God Finds Converts In Wake Of Tsunami

[Plus+]

To use a disaster to try and convert people who are at a low point in their lives is not a good thing. it is merely exploitation.....full stop!!!

Yes, people turn to prayers at low points in their lives, and if there are no Buddhists around they turn to Christians, or Muslims. It's of course sickening to see "preachers" waiting like vultures for some disaster to increase their flock but what if they genuinely want to help? Is there something to suggest that this particular group of Christians are up to no good?

[Plus+]

Doulbe clicked - double post. See the one below.

Edited January 2, 2006 by Plus+

[Plus+]

Jesus was probably a closet Buddhist....he almost assuredly had studied Buddhism or at least knew about it through that spiritual group he associated with whose name I can't spell...was it the Essenes?

That's an overstretch. Considering he always talked about God as a father, creator, and what not, and Buddhism in essence is atheism...

I'm sure two positions (Jesus and Buddhism) can be reconciled one way or another but Jesus most certainly wasn't a "closet Buddhist" in a direct sense, only to a degree all world religions are connected. Yet as some say that Buddhism is not a religion I can't even imagine how far the relation goes.

[suegha]

Jesus was probably a closet Buddhist....he almost assuredly had studied Buddhism or at least knew about it through that spiritual group he associated with whose name I can't spell...was it the Essenes?

That's an overstretch. Considering he always talked about God as a father, creator, and what not, and Buddhism in essence is atheism...

I'm sure two positions (Jesus and Buddhism) can be reconciled one way or another but Jesus most certainly wasn't a "closet Buddhist" in a direct sense, only to a degree all world religions are connected. Yet as some say that Buddhism is not a religion I can't even imagine how far the relation goes.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Good point Plus+, we don't even know if Jesus had any contact with the Essenes.

[sabaijai]

There are a lot of books out there claiming Jesus spent time in India studying, among other things, Buddhism. Not having read any of them, I've no idea whether the evidence is compelling or not.

Jesus in India

[robitusson]

There are a lot of books out there claiming Jesus spent time in India studying, among other things, Buddhism. Not having read any of them, I've no idea whether the evidence is compelling or not.

Jesus in India

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I've read it. It's fairly interesting. The guy bases a lot of his evidence on the Turin Shroud. His arguement is based on believing the shroud to be authentic. Apparently it's something to do with the microscopic plant spores they found on the shroud and what part of the world they're from...or something like that. Two things which are interesting about the story are the three wise men and Jesus' absence for 20 years. The three wise men came from the east (modern day Iran, Pakistan or possibly Kashmir) when they were looking the Messiah which is supposedly a lot like the search parties they send out for reincarnated masters in Tibet and which they were presumeably doing in India and the other Asian countries at the time where there were Buddhists. Then when Jesus was 12 he disappeared from Nazareth and returned at around age 30 which is unaccounted for. The book maintains he went to Kashmir to study Yogic techniques which is how he gave the appearance of being dead when they crucified him and also how he survived the crucifiction (convenient) after which he left for India with Mary which is where he is now buried. The book gives the location of his tomb and talks about the local peoples veneration of a holy man with a name like Yesu or Ises or a similar sounding name to Jesus, I can't remember exactly what. Worth a read if you're on a reeeally long bus journey.

[Lilyflower]

I am not speaking of you though, and this is just a conversation, there is nothing personal here. I know that not all Christians are the same, for that I am thankful. Yet, I feel sure that if you have seen and heard what I have heard, even you would not defend them so.[/color]

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hi there. Am I misunderstanding something here...? I've been following this thread and I thought Suegha was defending/supporting well-meaning missionaries 'in principle' - rather than specifically those people in that area.

[suegha]

There are a lot of books out there claiming Jesus spent time in India studying, among other things, Buddhism. Not having read any of them, I've no idea whether the evidence is compelling or not.

Jesus in India

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I've read it. It's fairly interesting. The guy bases a lot of his evidence on the Turin Shroud. His arguement is based on believing the shroud to be authentic. Apparently it's something to do with the microscopic plant spores they found on the shroud and what part of the world they're from...or something like that. Two things which are interesting about the story are the three wise men and Jesus' absence for 20 years. The three wise men came from the east (modern day Iran, Pakistan or possibly Kashmir) when they were looking the Messiah which is supposedly a lot like the search parties they send out for reincarnated masters in Tibet and which they were presumeably doing in India and the other Asian countries at the time where there were Buddhists. Then when Jesus was 12 he disappeared from Nazareth and returned at around age 30 which is unaccounted for. The book maintains he went to Kashmir to study Yogic techniques which is how he gave the appearance of being dead when they crucified him and also how he survived the crucifiction (convenient) after which he left for India with Mary which is where he is now buried. The book gives the location of his tomb and talks about the local peoples veneration of a holy man with a name like Yesu or Ises or a similar sounding name to Jesus, I can't remember exactly what. Worth a read if you're on a reeeally long bus journey.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

We can believe anything we want, I want to make that absolutly clear, I do, however, just want to point out a few interesting points.

The Turin Shroud was proven to be a fake some 20+ years ago, but even before that I knew it was a fake because it contradicted the gospel record. The Turin shroud is one complete piece of cloth folded in half. In the gospel Jesus body was wrapped in the grave clothes and the head was wrapped in a separate piece of cloth. John 20.6 "Then Simon Peter... arrived and went into the tomb. He saw the strips of linen lying there, as well as the burial cloth that had been around Jesus' head. The cloth was folded up by itself, separate from the linen."

Three wise men? There is no mention of 'three', everyone assumes three because there were three gifts. Also no other info is included about them, no names are given. Tradition can draw up all sorts of stories that are not supported by scripture.

Jesus did not disappear from Nazareth from the age of 12 til 30, absolutely no evidence for this. The reason why he started his ministry at 30 was because that's the age the priests in the OT started their ministries. No mention does not equate with no presence.

robitusson wrote "gave the appearance of being dead when they crucified him" - Like I said people can believe what they want but I find this statement hard to swallow. Firstly the whole of the bible speaks of Jesus as the lamb 'slain', the law and the prophets all spoke of him, he is woven into the entire fabric of scripture, the one to whom it all pointed, slain from the foundation of the world and the 'firstfruits of them that slept' when he was resurrected - resurrecton from the dead! But also think about crucifiction, and who performed the crucifiction. If your feet were not fastened you could die in 20 mins. The reason why they fastened the feet was to prolong the ordeal as people keep hoisting themselves up to get a breath. The Romans were masters of death, to ensure he was dead they drove a spear into his side.

robitusson wrote "after which he left for India with Mary". No he didn't, he ascended into Heaven to be on God's right hand. Mary though is mentioned several times after the crucifiction, and even at the point of death, Jesus said to John, ""Here is your mother." From that time on, this disciple took her into his home." (John19.27) Doesn't really make sense if Jesus 'fooled' the Romans, 'cheated' death and then legs it to India with Mary!

The postings ends with a recommendation to read the book, like I say, read what you want, but there's only one book about these things that I'll ever recommend!

Edited January 3, 2006 by suegha

[gburns57au]

To use a disaster to try and convert people who are at a low point in their lives is not a good thing. it is merely exploitation.....full stop!!!

Yes, people turn to prayers at low points in their lives, and if there are no Buddhists around they turn to Christians, or Muslims. It's of course sickening to see "preachers" waiting like vultures for some disaster to increase their flock but what if they genuinely want to help? Is there something to suggest that this particular group of Christians are up to no good?

I believe that the Wats were open and the Buddhist monks were willing to help these people spiritually, There were many international organisations that were willing to help these people rebuild their lives without conditions attached. The generosity from around the world from people who gave what they could afford in order to help a little bit, the various military and forensic people who gave up time and expertise to assist. So please forgive me when I am sceptical of missionaries who turn up at disaster areas with money in one hand and a bible or whatever in the other. I dont say that they dont want to help but the motives behind their help is what I question.

It is pretty obvious that at a time such as the tsunami, the victims are more vunerable than they otherwise would be. I am not saying that these people are over aggressive in trying to convert but almost certainly there would be some subtle approaches made. After all the job of the missionary is to spread the word and to try and convert others to the flock or that particular religion.

Interesting to note the use of the term "particular group of Christians"......I take it you mean a group of like minded Christians who dont interpret the bible in the same way as the mainstream christians do??? Or that are dissatisfied with the mainstreams way of doing things, so they create an offshoot or a sect if you like ??

some of these sects or off shoots do become destructive or anti social.

Yes in Thailand you are allowed to exercise religious freedom unless it undermines the countrys security.....exercising your own religious freedom and trying to get others to convert to your religion are two separate issues. By all means build your church or your temple or your mosque and please go there as often as you need to worship in your own way. But leave others alone to do it in their own way.

[DrBooze]

If the Muslim leaders came and converted a lot Buddhist Thais to Islam...what would you Christians think then????

This happens. I think a lot of mosques and Islamic schools throughout SE Asia are funded by Saudi NGOs with at least a partial interest in promoting a more Middle Eastern version of Islam in the region.

At the end of the day, people have been doing this kind of thing for years with very little effect. Thailand will remain mostly Buddhist.

"God certainly does work in mysterious ways" - I translate that to mean in "heathen speak" as, "it's a funny old world". 

Amen to that!

[suegha]

If the Muslim leaders came and converted a lot Buddhist Thais to Islam...what would you Christians think then????

This happens. I think a lot of mosques and Islamic schools throughout SE Asia are funded by Saudi NGOs with at least a partial interest in promoting a more Middle Eastern version of Islam in the region.

At the end of the day, people have been doing this kind of thing for years with very little effect. Thailand will remain mostly Buddhist.

"God certainly does work in mysterious ways" - I translate that to mean in "heathen speak" as, "it's a funny old world". 

Amen to that!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Amen means 'so be it' so this is a good reply as God does work in mysterous ways and it's also a funny old world!

[sabaijai]

There are a lot of books out there claiming Jesus spent time in India studying, among other things, Buddhism. Not having read any of them, I've no idea whether the evidence is compelling or not.

Jesus in India

I've read it. It's fairly interesting. The guy bases a lot of his evidence on the Turin Shroud. His arguement is based on believing the shroud to be authentic. Apparently it's something to do with the microscopic plant spores they found on the shroud and what part of the world they're from...or something like that. Two things which are interesting about the story are the three wise men and Jesus' absence for 20 years. The three wise men came from the east (modern day Iran, Pakistan or possibly Kashmir) when they were looking the Messiah which is supposedly a lot like the search parties they send out for reincarnated masters in Tibet and which they were presumeably doing in India and the other Asian countries at the time where there were Buddhists. Then when Jesus was 12 he disappeared from Nazareth and returned at around age 30 which is unaccounted for. The book maintains he went to Kashmir to study Yogic techniques which is how he gave the appearance of being dead when they crucified him and also how he survived the crucifiction (convenient) after which he left for India with Mary which is where he is now buried. The book gives the location of his tomb and talks about the local peoples veneration of a holy man with a name like Yesu or Ises or a similar sounding name to Jesus, I can't remember exactly what. Worth a read if you're on a reeeally long bus journey.

We can believe anything we want, I want to make that absolutly clear, I do, however, just want to point out a few interesting points.

The Turin Shroud was proven to be a fake some 20+ years ago, but even before that I knew it was a fake because it contradicted the gospel record. The Turin shroud is one complete piece of cloth folded in half. In the gospel Jesus body was wrapped in the grave clothes and the head was wrapped in a separate piece of cloth. John 20.6 "Then Simon Peter... arrived and went into the tomb. He saw the strips of linen lying there, as well as the burial cloth that had been around Jesus' head. The cloth was folded up by itself, separate from the linen."

Three wise men? There is no mention of 'three', everyone assumes three because there were three gifts. Also no other info is included about them, no names are given. Tradition can draw up all sorts of stories that are not supported by scripture.

Jesus did not disappear from Nazareth from the age of 12 til 30, absolutely no evidence for this. The reason why he started his ministry at 30 was because that's the age the priests in the OT started their ministries. No mention does not equate with no presence.

robitusson wrote "gave the appearance of being dead when they crucified him" - Like I said people can believe what they want but I find this statement hard to swallow. Firstly the whole of the bible speaks of Jesus as the lamb 'slain', the law and the prophets all spoke of him, he is woven into the entire fabric of scripture, the one to whom it all pointed, slain from the foundation of the world and the 'firstfruits of them that slept' when he was resurrected - resurrecton from the dead! But also think about crucifiction, and who performed the crucifiction. If your feet were not fastened you could die in 20 mins. The reason why they fastened the feet was to prolong the ordeal as people keep hoisting themselves up to get a breath. The Romans were masters of death, to ensure he was dead they drove a spear into his side.

robitusson wrote "after which he left for India with Mary". No he didn't, he ascended into Heaven to be on God's right hand. Mary though is mentioned several times after the crucifiction, and even at the point of death, Jesus said to John, ""Here is your mother." From that time on, this disciple took her into his home." (John19.27) Doesn't really make sense if Jesus 'fooled' the Romans, 'cheated' death and then legs it to India with Mary!

The postings ends with a recommendation to read the book, like I say, read what you want, but there's only one book about these things that I'll ever recommend!

Empirical proof and faith-based religions like Christianity and Islam can't be reconciled. Certainly there is no rational proof that, for example, the Bible is God's word and so on. So if you believe the history of Jesus in India revolves around whether the Turin shroud is fake, you should be able to subject the man himself, and the holy scriptures, to the same scrutiny, shouldn't you?

Once you bring 'proof' into the discussion, you have to admit there may be no proof that Jesus existed at all, i.e., as many scholars claim, his persona may be a legend or combination of older myths.

Not that Buddhism is entirely reconcileable with empiricism either. But we're moving away from conversion of Buddhists to comparative religion here.

Further reading:

Misquoting Jesus

Jesus Myth

[robitusson]

There are a lot of books out there claiming Jesus spent time in India studying, among other things, Buddhism. Not having read any of them, I've no idea whether the evidence is compelling or not.

Jesus in India

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I've read it. It's fairly interesting. The guy bases a lot of his evidence on the Turin Shroud. His arguement is based on believing the shroud to be authentic. Apparently it's something to do with the microscopic plant spores they found on the shroud and what part of the world they're from...or something like that. Two things which are interesting about the story are the three wise men and Jesus' absence for 20 years. The three wise men came from the east (modern day Iran, Pakistan or possibly Kashmir) when they were looking the Messiah which is supposedly a lot like the search parties they send out for reincarnated masters in Tibet and which they were presumeably doing in India and the other Asian countries at the time where there were Buddhists. Then when Jesus was 12 he disappeared from Nazareth and returned at around age 30 which is unaccounted for. The book maintains he went to Kashmir to study Yogic techniques which is how he gave the appearance of being dead when they crucified him and also how he survived the crucifiction (convenient) after which he left for India with Mary which is where he is now buried. The book gives the location of his tomb and talks about the local peoples veneration of a holy man with a name like Yesu or Ises or a similar sounding name to Jesus, I can't remember exactly what. Worth a read if you're on a reeeally long bus journey.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

We can believe anything we want, I want to make that absolutly clear, I do, however, just want to point out a few interesting points.

The Turin Shroud was proven to be a fake some 20+ years ago, but even before that I knew it was a fake because it contradicted the gospel record. The Turin shroud is one complete piece of cloth folded in half. In the gospel Jesus body was wrapped in the grave clothes and the head was wrapped in a separate piece of cloth. John 20.6 "Then Simon Peter... arrived and went into the tomb. He saw the strips of linen lying there, as well as the burial cloth that had been around Jesus' head. The cloth was folded up by itself, separate from the linen."

Three wise men? There is no mention of 'three', everyone assumes three because there were three gifts. Also no other info is included about them, no names are given. Tradition can draw up all sorts of stories that are not supported by scripture.

Jesus did not disappear from Nazareth from the age of 12 til 30, absolutely no evidence for this. The reason why he started his ministry at 30 was because that's the age the priests in the OT started their ministries. No mention does not equate with no presence.

robitusson wrote "gave the appearance of being dead when they crucified him" - Like I said people can believe what they want but I find this statement hard to swallow. Firstly the whole of the bible speaks of Jesus as the lamb 'slain', the law and the prophets all spoke of him, he is woven into the entire fabric of scripture, the one to whom it all pointed, slain from the foundation of the world and the 'firstfruits of them that slept' when he was resurrected - resurrecton from the dead! But also think about crucifiction, and who performed the crucifiction. If your feet were not fastened you could die in 20 mins. The reason why they fastened the feet was to prolong the ordeal as people keep hoisting themselves up to get a breath. The Romans were masters of death, to ensure he was dead they drove a spear into his side.

robitusson wrote "after which he left for India with Mary". No he didn't, he ascended into Heaven to be on God's right hand. Mary though is mentioned several times after the crucifiction, and even at the point of death, Jesus said to John, ""Here is your mother." From that time on, this disciple took her into his home." (John19.27) Doesn't really make sense if Jesus 'fooled' the Romans, 'cheated' death and then legs it to India with Mary!

The postings ends with a recommendation to read the book, like I say, read what you want, but there's only one book about these things that I'll ever recommend!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hmmm, obviously the tone of my review was lost somewhere. I never said any of what the book maintains was true or that I believe it. I just outlined what the book said. Oviously the whole theory is wide open to rebuttals and criticism. For example according to the book he left for India with Mary after the crucifiction. According to the book he left to study for a period at the age of 11 or 12. I think you missed the "hilarious" sarcastic tone of my recommendation. I think it belongs up there with L. Ron Hubbards "Dianetics" and the Raelian cult literature.

[thaibebop]

I am not speaking of you though, and this is just a conversation, there is nothing personal here. I know that not all Christians are the same, for that I am thankful. Yet, I feel sure that if you have seen and heard what I have heard, even you would not defend them so.[/color]

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hi there. Am I misunderstanding something here...? I've been following this thread and I thought Suegha was defending/supporting well-meaning missionaries 'in principle' - rather than specifically those people in that area.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, I believe he was, but I was attacking missionaries in general. My point is that regardless what your intentions may be, if you enter someone elses culture to change who and what they are, because you believe that this idenity of theirs is comdemned, for lack of a better word, is wrong, even if you are helping them in some way while you are trying to change them, for helping them isn't your primary goal and your helping them is an attempt to create trust so that you can change them etc;

[Abandon]

This is a Buddhist forum, and I think the philosophising about Christianity should be brought to a close here. Seugha has given us a little of the view from the Christian angle, a view that had been missing, but lets not get into amateur, and disrespectful, assertions about Christianity. After all the Buddha said we should respect the saying of the wise, whoever they are.

Has anyone anything to add about the OP ?

[camerata]

I read in last week's Bangkok Post that the Sea Gypsies who are being converted are animists, not Buddhists. This perhaps makes them more flexible about a conversion. It may just seem like one more deity to contend with.

[khall64au]

Do any of you guys know what you are talking about? Have any of you visited post-tsunami Thailand? How can you possibly comment if you have not seen and heard with your own sensibilities! Come and help out... see for yourself...... 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's not what we are talking about, Khall. The only time the tsunami has enter this conversation is in regards to the missionaries using it as a means of converting. What we have been talking about is missionaries and converting people and issues of faith, not the tsunami.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So what is the topic called ? And last time I checked in you all were commenting on the topic... the conversion of Thai Buddhists to other faiths in exchange for post-tsunami charity. Forgive me if I'm wrong!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, but you are trying to focus on the tsunami, we are agruing over whether it is wrong or not to enter a country after a disaster and try to convert them. So, this could be after an earthquake, flood, tornado, whatever. So, this is not about the tsunami, it's about missionaries.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Topic name: "God Finds Converts in Wake of Tsunami"

Bowing out now!

[sabaijai]

I read in last week's Bangkok Post that the Sea Gypsies who are being converted are animists, not Buddhists. This perhaps makes them more flexible about a conversion. It may just seem like one more deity to contend with.

That's true, but I think the villagers in Nam Khem are/were for the most part Buddhists. There was an encampment of Chao Leh (sea gypsies) from the Surin islands near there for a few months, but they've all returned to the islands, from what I understand. But I didn't see the Post article - were they talking about Chao Leh in Nam Khem or elsewhere on the mainland?

In other Chao Leh areas of Thailand, such as Ko Lanta, Ko Lipe and Ko Bulon-Lae, I've never come across Christian missionaries.

[gburns57au]

here is a link to another thread that didnt attract any replies...it clearly shows that Buddhist spiritual assistance was there for them.....Plus the post about Non Buddhist churches springing up in certain areas, IMHO shows that these people were there primarily to convert

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=55081

[camerata]

But I didn't see the Post article - were they talking about Chao Leh in Nam Khem or elsewhere on the mainland?

I can't remember. I read it at Starbucks a couple of weeks ago.

[Ajarn_Jonesy]

I am not speaking of you though, and this is just a conversation, there is nothing personal here. I know that not all Christians are the same, for that I am thankful. Yet, I feel sure that if you have seen and heard what I have heard, even you would not defend them so.[/color]

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hi there. Am I misunderstanding something here...? I've been following this thread and I thought Suegha was defending/supporting well-meaning missionaries 'in principle' - rather than specifically those people in that area.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, I believe he was, but I was attacking missionaries in general. My point is that regardless what your intentions may be, if you enter someone elses culture to change who and what they are, because you believe that this idenity of theirs is comdemned, for lack of a better word, is wrong, even if you are helping them in some way while you are trying to change them, for helping them isn't your primary goal and your helping them is an attempt to create trust so that you can change them etc;

Wonder how many of those *Bible Thumpers* Outside NANA P are found in the gogo Bars on any given night???? Maybe it's do as I say not as I do?? Just a thought..

[DUMPSTER]

What you believe and if you want to preach it, is your choice. If the place you want to preach is Thailand or Timbuktu, it’s your choice. Those who are in earshot of those preaching have a choice to accept or reject it, their choice. Being attached to an Identity whether that is a Countries name or flag or religion is your choice. Christians (identity) who are preaching in Thailand (identity) seems to bother so many here. Being attached to identity is suffering and obviously many seem agitated by Christian preachers. Why? As long as they harm nobody, let them be. Those of you who seem so agitated by them should ask yourself, why that is so. Being so attached to identity such as Buddhism and seeing so much wrong with another’s chosen path only highlights what’s wrong with your own path. Justifying your own path by condemning another’s isn’t acceptance and isn’t love.

I live 2 doors away from a newly formed Protestant Church and although I don’t agree with the missionaries methods of using under privileged children to spread their message, it is their choice, and their so called calling. Even children can accept or reject and even if they accept today, they can reject tomorrow.

[suegha]

What you believe and if you want to preach it, is your choice. If the place you want to preach is Thailand or Timbuktu, it’s your choice. Those who are in earshot of those preaching have a choice to accept or reject it, their choice. Being attached to an Identity whether that is a Countries name or flag or religion is your choice. Christians (identity) who are preaching in Thailand (identity) seems to bother so many here. Being attached to identity is suffering and obviously many seem agitated by Christian preachers. Why? As long as they harm nobody, let them be. Those of you who seem so agitated by them should ask yourself, why that is so. Being so attached to identity such as Buddhism and seeing so much wrong with another’s chosen path only highlights what’s wrong with your own path. Justifying your own path by condemning another’s isn’t acceptance and isn’t love.

I live 2 doors away from a newly formed Protestant Church and although I don’t agree with the missionaries methods of using under privileged children to spread their message, it is their choice, and their so called calling. Even children can accept or reject and even if they accept today, they can reject tomorrow.

Well said Dumpster, a very considered post...

[thaibebop]

What you believe and if you want to preach it, is your choice. If the place you want to preach is Thailand or Timbuktu, it’s your choice. Those who are in earshot of those preaching have a choice to accept or reject it, their choice. Being attached to an Identity whether that is a Countries name or flag or religion is your choice. Christians (identity) who are preaching in Thailand (identity) seems to bother so many here. Being attached to identity is suffering and obviously many seem agitated by Christian preachers. Why? As long as they harm nobody, let them be. Those of you who seem so agitated by them should ask yourself, why that is so. Being so attached to identity such as Buddhism and seeing so much wrong with another’s chosen path only highlights what’s wrong with your own path. Justifying your own path by condemning another’s isn’t acceptance and isn’t love. And what may I ask are the missionaries doing?

I live 2 doors away from a newly formed Protestant Church and although I don’t agree with the missionaries methods of using under privileged children to spread their message, it is their choice, and their so called calling. Even children can accept or reject and even if they accept today, they can reject tomorrow.

Well said Dumpster, a very considered post...Yes, and you are bais, because if he really did post a "considered" agruement he would have seen the flaws in what he just said. Namely the one I already pointed out, plus; he is saying that if a person wishes to accomplish something that is not illegal, doesn'e harm anyone "physical" but is still done in an underhanded fashion and is only in the best interests of the one performing said function is okay. That allows for some pretty bad things to be done to other people or soceity at large, thus your bais Suegha.

Edited January 16, 2006 by thaibebop

[DUMPSTER]

Thaibebop wrote: Justifying your own path by condemning another’s isn’t acceptance and isn’t love. And what may I ask are the missionaries doing?

They are doing what they think is right for them, their choice. Whatever methods they choose to preach their message, as long as it doesn't harm anyone or not illegal, should not bother you. All preachers, of whatever path they are on, justify or preach their message in various ways, often very subtle. It's up to the listener to accept or reject and take from it whatever they see is the truth for them at that time. This truth, as you see it, changes overtime so you shouldn't concern yourself with missionaries and their message and how they preach it but the messages you are not hearing at this time. If one was more open and accepted anothers path, and be loving towards those on that path, would one not be so agitated on their own path?

Edited January 17, 2006 by DUMPSTER

[suegha]

No thaibebop, it is you who are biased! Re-read yor own posts for prejudiced leanings! It is you who are cofrontational. I said previously I would not respond if you continued in a confrontational manner - well, I could not resist this one. Get rid of your own self-righteousness and you might develop as a mature adult. As it is you are stuck in a state of angst and hatered!

I feel sorry for you...

[suegha]

I wish to add to my above post an apology. It was written in haste and to a degree, anger. I broke one of my own cardinal rules. The one which states ‘that we are all entitled to our opinion and we have the right to have it respected’. This, of course, brings with it the responsibility to respect others opinions even though we don’t agree with them.

I do feel that thaibebop has been disrespectful and confrontational and has gotten a ‘rise’ from me and for this I apologise.

However, let’s not forget the responsibility of respecting others views even if we don’t agree with them, there is no need for confrontation!

I do so enjoy discussions on these forums where people express differing views respectfully, it makes for a very stimulationg discussion, to all who do so, I thank you.

Edited January 17, 2006 by suegha

[skippybangkok]

My Grandma used to go to the church in europe every Sunday..... after the 2nd world war, the priest would drop by an dictate to families that it was time to have another kid, and if you missed the sunday sermon even once, you were cut of from any support.

She had very bitter memories, and said " when the church gets the leverage over you, they will use it".

She prayed at home after that, and never attended after that.

[gburns57au]

What you believe and if you want to preach it, is your choice. If the place you want to preach is Thailand or Timbuktu, it’s your choice. Those who are in earshot of those preaching have a choice to accept or reject it, their choice. Being attached to an Identity whether that is a Countries name or flag or religion is your choice. Christians (identity) who are preaching in Thailand (identity) seems to bother so many here. Being attached to identity is suffering and obviously many seem agitated by Christian preachers. Why? As long as they harm nobody, let them be. Those of you who seem so agitated by them should ask yourself, why that is so. Being so attached to identity such as Buddhism and seeing so much wrong with another’s chosen path only highlights what’s wrong with your own path. Justifying your own path by condemning another’s isn’t acceptance and isn’t love.

I live 2 doors away from a newly formed Protestant Church and although I don’t agree with the missionaries methods of using under privileged children to spread their message, it is their choice, and their so called calling. Even children can accept or reject and even if they accept today, they can reject tomorrow.

You have a right to preach...I have the right to not listen....because I am in a situation where I dont feel the need to change nor am I at some low point in my life.

However when someone is preaching to those who have suffered and yes, even questioning their own beliefs, this is exploitation. To go to a disaster area and try and convert people who are at the lowest point in their lives, family and loved ones lost, homes destroyed, and to do it under the guise of assistance is deplorable.

To look up from the ruins of your house or the bodies of your family to see some person saying "I am here to help you, let me help you....if you were of my faith this would not have happened to you, come join my faith and be safe forever" What would you call this???

I am not saying this is the words spoken but you get the general gist of it..it may come in several guises but the intent is the same....

I get JW's, SDA's, Mormans and Christians knocking on my door all the time so that they can "just talk to me about whatever"......I have never been door knocked by a Muslim, Buddhist or Hindu...Why is it that these people feel the need to try and convert me to their way of life ??

[longway]

Thaibebop wrote: Justifying your own path by condemning another’s isn’t acceptance and isn’t love. And what may I ask are the missionaries doing?

They are doing what they think is right for them, their choice. Whatever methods they choose to preach their message, as long as it doesn't harm anyone or not illegal, should not bother you. All preachers, of whatever path they are on, justify or preach their message in various ways, often very subtle. It's up to the listener to accept or reject and take from it whatever they see is the truth for them at that time. This truth, as you see it, changes overtime so you shouldn't concern yourself with missionaries and their message and how they preach it but the messages you are not hearing at this time. If one was more open and accepted anothers path, and be loving towards those on that path, would one not be so agitated on their own path?

I'm not sure about this bit, Christian missionaries deliberately target the vunerable and try to get them to join in an exclusive group, sometimes even estranging people from their family and friends. I think this can lead to detrimental consequences, I say this as someone who thinks most religions are superstitious nonsense though.