no reality behind it. Like I said, such speculative scenarios can be multiplied endlessly and really not productive to haggle over them. As for your second example, it is hardly a counter-example. The case of Abraham has nothing to do with denying one's faith. On the contrary it was an affirmation of faith in God.