How Come Many Thais Seem To Think Farungs Are Christians?

[h90]

There are about 1,000 Thai Christians spread among 4-5 churches in our mid-sized Isaan city. Virtually every Buddhist Thai I meet is either shocked at that number or simply doesn't believe it. "If you're Thai, you're Buddhist," is the prevailing stereotype in Thailand. "Farangs" are stereotyped just as well.

In Northern Thailand the numbers are even higher. I could not even begin to estimate how many Christian Thais there are here. There are also a lot of Muslim Thais up here. My g/f and her brother have never been Buddhist's. I would classify them as being agnostic like their Chinese father was. Saying all Thais are Buddhists is the same as saying that all farangs are Christians.

It's especially common among hill tribe people in northern Thailand.

Yes to the hill tribe and to the sea gypsies the missionaries went...., as the are less educated and easier to influence.

[weary]

I'm following others off topic here. As for the OP's question, I think Oxford Will explained the question in the OP very clearly.

As for the side-track on Buddhism, here's my experience and opinions:

Most people born into Buddhist families in Thailand believe in the metaphysical aspects of the religion (and there really is a whole system that goes with it [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_cosmology ]), and they usually not taught to approach these things analytically. I view it Buddhism as a religion although it is *possible* to practice Buddhism as a philosophy as well. It's just that most Buddhists don't do this. Rebirth (not reincarnation - there's a difference) and karma really are central concepts.

For some, the metaphysical and supernatural parts of the system are more relevant to them than the meditation practice that the Buddha prescribed; the belief in ghosts is very strong as most people who have spent some time here will know.

All Buddhists, as far as I have experienced, are taught that meditation brings more merit than other positive activities, but many Thai Buddhists do not practice meditation at all (although they have usually tried it, as it's not uncommon that it is taught at school), but rather opt for other activities visiting and donating to temples, chanting Pali verses from the suttas (which are often said to bring about particular concrete results), observing the precepts for limited amounts of time and just trying not to do direct harm to others.

Of those that do practice meditation, many opt for samatha (concentration/stillness) meditation, a practice that is not unique to Buddhism, rather than Vipassana (insight meditation), which is a unique meditation technique (re)discovered by the Buddha, and according to Buddhism also the only type of meditation that ends the cycle of rebirth (Nirvana).

Laypeople are to observe 5 precepts ('siin haa' in Thai). Precepts can be translated as 'training rules'. In other words, they are not absolutes, but intended to develop character - nobody forces you to observe these. Most Thais do not, but everyone I have talked to believes it brings merit to do so.

The general attitude in my experience is that you do as much as you are capable of. Many shoot low as 1. they don't think they can attain Nirvana in this lifetime 2. they don't want to attain Nirvana (it sounds scary to extinguish the spark of becoming that leads to rebirth), they would rather strive for material wealth in this lifetime and, if lucky, be reborn in a deva realm characterized by bliss for their next round.

There is a tendency by each culture to try to shape a religion or system of beliefs one supports to fit with the values and ideas of one's own culture. Buddhism as practiced or understood in the West is no exception to this rule. The whole 'Buddhists are atheists' and 'Buddhism is not a religion, it's a philosophy' are becoming tired cliches/memes by now, often repeated by people who, respectfully, have not tried to find out very much about Buddhism or how it has been practiced in different parts of the world.

If you asked these people to recite the Noble Eightfold path or Five precepts (total core concepts) and explain how they work, I wonder how many would be able to do so? The Buddha said to learn the basics and apply them, and see if they worked.

In my own experience, meditation is central to the system, but without the support of applied moral practice, you are blocking your own spiritual progress... According to the scriptures you can reach high stages of samatha meditation without living morally, but Vipassana meditation requires you to look with an open mind and an open heart at your experience. Anyone who does this will begin to see the cost associated with immoral actions.

[taninthai]

I remember my first Christmas eve here the wifes brother turned the tv onto the god channel and thought I wanted to sit there all night watching it after an hour had to tell the wife turn the tv off let's put some music on......lol

[tw25rw]

'connect 4' ?? anyone can enlighten me ?

Chill out Connect 4 is a popular bar game played by BGs expertly

Ah I see.

BGs play Connect 4, same same my wife plays TV remote? During the same fysical activities?

No, BGs play it to help engage with you. Your wife plays with the remote to help shut you out.

[teacher17]

There are about 1,000 Thai Christians spread among 4-5 churches in our mid-sized Isaan city. Virtually every Buddhist Thai I meet is either shocked at that number or simply doesn't believe it. "If you're Thai, you're Buddhist," is the prevailing stereotype in Thailand. "Farangs" are stereotyped just as well.

In Northern Thailand the numbers are even higher. I could not even begin to estimate how many Christian Thais there are here. There are also a lot of Muslim Thais up here. My g/f and her brother have never been Buddhist's. I would classify them as being agnostic like their Chinese father was. Saying all Thais are Buddhists is the same as saying that all farangs are Christians.

I recall in the south they ask:

Khun Thai or Khun Islam.

And than if Muslim they use instead of Khun other words (Pang for the man and for the woman???)

Basically in my understanding that means if someone is Thai=Buddhist or Muslim.

Which is very strange for my European ears.

Yep, "bang" for a Muslim men and "Gaa" for Muslim women. I didn't know the Muslim man's name who I went to work with everyday, so i just called him Bang.

[harryfrompattaya]

When they offer me a drink I refuse and say 'Sorry, cannot, I am a Buddhist'.

Do it and watch their face.

Oh Cbrer, That is priceless. I know monks don't drink, or drink in public anyway. Whats he rules for the non monk Buddhist ?

Depends on your level of devotion, a devout Buddhist would choose to give up a certain number of 'vices' from a long list.

Many will just abstain from their chosen 'vices' on Buddha days.

The list contains such things as Alcohol, smoking, sex, eating meat, eating beef, gambling, drugs .........

So some might choose to abstain from Alcohol, sex and meat on Buddha days, others might choose to abstain from a different list like beef, gambling and drugs all their life.

Nothing to say a devout Buddhist must choose not to drink alcohol, up to you!

I once met a Devout Buddhist who you can be a Buddhist without believing in Buddha he said up to you.

Now I am a Christian without believing in Jesus up to me

I like pick and choose

[endure]

Buddha did believe in Gods, during is enlightenment under the Bodhi tree he was unsure about his ability to pass on his new found knowledge to his disciples.

He was assured by a certain Hindu God to go on teaching.

Thai's don't really know about much other then how to bow or ask for lotto numbers at their local what.

some thai's have knowledge on the subject but very few.

one thing many monks do is smoke.

http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/dharmadata/fdd33.htm

[MrHammer]

I recall in the south they ask:

Khun Thai or Khun Islam.

And than if Muslim they use instead of Khun other words (Pang for the man and for the woman???)

Basically in my understanding that means if someone is Thai=Buddhist or Muslim.

Which is very strange for my European ears.

I think that makes perfect sense. They don't think muslims are able to really be Thai since their loyalty is to the nation of Islam. I think Europe in particular has made a huge mistake in thinking that Islam could be a part of secular, humanist Europe. It can't and it won't. Islam is at war with every single culture it encounters. There is nowhere where it is at peace.

[StreetCowboy]

I recall in the south they ask:

Khun Thai or Khun Islam.

And than if Muslim they use instead of Khun other words (Pang for the man and for the woman???)

Basically in my understanding that means if someone is Thai=Buddhist or Muslim.

Which is very strange for my European ears.

I think that makes perfect sense. They don't think muslims are able to really be Thai since their loyalty is to the nation of Islam. I think Europe in particular has made a huge mistake in thinking that Islam could be a part of secular, humanist Europe. It can't and it won't. Islam is at war with every single culture it encounters. There is nowhere where it is at peace.

I take it you've never lived in a Muslim country, then?

People in Malaysia generally assume I am a church-going Christian, and I have several times been invited t attend various services - Watchnight, Easter etc.

[endure]

The topic is 'How come many Thais think Farangs are Christian'. There's no mention of Islam in that title so let's keep the Muslim bashing out please.

[Payboy]

I guess, if someone falls so easily for the sick buffalo stories, the automatic inference is that they must also be believers of the immaculate conception.

[Mosha]

There are about 1,000 Thai Christians spread among 4-5 churches in our mid-sized Isaan city. Virtually every Buddhist Thai I meet is either shocked at that number or simply doesn't believe it. "If you're Thai, you're Buddhist," is the prevailing stereotype in Thailand. "Farangs" are stereotyped just as well.

In Northern Thailand the numbers are even higher. I could not even begin to estimate how many Christian Thais there are here. There are also a lot of Muslim Thais up here. My g/f and her brother have never been Buddhist's. I would classify them as being agnostic like their Chinese father was. Saying all Thais are Buddhists is the same as saying that all farangs are Christians.

I live in Chumphon, this provence has the highest concentration of Christians in Thailand, all of the denominations are represented, also an increasing number of muslims, my wife's cousin is Christian, he son is Buddhist and his girlfriend is Muslim, they all get along with no problems.

A friend of ours son, in Sam Sip has converted to Islam to marry his girl friend. His Bhuddist mum cried for months when she found out

[IBoldnewguy]

Karma comes from Hinduism, but like many aspects of Hinduism, it's kind of an "add-on" for Buddhists along with statues of Vishnu, animistic spirit-houses and many other "peripherals" which really historically had nothing to do with Buddhism, some of which Buddha himself would have shunned.

Thank you for the sound historical view. I've tried belief and the questions it generated (and refused to answer or prove) took me to non-belief. One is an agnostic and atheist at the same time. The agnostic simply says I don't know and I know religion doesn't know either. Atheism means one can live a rational life without indulging in superstition. There are 35,000 Christian denominations worldwide and 1,500 in the USA and if we look at Hinduism, Buddhism and Islam we see the same divisiveness in their many sects. Therefore: "It is highly probable that they are not all right and even more probable that none of them are" (Paraphrased from a Christopher Hitchens Talk).

[IBoldnewguy]

There are about 1,000 Thai Christians spread among 4-5 churches in our mid-sized Isaan city. Virtually every Buddhist Thai I meet is either shocked at that number or simply doesn't believe it. "If you're Thai, you're Buddhist," is the prevailing stereotype in Thailand. "Farangs" are stereotyped just as well.

In Northern Thailand the numbers are even higher. I could not even begin to estimate how many Christian Thais there are here. There are also a lot of Muslim Thais up here. My g/f and her brother have never been Buddhist's. I would classify them as being agnostic like their Chinese father was. Saying all Thais are Buddhists is the same as saying that all farangs are Christians.

I live in Chumphon, this provence has the highest concentration of Christians in Thailand, all of the denominations are represented, also an increasing number of muslims, my wife's cousin is Christian, he son is Buddhist and his girlfriend is Muslim, they all get along with no problems.

A friend of ours son, in Sam Sip has converted to Islam to marry his girl friend. His Bhuddist mum cried for months when she found out

Males will do strange things just to find a permanent parking place for their most prized possession. Why some even pack up and move to foreign shores. Love seems to be not only blind but oftentimes sick and misguided.

[canman]

Karma comes from Hinduism, but like many aspects of Hinduism, it's kind of an "add-on" for Buddhists along with statues of Vishnu, animistic spirit-houses and many other "peripherals" which really historically had nothing to do with Buddhism, some of which Buddha himself would have shunned.

Thank you for the sound historical view. I've tried belief and the questions it generated (and refused to answer or prove) took me to non-belief. One is an agnostic and atheist at the same time. The agnostic simply says I don't know and I know religion doesn't know either. Atheism means one can live a rational life without indulging in superstition. There are 35,000 Christian denominations worldwide and 1,500 in the USA and if we look at Hinduism, Buddhism and Islam we see the same divisiveness in their many sects. Therefore: "It is highly probable that they are not all right and even more probable that none of them are" (Paraphrased from a Christopher Hitchens Talk).

You cannot be an agnostic and an atheist. An atheist believes that no diety exists whereas an agnostic accepts that it is a possibility.

[Semper]

They also think all farangs are rich.

[h90]

Karma comes from Hinduism, but like many aspects of Hinduism, it's kind of an "add-on" for Buddhists along with statues of Vishnu, animistic spirit-houses and many other "peripherals" which really historically had nothing to do with Buddhism, some of which Buddha himself would have shunned.

Thank you for the sound historical view. I've tried belief and the questions it generated (and refused to answer or prove) took me to non-belief. One is an agnostic and atheist at the same time. The agnostic simply says I don't know and I know religion doesn't know either. Atheism means one can live a rational life without indulging in superstition. There are 35,000 Christian denominations worldwide and 1,500 in the USA and if we look at Hinduism, Buddhism and Islam we see the same divisiveness in their many sects. Therefore: "It is highly probable that they are not all right and even more probable that none of them are" (Paraphrased from a Christopher Hitchens Talk).

You cannot be an agnostic and an atheist. An atheist believes that no diety exists whereas an agnostic accepts that it is a possibility.

I would say an Agnostic says that he does not know if there is a god. Not enough evidence to believe there is one but can't rule the possibility out.

While an atheist says there is no god.

(actually the same as you wrote, just want to add that as it is always mixed and used wrong)

[pxlgirl]

Or to put more (laughingly) blunt: "Agnostics are atheists without balls"

[canman]

Q: Did you hear about the dyslexic, agnostic insomniac?

A: He stayed up all night wondering if there was a dog.

[Jingthing]

Or to put more (laughingly) blunt: "Agnostics are atheists without balls"

Sure but on the other hand atheists think these unknowable matters are important enough to have ANY firm belief about. A firm belief in NO belief is a kind of belief. There is merit to the agnostic position as well. It is a more pure stance against TRUE BELIEVERS of any kind. Edited January 29, 2013 by Jingthing

[OxfordWill]

Agnostics are people who failed high school maths.

Or to put more (laughingly) blunt: "Agnostics are atheists without balls"

Sure but on the other hand atheists think these unknowable matters are important enough to have ANY firm belief about. A firm belief in NO belief is a kind of belief. There is merit to the agnostic position as well. It is a more pure stance against TRUE BELIEVERS of any kind.

No, it's the lack of a belief. This is very different to a belief.

Edited January 29, 2013 by OxfordWill

[Jingthing]

Agnostics are people who failed high school maths.

Or to put more (laughingly) blunt: "Agnostics are atheists without balls"

Sure but on the other hand atheists think these unknowable matters are important enough to have ANY firm belief about. A firm belief in NO belief is a kind of belief. There is merit to the agnostic position as well. It is a more pure stance against TRUE BELIEVERS of any kind.

No, it's the lack of a belief. This is very different to a belief.

I get that argument too but the charge that atheists are totally convinced about their non-belief and that there are some similarities in that arrogant stance to believers doesn't go away. To make matters worse, I can't really decide between considering myself an atheist or agnostic and I don't think it really matters! I'm more of an atheist and I totally think religion is poppycock but I just don't think humans have a place being 100 percent certain about anything. Edited January 29, 2013 by Jingthing

[pxlgirl]

A firm belief in NO belief is a kind of belief. (...)

Understandable position, but it's a misconception. I pledge myself guilty until I listened to this:

[OxfordWill]

Respectfully, it's not an argument, it is logic.

Any serious thinker is never "totally convinced" about anything, as long as we are honest in our best available estimate then that is good enough until new information comes along.

I agree the conviction of some people, in all walks of life, can be frustrating. Arrogance is something we have to train ourselves to ignore (in ourselves and in others), if we want to be honest thinkers. Arrogance unfortunately, does not say anything about the truth value of a particular statement.

The particular problem with agnosticism, is that while it appeals greatly to people who want to appear as being "fair", it is in fact logically not a tenable position. It is a historical piece of thinking, important to teach students to help their general understanding of the evolution of these ideas, but long ago dismissed as anything that stands up. The idea that God or not-god is equiprobable is to ignore, just for starters, all the other possible gods and religions.

[Jingthing]

I've heard those arguments too. But perception to the world matters too. And to believers, atheists are perceived as having a DOGMA about their non-belief. At least agnostics don't really have any dogma. I also have noticed some high profile atheists trying to CONVERT non-believers. I think agnostics are much less likely to bother with that kind of effort. I feel the gist of agnosticism is that this matter isn't even important enough to commit to a stance. Less than being open to the religious poppycock than some might think.

Edited January 29, 2013 by Jingthing

[OxfordWill]

Well, just be aware that you're misusing the term, Im sure you can find a better word to describe what I understand you wish to express. It's certainly not agnosticism, which implies only two possibilities to life.

[Jingthing]

Well, just be aware that you're misusing the term, Im sure you can find a better word to describe what I understand you wish to express. It's certainly not agnosticism, which implies only two possibilities to life.

You're probably right. I don't care enough to commit to even one of the A labels. Its suits me but it's not exactly an established philosophy.

[partington]

The particular problem with agnosticism, is that while it appeals greatly to people who want to appear as being "fair", it is in fact logically not a tenable position. It is a historical piece of thinking, important to teach students to help their general understanding of the evolution of these ideas, but long ago dismissed as anything that stands up. The idea that God or not-god is equiprobable is to ignore, just for starters, all the other possible gods and religions.

I don't get this argument at all.

I would say that an agnostic is an atheist who thinks scientifically.

1. Agnosticism does NOT say belief in god and non-god is equiprobable. This is an error. An agnostic can assign a lower probability to the existence of god than to god's non-existence. It could be 1% or 0.1% or 0.0000000000000000000000000000001%. It could be 50% but doesn't have to be. It can't be 0%, the atheist's position, because you cannot disprove the existence of anything.

2. Agnosticism is equally applicable to all gods and religions that have ever existed, it doesn't ignore them.

In my opinion a reasonable position is: because I acknowledge I cannot disprove god's existence, and because I do not approve of positions based on faith rather than reason, I am not an atheist.

However because I can find no justifiable reason to believe in god, I live my life and view the universe as if the existence of god is 0%, because the probability is so low that I can discount it. So though I am agnostic I am functionally atheist.

[pxlgirl]

When it comes to these issues, there's a fine line because religion (as an institution at least) does its harm to society, in terms of rejecting science and reason. If someone wants to believe in a man living in the sky, people made of ribs (or was that clay?), talking snakes and donkeys, as well as unicorns, dwarfs and faires - fine. All of this is simply imagination, products of fantasy. Don't get me wrong here. Imagination and fantasy is actually a good thing and existential, because that is what drives creativity and innovation. But still, one always should be able to draw a line between fantasy and reality. The problem with religion is, that these lines get either blurred or even disappear. The reason why people tend to believe in things lies in the way our brains are constructed, which surely has its purpose, but it sucks at processing information accurately. Science, or rather the scientific methods are there to help to overcome the difficulties and approach things more objectively.

Many atheists are former believers, and reflecting their lives it turns out that many of them come from overtly religious homes, or to be more precise, they got it forced down their throats with fearing threats of hell if they ever dare to question any of it. I was raised in a very religious country myself, even though I was lucky enough that my family wasn't that devoted. But I've seen enough on a regular basis. People who have overcome religion often show signs of PTSD, wich is quite alarming. As I mentioned before, I also was a bit sceptic toward the atheist movement, because I was assuming that they would simply shift the dogma to another place. As I have looked a bit deeper into this, I have to correct my views on it and can tell that there is no dogma. The fact that someone might be a bit too pushy with their views towards other people is not caused by being an atheist, but rather by the fact that that person is an annoying character and would most likely try to have their last say on every subject. I would not want to forcibly "convert" anyone, but when someone would challenge me, I'd defend my views.

[canman]

Well, just be aware that you're misusing the term, Im sure you can find a better word to describe what I understand you wish to express. It's certainly not agnosticism, which implies only two possibilities to life.

The two possibilities you refer to, I take to be either:

life originated spotaneously; the scientific possibility, big bang et all

life the universe and everything had a creator, intelligent design, a deity

Would this be correct?