Introducing Thai Friends To Christianity

[JonnieB]

Jonnieb, with respect. Unless you conduct scientific experiments yourself you are still relying on faith. The whole scientific enterprise is a belief system based on 'inductive reasoning' which again is faith that just because something happened x amount of times they will continue to happen.

Many of the most forceful supporters of science seem to know little of science itself, while many scientists are quick to point out how limited our knowledge really is. Many of the most famous scientists have later been proven to be at least partially wrong if not completely.

Unless you conduct scientific experiments yourself you are still relying on faith. The whole scientific enterprise is a belief system based on 'inductive reasoning' which again is faith that just because something happened x amount of times they will continue to happen.

Many of the most forceful supporters of science seem to know little of science itself, while many scientists are quick to point out how limited our knowledge really is. Many of the most famous scientists have later been proven to be at least partially, if not completely, wrong.

Yes, science doesn't claim to have a complete understanding of all the phenomena that make up the known universe. That is not really the issue. The issue is one of process...how do we go about acquiring and testing what we claim to know, i.e., how firm is the foundation of our knowledge.

The scientific method relies, as you say, on observation and testing. This is an open process. It is also repeatable. It is also based on a foundation of previously acquired and verified knowledge. However, even when something is claimed to be "known" scientifically, it is always open to another interpretation if new evidence is brought forth to challenge the initial theory or explanation. E.g., the "scientific" claim that the sun revolved around the earth being later shown to be in error. All scientists (and most non-scientists) accepted the new and better evidence/theory of this phenomena.

The main difference between "religious" and "non-religious" people, in my opinion, is that one group relies on super-natural explanations outside the experience of the everyday to explain and order the world around them, while the other relies on their own observation of the things and workings around them, and from that, derives an explanation of their world. I think the latter approach is the one more likely to arrive at the truth.

[a2396]

One of the best things about Thailand is Buddhism.

Agreed. It just unfortunate that most Thais are not practising Buddhists.

"It just unfortunate that most Thais are not practising Buddhists."

They are not!! They certainly spend a lot of time traipsing back and forth to the Wats, wrapping themselves up in orange bedsheets and meditating themselves into a state of nothingness.

[garro]

Jonnieb, the thing is that all experiments require somebody to observe and interpret using their senses. The problem with this is that our interpretation will be sullied by our beliefs and predjudices. Science can be wonderful thing but it is another belief system which requires faith. I think that often people forget this. Supernatural explanations could also be given for every phenomena and these explanations would be hard to disprove.

[canuckamuck]

Yes, science doesn't claim to have a complete understanding of all the phenomena that make up the known universe. That is not really the issue. The issue is one of process...how do we go about acquiring and testing what we claim to know, i.e., how firm is the foundation of our knowledge.

The scientific method relies, as you say, on observation and testing. This is an open process. It is also repeatable. It is also based on a foundation of previously acquired and verified knowledge. However, even when something is claimed to be "known" scientifically, it is always open to another interpretation if new evidence is brought forth to challenge the initial theory or explanation. E.g., the "scientific" claim that the sun revolved around the earth being later shown to be in error. All scientists (and most non-scientists) accepted the new and better evidence/theory of this phenomena.

The main difference between "religious" and "non-religious" people, in my opinion, is that one group relies on super-natural explanations outside the experience of the everyday to explain and order the world around them, while the other relies on their own observation of the things and workings around them, and from that, derives an explanation of their world. I think the latter approach is the one more likely to arrive at the truth.

The scientific method by its very definition, limits investigations to have answers rooted in natural law. Therefore any hypothesis requiring an extranatural occurrence is unacceptable. This leaves the world of science in a controlled religious box, relying on the faith statement that all things must have a natural and discoverable source. The supernatural is never an option.

Limiting the world to natural law fails on the first attempt when explaining that all matter in the universe simply occurred at some unknowable time in history. This is a fairly massive faith statement; especially if you then consider how the universe settled into the ordered system we see today. Quite simply stated, all of the natural laws are in opposition to that hypothesis. Something cannot come from nothing, especially something as magnificent as the universe.

[sukanyacondo]

i have been a christian all my life. i think buddhism is interesting and that it is also very good and helpful for the human spirit and has many good points, but obviously not 100%.

i have several thai friends, but i dont know what is the best way for me to teach them about my religion? i think an english bible will be too hard for them to understand and i dont know how to convey the message in thai.

are there some church in bangkok that i can take them too?

what is the best way to approach them about learning about Jesus and God?

Thank You

WHY INFLICT ANYONE WITH ANY RELIGION

[siamamerican]

Jonnieb, the thing is that all experiments require somebody to observe and interpret using their senses. The problem with this is that our interpretation will be sullied by our beliefs and predjudices. Science can be wonderful thing but it is another belief system which requires faith. I think that often people forget this. Supernatural explanations could also be given for every phenomena and these explanations would be hard to disprove.

Garro,

Supernatural explanations can be given for every phenomena, but decisions based on science are more sound. Below is a quote of yours made in another post.

"All cultures have practices which later turn out to be detremental to our health and it is not enough just to say you got to respect the culture. If this was the case we would all still be living bare-arsed in caves. "

[sukanyacondo]

Yes, science doesn't claim to have a complete understanding of all the phenomena that make up the known universe. That is not really the issue. The issue is one of process...how do we go about acquiring and testing what we claim to know, i.e., how firm is the foundation of our knowledge.

The scientific method relies, as you say, on observation and testing. This is an open process. It is also repeatable. It is also based on a foundation of previously acquired and verified knowledge. However, even when something is claimed to be "known" scientifically, it is always open to another interpretation if new evidence is brought forth to challenge the initial theory or explanation. E.g., the "scientific" claim that the sun revolved around the earth being later shown to be in error. All scientists (and most non-scientists) accepted the new and better evidence/theory of this phenomena.

The main difference between "religious" and "non-religious" people, in my opinion, is that one group relies on super-natural explanations outside the experience of the everyday to explain and order the world around them, while the other relies on their own observation of the things and workings around them, and from that, derives an explanation of their world. I think the latter approach is the one more likely to arrive at the truth.

The scientific method by its very definition, limits investigations to have answers rooted in natural law. Therefore any hypothesis requiring an extranatural occurrence is unacceptable. This leaves the world of science in a controlled religious box, relying on the faith statement that all things must have a natural and discoverable source. The supernatural is never an option.

Limiting the world to natural law fails on the first attempt when explaining that all matter in the universe simply occurred at some unknowable time in history. This is a fairly massive faith statement; especially if you then consider how the universe settled into the ordered system we see today. Quite simply stated, all of the natural laws are in opposition to that hypothesis. Something cannot come from nothing, especially something as magnificent as the universe.

Yes its far from perfect but better than faires, goblins, elves and "gods" . I dont think its an ordered system. Then there is always the who created God syndrome if he/she /it created everything?

[ElectricNorth]

i have been a christian all my life. i think buddhism is interesting and that it is also very good and helpful for the human spirit and has many good points, but obviously not 100%.

i have several thai friends, but i dont know what is the best way for me to teach them about my religion? i think an english bible will be too hard for them to understand and i dont know how to convey the message in thai.

are there some church in bangkok that i can take them too?

what is the best way to approach them about learning about Jesus and God?

Thank You

And Chritianity is 100% ?? Get real.

There is enough conflict in the world due to religion already.

Besides what branch of 'Christianity' would you choose to teach?

How about Primitive Methodism ... no smoking / no drinking. The Thais would like that

so this has to be a wind up, thankfully

[mrtoad]

SS, The Moral Crusader

Looks like he's been drinking too much of that communion wine.

[h90]

i have been a christian all my life. i think buddhism is interesting and that it is also very good and helpful for the human spirit and has many good points, but obviously not 100%.

i have several thai friends, but i dont know what is the best way for me to teach them about my religion? i think an english bible will be too hard for them to understand and i dont know how to convey the message in thai.

are there some church in bangkok that i can take them too?

what is the best way to approach them about learning about Jesus and God?

Thank You

Didn't do people like you enough damage everywhere, south america, africa. Maybe it is time to stop messing around with other people. Let them believe what they want to believe.

[garro]

Jonnieb, the thing is that all experiments require somebody to observe and interpret using their senses. The problem with this is that our interpretation will be sullied by our beliefs and predjudices. Science can be wonderful thing but it is another belief system which requires faith. I think that often people forget this. Supernatural explanations could also be given for every phenomena and these explanations would be hard to disprove.

Garro,

Supernatural explanations can be given for every phenomena, but decisions based on science are more sound. Below is a quote of yours made in another post.

"All cultures have practices which later turn out to be detremental to our health and it is not enough just to say you got to respect the culture. If this was the case we would all still be living bare-arsed in caves. "

Thanks Siamamerican, I am chuffed that you even remembered any of my posts. I also said that

'I have nothing against her beliefs and she may even be right but wouldn't it be more effective given us a hand with the baby'.

[h90]

Yes, science doesn't claim to have a complete understanding of all the phenomena that make up the known universe. That is not really the issue. The issue is one of process...how do we go about acquiring and testing what we claim to know, i.e., how firm is the foundation of our knowledge.

The scientific method relies, as you say, on observation and testing. This is an open process. It is also repeatable. It is also based on a foundation of previously acquired and verified knowledge. However, even when something is claimed to be "known" scientifically, it is always open to another interpretation if new evidence is brought forth to challenge the initial theory or explanation. E.g., the "scientific" claim that the sun revolved around the earth being later shown to be in error. All scientists (and most non-scientists) accepted the new and better evidence/theory of this phenomena.

The main difference between "religious" and "non-religious" people, in my opinion, is that one group relies on super-natural explanations outside the experience of the everyday to explain and order the world around them, while the other relies on their own observation of the things and workings around them, and from that, derives an explanation of their world. I think the latter approach is the one more likely to arrive at the truth.

The scientific method by its very definition, limits investigations to have answers rooted in natural law. Therefore any hypothesis requiring an extranatural occurrence is unacceptable. This leaves the world of science in a controlled religious box, relying on the faith statement that all things must have a natural and discoverable source. The supernatural is never an option.

Limiting the world to natural law fails on the first attempt when explaining that all matter in the universe simply occurred at some unknowable time in history. This is a fairly massive faith statement; especially if you then consider how the universe settled into the ordered system we see today. Quite simply stated, all of the natural laws are in opposition to that hypothesis. Something cannot come from nothing, especially something as magnificent as the universe.

about your weired posting: "Something cannot come from nothing, especially something as magnificent as the universe." Where else?? if you tell from a God, than please explain where he comes from. You can't rid of the problem by introducing some god, you just postpone the question which is than where the god comes from

[Gary A]

People have a right to worship their God however they see fit, BUT, they have no right to try to shove their fairy tale books down anyone else's throat. I have been known to be quite rude to bible thumpers who have seen fit to disturb my Sunday morning sleep. Organized religion is great for people who have nothing else to believe in and who need a crutch.

[vegas]

People have a right to worship their God however they see fit, BUT, they have no right to try to shove their fairy tale books down anyone else's throat. I have been known to be quite rude to bible thumpers who have seen fit to disturb my Sunday morning sleep. Organized religion is great for people who have nothing else to believe in and who need a crutch.

Bingo.

[Andrew Hicks]

i have been a christian all my life. i think buddhism is interesting and that it is also very good and helpful for the human spirit and has many good points, but obviously not 100%.

i have several thai friends, but i dont know what is the best way for me to teach them about my religion? i think an english bible will be too hard for them to understand and i dont know how to convey the message in thai.

are there some church in bangkok that i can take them too?

what is the best way to approach them about learning about Jesus and God?

Thank You

Of course there are some churches in Bangkok such as in Soi Ruam Rudee or at the bottom of Suk Soi 2.

I have seen an American missionary group in Chiang Mai doing a hard sell in a night market and I spoke to them and said I thought this inappropriate. "Are you saying that your religion is better than theirs and that they should change?'

There are enough divisions in society without creating any more. Buddhism is one thing that unites most Thais and I would be sorry if Chrisitianity made more progress here.

I certainly think Christians are very wrong if they actively evangelise and I think you would be very wrong if you push your religion to your Thai friends. I know it is the Christian obligation to witness to your faith but this is best done by example rather than by sales talk. A fine example of this is the Irish/American priest of the Klong Toey project, Father Joe Maier whose mission to poor slum dwellers does not mention his faith.

Witness to your religion by leading a good life of chastity, moderation and good works rather than by offering it to others. Therein lies salvation.

Possible??

Andrew Hicks

[adjan jb]

about your weired posting: "Something cannot come from nothing, especially something as magnificent as the universe." Where else?? if you tell from a God, than please explain where he comes from. You can't rid of the problem by introducing some god, you just postpone the question which is than where the god comes from

another bingo

[siamamerican]

Jonnieb, the thing is that all experiments require somebody to observe and interpret using their senses. The problem with this is that our interpretation will be sullied by our beliefs and predjudices. Science can be wonderful thing but it is another belief system which requires faith. I think that often people forget this. Supernatural explanations could also be given for every phenomena and these explanations would be hard to disprove.

Garro,

Supernatural explanations can be given for every phenomena, but decisions based on science are more sound. Below is a quote of yours made in another post.

"All cultures have practices which later turn out to be detremental to our health and it is not enough just to say you got to respect the culture. If this was the case we would all still be living bare-arsed in caves. "

Thanks Siamamerican, I am chuffed that you even remembered any of my posts. I also said that

'I have nothing against her beliefs and she may even be right but wouldn't it be more effective given us a hand with the baby'.

Just pointing out a contradiction. I make them too, but because of my lack of posts, they will be harder to find.

[garro]

Jonnieb, the thing is that all experiments require somebody to observe and interpret using their senses. The problem with this is that our interpretation will be sullied by our beliefs and predjudices. Science can be wonderful thing but it is another belief system which requires faith. I think that often people forget this. Supernatural explanations could also be given for every phenomena and these explanations would be hard to disprove.

Garro,

Supernatural explanations can be given for every phenomena, but decisions based on science are more sound. Below is a quote of yours made in another post.

"All cultures have practices which later turn out to be detremental to our health and it is not enough just to say you got to respect the culture. If this was the case we would all still be living bare-arsed in caves. "

Thanks Siamamerican, I am chuffed that you even remembered any of my posts. I also said that

'I have nothing against her beliefs and she may even be right but wouldn't it be more effective given us a hand with the baby'.

Just pointing out a contradiction. I make them too, but because of my lack of posts, they will be harder to find.

It is the contradictions within our thoughts that make us intersting. Is it not?

[siamamerican]

Jonnieb, the thing is that all experiments require somebody to observe and interpret using their senses. The problem with this is that our interpretation will be sullied by our beliefs and predjudices. Science can be wonderful thing but it is another belief system which requires faith. I think that often people forget this. Supernatural explanations could also be given for every phenomena and these explanations would be hard to disprove.

Garro,

Supernatural explanations can be given for every phenomena, but decisions based on science are more sound. Below is a quote of yours made in another post.

"All cultures have practices which later turn out to be detremental to our health and it is not enough just to say you got to respect the culture. If this was the case we would all still be living bare-arsed in caves. "

Thanks Siamamerican, I am chuffed that you even remembered any of my posts. I also said that

'I have nothing against her beliefs and she may even be right but wouldn't it be more effective given us a hand with the baby'.

Just pointing out a contradiction. I make them too, but because of my lack of posts, they will be harder to find.

It is the contradictions within our thoughts that make us intersting. Is it not?

Agree as long as you can follow the logic of a thought. I can follow yours.

[PeaceBlondie]

Well, not too bad, considering that only 4 out of 82 posts have been deleted. Hardly any direct personal insults. However, there is this forum rule:

3) Religious or racial slurs, rude and degrading comments towards women, or extremely negative views of Thailand will not be tolerated.

Many posts in this topic have been religious slurs, including extremely negative views of all Thai Buddhists and Thai Christians.

Topic closed.