Preaching Of Non-buddhist Religions In Thailand

[wolf5370]

I have no time for 'organised' religions, only bible truth.

...but Suegha, the bible was written and rewritten over and over by the 'organised' religions. These 'organised' religions were more unscrupulous than today. Jesus said many allogorical stories to put across a meaning to the simple folk that made up his general audience, why would it not be the case for earlier 'teachers'?

* Typos

Edited April 26, 2006 by wolf5370

[elkangorito]

I have no time for 'organised' religions, only bible truth.

...but Suegha, the bible was written and rewritten over and over by the 'organised' religions. These 'organised' religions were more unscrupulous than today. Jesus said many allogorical stories to put across a meaning to the simple folk that made up his general audience, why would it not be the case for earlier 'teachers'?

* Typos

Sadly but expectedly, there are those who claim the bible/koran/any other "organised' religion, to be the 'truth'.

How can this be when the writings of such 'truth' (the bible) have changed so often? How can this be when the people submitting text that ended up in the bible, were only writing stories or sending letters to 'specific' others? As a matter of fact, how can the 'letter sending' part of the bible, be an intention for ALL? Particularly when the so called 'letters' pertain to a particular group of people? This is a clear obfuscation of the real truth created by the modern 'interpreters', designed to disempower the 'readers'. Afterall, it is easier to control a 'mass' if they are scared of something. Sounds a bit like the 'god love america' crap used by the moronic US politicians.

Very sad & pathetic.

[cdnvic]

It was my belief that the Koran wasn't open to ANY interpretation.

Try learning about it from an encyclopedia or something, rather than talk show pundits. If there were no different interpretations of Islam, there wouldn't be all the infighting between sh`ite,sunni, and shia sects of Islam.

cv

[cdnvic]

Sadly but expectedly, there are those who claim the bible/koran/any other "organised' religion, to be the 'truth'.

How can this be when the writings of such 'truth' (the bible) have changed so often? How can this be when the people submitting text that ended up in the bible, were only writing stories or sending letters to 'specific' others? As a matter of fact, how can the 'letter sending' part of the bible, be an intention for ALL? Particularly when the so called 'letters' pertain to a particular group of people? This is a clear obfuscation of the real truth created by the modern 'interpreters', designed to disempower the 'readers'. Afterall, it is easier to control a 'mass' if they are scared of something. Sounds a bit like the 'god love america' crap used by the moronic US politicians.

Very sad & pathetic.

Ok, we get it. You do not approve or organised religion, and Chrisianity especially. Fine, but at least show a little more respect, and tolerance. Your comments above are stepping over the line.

cv

[revdrfisher]

Very simply put, man must choose a rational and meaningful religion according to his own conviction without depending on mere beliefs, traditions, customs and theories. No one has the right to force him to accept any religion. No one should exploit poverty, illiteracy or arouse human emotional feelings to induce him to accept any religion. Religion should be a free choice. Yes, you do see some groups doing this here (mostly with the Hill Tribes) because they are breaking the concepts listed above; however as a Buddhist you must know this is their Karma.

[suegha]

I have no time for 'organised' religions, only bible truth.

...but Suegha, the bible was written and rewritten over and over by the 'organised' religions. These 'organised' religions were more unscrupulous than today. Jesus said many allogorical stories to put across a meaning to the simple folk that made up his general audience, why would it not be the case for earlier 'teachers'?

* Typos

Not so on the bible being incorrect! A detailed investigation shows many ancient texts comparable to the bible we have today. The differences found are minor - jots and tittles to be exact.

The 'organised' religions did not re-write scripture but the interpretation of it! This is a mistake made by many people. If you read in a detailed and systematic way it's the consistency of the message that comes through. Indeed, the veracity of the bible is unique amongst ancient texts. Also, the bible writes it's history 'warts and all'. It's not some fairy story concocted to make its adherents look good, quite the opposite.

[Sir Burr]

And the suppression of the gospels of Thomas and Judas?

[suegha]

I have no time for 'organised' religions, only bible truth.

Sadly but expectedly, there are those who claim the bible/koran/any other "organised' religion, to be the 'truth'.

How can this be when the writings of such 'truth' (the bible) have changed so often? How can this be when the people submitting text that ended up in the bible, were only writing stories or sending letters to 'specific' others? As a matter of fact, how can the 'letter sending' part of the bible, be an intention for ALL? Particularly when the so called 'letters' pertain to a particular group of people? This is a clear obfuscation of the real truth created by the modern 'interpreters', designed to disempower the 'readers'. Afterall, it is easier to control a 'mass' if they are scared of something. Sounds a bit like the 'god love america' crap used by the moronic US politicians.

Very sad & pathetic.

No organised religion is the truth! ***proselytising deleted*** and very few 'Christian' religions even pretend to teach what the bible says.

You say "How can this be when the writings of such 'truth' (the bible) have changed so often?" Please point out to me what part of the bible has been changed, and from what to what?

Regarding the letters, you are correct that they were written to specific groups of people, however, every letter also has some universal lessons. The benefit is in finding out what was specific to the groups written to!

The doctrine of the bible was never used to scare the masses! Particularly if you think that the bible was used to disempower the readers. The bible teaches the importance of personal responsibility. So what was used to 'scare' the masses? Man-made untruths and fables.

I think you need to get your 'facts' sorted.

You also wrote "Sounds a bit like the 'god love america' crap used by the moronic US politicians." I don't even know what this means!

[suegha]

And the suppression of the gospels of Thomas and Judas?

Have you actually read these or any of the gnostic writings? They have nothing in common with the bible and they have absolutely no 'ring of truth'.

In my experience people who use the arguements of 'suppressed' writings, don't actually believe what the bible says anyway!!!

[Sir Burr]

The lesson of the gospel of Thomas was that God was everywhere, so, churches were not needed.

The gospel of Judas says that Jesus instructed him to betray him. Let's face facts. If Jesus didn't die as he did, the faith would never have caught on.

The bible was not the bible until many hundreds of years after the death of Jesus.

There were many, many writings. The organized church selected some and discarded others to come up with the volume of writing that we know as the bible. They were selective.

Edited May 8, 2006 by Sir Burr

[thaibebop]

I have no time for 'organised' religions, only bible truth.

Sadly but expectedly, there are those who claim the bible/koran/any other "organised' religion, to be the 'truth'.

How can this be when the writings of such 'truth' (the bible) have changed so often? How can this be when the people submitting text that ended up in the bible, were only writing stories or sending letters to 'specific' others? As a matter of fact, how can the 'letter sending' part of the bible, be an intention for ALL? Particularly when the so called 'letters' pertain to a particular group of people? This is a clear obfuscation of the real truth created by the modern 'interpreters', designed to disempower the 'readers'. Afterall, it is easier to control a 'mass' if they are scared of something. Sounds a bit like the 'god love america' crap used by the moronic US politicians.

Very sad & pathetic.

No organised religion is the truth! Only the bible has the truth, and very few 'Christian' religions even pretend to teach what the bible says.

You say "How can this be when the writings of such 'truth' (the bible) have changed so often?" Please point out to me what part of the bible has been changed, and from what to what?

First, I am not picking a fight. I feel I should say that. Now, the Bible has changed. Each time it is translated it is change, and the meanings or understandings change. With each incarnation of the religion a new Bible is written. Lutherans, Methodists, Baptists, you name it they have a different Bible. I can walk into Bordors Books here in America and choose from, at least, over 30 different verisons on the shelf at that time. So yes, it changes and keeps changing and everyone who cares says that their change is the right one.

Regarding the letters, you are correct that they were written to specific groups of people, however, every letter also has some universal lessons. The benefit is in finding out what was specific to the groups written to!

The doctrine of the bible was never used to scare the masses! Particularly if you think that the bible was used to disempower the readers. The bible teaches the importance of personal responsibility. So what was used to 'scare' the masses? Man-made untruths and fables.

I really think it would be a great benefit for you to read more history concerning Christianity. There is much known and much of what has been gathered is by theological scholars that points to a degree of truth in these old documents. For one, many believe that Judas death was a ritual sucide that was him following his commander, if you will. Jewish military tradition supports this. Just research Judas Machabee, not the same Judas by the way.

I think you need to get your 'facts' sorted.

You also wrote "Sounds a bit like the 'god love america' crap used by the moronic US politicians." I don't even know what this means!

[thaibebop]

I have no time for 'organised' religions, only bible truth.

Sadly but expectedly, there are those who claim the bible/koran/any other "organised' religion, to be the 'truth'.

How can this be when the writings of such 'truth' (the bible) have changed so often? How can this be when the people submitting text that ended up in the bible, were only writing stories or sending letters to 'specific' others? As a matter of fact, how can the 'letter sending' part of the bible, be an intention for ALL? Particularly when the so called 'letters' pertain to a particular group of people? This is a clear obfuscation of the real truth created by the modern 'interpreters', designed to disempower the 'readers'. Afterall, it is easier to control a 'mass' if they are scared of something. Sounds a bit like the 'god love america' crap used by the moronic US politicians.

Very sad & pathetic.

No organised religion is the truth! Only the bible has the truth, and very few 'Christian' religions even pretend to teach what the bible says.

You say "How can this be when the writings of such 'truth' (the bible) have changed so often?" Please point out to me what part of the bible has been changed, and from what to what?

Regarding the letters, you are correct that they were written to specific groups of people, however, every letter also has some universal lessons. The benefit is in finding out what was specific to the groups written to!

The doctrine of the bible was never used to scare the masses! Particularly if you think that the bible was used to disempower the readers. The bible teaches the importance of personal responsibility. So what was used to 'scare' the masses? Man-made untruths and fables.

I think you need to get your 'facts' sorted.

You also wrote "Sounds a bit like the 'god love america' crap used by the moronic US politicians." I don't even know what this means!

[sabaijai]

I'd just like to remind everyone here that this is a Buddhism forum, not a Christianity (or Christianity-bashing) forum, so let's try to stay on topic.

By the same token, please refrain from referring to any scriptures, whether Christian, Buddhist or otherwise, as absolute 'truth', rather qualify with 'I believe X to be true'. Otherwise you are crossing the line into proselytising.

[jdinasia]

isn't it pretty basic? Buddhists don't care about "preaching of non-Buddhist religions" in BKK ... whhy should anyone else?

[elkangorito]

I'd just like to remind everyone here that this is a Buddhism forum, not a Christianity (or Christianity-bashing) forum, so let's try to stay on topic.

By the same token, please refrain from referring to any scriptures, whether Christian, Buddhist or otherwise, as absolute 'truth', rather qualify with 'I believe X to be true'. Otherwise you are crossing the line into proselytising.

I thought the topic was "Preaching Of Non-buddhist Religions In Thailand". Forgive me if I'm wrong but doesn't that include discussion about non-buddhist religions?

And since very few 'scriptures' can be absolutlely proven to be 'true' (the 'Dead Sea Scrolls' as an example), how can any discussion be classed as 'off topic'? (unless it is violently emotive). I would suggest that during the manufacture of such historic writings, many people of 'qualified' & 'unqualified' origin, would have 'had their say' which invariably contributed to the current scriptures. And no doubt, some would have said they were 'off topic' but how else can things evolve without some debate?

And who is actually 'qualified' to judge such readers comments, since so much controversy has surrounded these issues for such a long time?

I would suggest that some latitude be given in this topic to allow all representations of the 'current way of thought'. If somebody suggests something violent, then I think that this would the time to 'draw the line', & not before.

And what is wrong with 'proselytising'? Isn't it up to the reader/listener to make up their own mind or is a subliminal gun held to their head to force them to change their mind? Isn't this what the Spanish did in the enforcement of their chosen religion? They cut off people's heads who didn't agree with them. I don't think that anyone here has a sword to cut off the heads of non-conformists...just words, which can be ignored. This decision lies with the reader & not with the writer.

[sabaijai]

Topic closed.