The Chinese + christian fundamentalism

robindch

Radio 4's excellent In Our Time did a program last week on China's Boxer Rebellion, a nationalist uprising against foreign influence and foreign religions that took place between 1989 and 1901. It was sparked off by a minor turf-war between catholics and locals over access rights to a temple, and, by the end, had escalated to the point that an eight-nation alliance invaded mainland China and forced a peace treaty that weakened the native Chinese administration rule to the point that it was permanently overthrown in 1911, ending two thousand years of Imperial rule. A podcast of the program can be downloaded from here.

Interestingly, the program didn't discuss the Taiping Rebellion -- a new one to me anyway -- which is believed to have been the largest civil war on record, resulting in the deaths of something between 20 and 30 million people between the 1840's and 1864. The rebellion was started and led by a christian fundamentalist and biblical literalist, Hong Xiuquan, who'd acquired the religion from an American protestant missionary. Over the course of the movement, Hong came to believe that he was Jesus Christ's younger brother, that he was receiving many revelations from god (including an updated Ten Commandments), that the Qing Dynasty were under Satanic influence and that his own higher calling was to usher in a new Heavenly Kingdom and obviously enough, that the christian god was on his side. The rebellion proceeded with uncommon brutality and fanatacism until 1861 and the gates of Shanghai, where Hong was defeated by a combined Chinese and Western military force. The movement went into an immediate decline and finally petered out some years after Hong's death from food poisoning in 1864.

Bearing these two nation-changing rebellions in mind, the attitude of the current Chinese government to underground christian churches outside its control makes sad, but easily understandable, political sense.

Goduznt Xzst

20 to 30 million, I mean that number is just staggering. That is about 5866 deaths per day of the revolt. Or 244 deaths for every hour of the 14 years that this thing ran for.

Also, wiki says it was from 1850 to 1864, not 1840.

lostexpectation

yes all these christian missionaries in china thinking there saving the chinese from themselves, when its really just about getting the commies.

robindch

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

20 to 30 million, I mean that number is just staggering. That is about 5866 deaths per day of the revolt. Or 244 deaths for every hour of the 14 years that this thing ran for.

Rather sobering to think about it. More sobering still to realize that that number of people could have died in a war that I (for one) hadn't heard about until yesterday.

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

wiki says it was from 1850 to 1864, not 1840.

Well, Hong got going in the early 1840's, and though his first military outing didn't happen 'til 1850, it seems that he was killing people well before that. From the IOT newsletter:

Melvyn Bragg wrote:

He failed his exams four times and the villagers considered him to be a disaster and were pleased to see the back of him. They kicked him out. He declared then that he was Christ's younger brother returned. He was the Resurrection. Having been kicked out of the village, he walked for days and ended up at a place called Thistle Mountain. There he began to preach and very soon had a congregation. He issued his own Ten Commandments and if you didn't learn them and obey them, you were decapitated. For reasons too deep to fathom, he gathered thousands and then tens of thousands and then millions of followers. Within a very few years he was ruling over five great provinces. He believed the Manchu regime, which had been there since 1644, were the devils and he was ushering in a new kingdom. He was visited by almost every Western missionary in China. He received them in a room full of broken clocks. [...] Foreigners took to him because he was against the central regime as they were in their hungry lust for more trade rights. George MacDonald Fraser took to him and he features heavily in the novel Flashman and the Dragon.

Hong seems to have been a weird, driven, picaresque character who was able -- as Mao was able -- to tap into the Chinese inclination to untrammelled mass movement and revolution.

Has anybody come across a good biography of the man, or a history of the rebellion?

studiorat

According to the discussion page there's doubts as to how much influence Hong actually had in the events that followed.

All historians unanimously agree that Yang Xiuqing was the leader with the most power in the Taiping rebellion, so i feel it is important to include him in the introduction.

It is commonplace for people to think that Hong was the most powerful and influential leader. Franz Michael in his work "the taiping rebellion" questions Hong's involvement stating it was even less then we originally think.

However the importance of Hong is definitely worth putting him in the introduction, however same goes with Yang.

I put this in because Franz Michael doesn't appear in the references in the Wiki article.
http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/core9/phalsall/texts/taiping.html


"Flashman and the Dragon" looks like it might be worth a look though...

Goduznt Xzst

robindch wrote: »

Rather sobering to think about it. More sobering still to realize that that number of people could have died in a war that I (for one) hadn't heard about until yesterday.

That was exactly my thinking, how I'd never heard of it before. Although I suppose mass killings have been happening in other parts of the world (like the ~2 million killed in Cambodia in the 70's). It's just hard to fathom how they actually killed this many people in a such a relatively short time in the 19th century. I'll have to do some more reading about it

robindch wrote: »

Well, Hong got going in the early 1840's, and though his first military outing didn't happen 'til 1850, it seems that he was killing people well before that.

My bad. Yeah a brief account of his life is here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hong_Xiuquan

robindch wrote: »

Has anybody come across a good biography of the man, or a history of the rebellion?

From that wiki page, this book was sourced

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Gods-Chinese-Son-Taiping-Heavenly/dp/0006384412/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1237994420&sr=8-1

Daemonic

studiorat wrote: »

"Flashman and the Dragon" looks like it might be worth a look though...

I read one of MacDonald Fraser's Flashman books years ago. Seemed like a book version of Carry on up the Khyber as I recall it. Not sure it's going to have much by way of accurate historic detail.

studiorat

Daemonic wrote: »

I read one of MacDonald Fraser's Flashman books years ago. Seemed like a book version of Carry on up the Khyber as I recall it. Not sure it's going to have much by way of accurate historic detail.

Not 'arf!! the Flashman reference in the Bragg article caught my eye. While I enjoy reading history I'd imagine keeping track of the unfamiliar spelling of names and places would turn out to be a head melter.

Fanny Cradock

Fascinating how stuff like this doesn't really register in the Western conciousness. For instance, during the Rape of Nanking, John Rabe, a card carrying Nazi, was instrumental in saving approximately 200,000 Chinese form the Japanese during the Second Sino-Japanese war. The Nazis were not impressed.

Anyway, I would take exception to the thread title which links Hóng Xiùquán (I had to copy and paste that ) with Christian fundamentalism. Certainly he incorporated aspects of Christianity into his religion, but his heterodox beliefs set him quite apart from the fundamentals of Christianity. So, for example, he apparently rejected the Trinitarian God and thought himself the younger brother of Jesus. In this regard, he made up his own religion - one that just so happened to be based on a bastardised understanding of Christianity.

Goduznt Xzst

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

one that just so happened to be based on a bastardised understanding of Christianity.

Is that not the very definition of heterodox Christianity? Also, there are Christian sects that don't accept the Trinity that would be considered Christian Denominations.

PDN

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Also, there are Christian sects that don't accept the Trinity that would be considered Christian Denominations.

Considered as Christian Denominations by whom? Not by anyone I know.

Mickeroo

PDN wrote: »

Considered as Christian Denominations by whom? Not by anyone I know.

By themsleves and anyone who contributed to the wikipedia article obviously. If someone believes in christ they're part of a christian denomination,simple as. Whether people in other denominations recognise them as such hardly matters to them.

Fanny Cradock

The denial of the Trinity and thinking he was Jesus' Asian brother (which would be as amusing as a Asian Elvis if his story wasn't so grim) are just two of the radical divergences from Christianity that I picked up. No doubt there are others. The point is that he departed from Christianity to such an extent that any claims to his Christian fundamentalism seem erroneous.

Mickeroo

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

The denial of the Trinity and thinking he was Jesus' Asian brother (which would be as amusing as a Asian Elvis if his story wasn't so grim) are just two of the radical divergences from Christianity that I picked up. No doubt there are others. The point is that he departed from Christianity to such an extent that any claims to his Christian fundamentalism seem erroneous.

Yea that guy was nuts. Although,if he had actally won his war its likely it would be a recognised denomination by now. Anyway, I was talking about what Goduznt Xzst linked too.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

Considered as Christian Denominations by whom?

By themselves, I'd assume. However, it's a moot point whether or not Hong and his followers are considered christian by any modern-day people or groups who self-describe as "christian".

What was important was that Hong believed himself to be an agent of the creator of the universe and that he was sufficiently convincing to be able to make millions of others acquire the same belief. Furthermore, he no doubt believed himself -- and by reflection his followers believed themselves -- free from earthly error and that this heavenly perfection was worth some serious megadeath.

Fanny Cradock

Mickeroo wrote: »

By themsleves and anyone who contributed to the wikipedia article obviously. If someone believes in christ they're part of a christian denomination,simple as. Whether people in other denominations recognise them as such hardly matters to them.

I suppose you apply that to all walks of life?

Fanny Cradock

robindch wrote: »

worth some serious megadeath.

As a former listener, I can assure you that nothing is worth some serious Megadeth.

Mickeroo

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I suppose you apply that to all walks of life?

How you mean? If by all walks of life you mean would i apply the same thing to muslim and hindu sects/denominations then yes. If you mean like someone discovered a bunch of god worshiping chimpanzes in the rain forests of he Congo would I consider them a christian denomination? Then sure,why not :P


EDIT: Hmmmm,your post seems to have disappeared

Fanny Cradock

Mickeroo wrote: »

How you mean? If by all walks of life you mean would i apply the same thing to muslim and hindu sects/denominations then yes. If you mean like someone discovered a bunch of god worshiping chimpanzes in the rain forests of he Congo would I consider them a christian denomination? Then sure,why not :P


EDIT: Hmmmm,your post seems to have disappeared

Yeah, I deleted it. I wasn't in the mood for opening up a another line of argument. Curse your lightning reflexes.

By all walks of life I was talking about pretty much anything anything, and not exclusively religions.

Mickeroo

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Yeah, I deleted it. I wasn't in the mood for opening up a another line of argument. Curse your lightning reflexes.

By all walks of life I was talking about pretty much anything anything, and not exclusively religions.

Sorry bout that, I used to have a summer job as a ninja

I'm not sure if i apply that line of thinking to everything,not sure how i would tbh

robindch

There, undeleted

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

As a former listener, I can assure you that nothing is worth some serious Megadeath.

Agreed.

Hence my wondering in the other thread whether there are still people around who believe themselves to be so perfectly incapable of error that they're prepared for other people to die on perfection's account.

The Mad Hatter

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

20 to 30 million, I mean that number is just staggering. That is about 5866 deaths per day of the revolt. Or 244 deaths for every hour of the 14 years that this thing ran for.

Also, wiki says it was from 1850 to 1864, not 1840.

I'm also fairly sure the Boxer Rebellion ran from 1889, not 1989.

studiorat

Well now, here's a thing. While having dinner last night the subject of the Taiping rebellion came up. Must have been that Tom Cruise movie. Anyway it turns out that a relative of Hóng Xiùquán wiki grew up and lives and works here in Dublin.
Imagine that!

Tim Robbins

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

The denial of the Trinity and thinking he was Jesus' Asian brother (which would be as amusing as a Asian Elvis if his story wasn't so grim) are just two of the radical divergences from Christianity that I picked up. No doubt there are others. The point is that he departed from Christianity to such an extent that any claims to his Christian fundamentalism seem erroneous.

I got married in the Unitarian Church. They don't believe in the Trinity and consider themselves Christian or Christian - esque. They have quotes from 'Sermon on the Mount' on the wall behind the alter and stain glass images of Jesus.

I had a few very interesting discussions with the Minister and their thinking was that men made decisions on what they thought was true a long time ago. They probably made mistakes and probably got a few things wrong, so you shouldn't have to believe it.

Personally, I found their attitude very refreshing, open minded and very accepting of atheists. It's an attitude that the likes of Dawkins etc would find a lot harder to be so up in arms about.

Goduznt Xzst

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I got married in the Unitarian Church....

Personally, I found their attitude very refreshing, open minded and very accepting of atheists. It's an attitude that the likes of Dawkins etc would find a lot harder to be so up in arms about.

I'd agree with you. Unitarianism is one of the few religions I have few problems with. A truly interesting character is one of the founders of Unitarianism, Joseph Priestley, who claimed to of discovered oxygen amongst other things and who was one of the main sources of influence on the theory of Utilitarianism. His writings also went on to inspire Thomas Jeffersons opinions of Christianity, and lead him to write his abridged and non-supernatural account of Jesus' life, now called the Jefferson Bible

Tim Robbins

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

I'd agree with you. Unitarianism is one of the few religions I have few problems with. A truly interesting character is one of the founders of Unitarianism, Joseph Priestley, who claimed to of discovered oxygen amongst other things and who was one of the main sources of influence on the theory of Utilitarianism. His writings also went on to inspire Thomas Jeffersons opinions of Christianity, and lead him to write his abridged and non-supernatural account of Jesus' life, now called the Jefferson Bible

Interesing post. Unitarianism seems so sensible I can't understand why more Churches don't veer this way.

I wonder if the Pope came out made similar edicts about the various supernatural claims in the bible that he did recently about purgatory, what would happen?

Dades

From what I've know of Unitarianism (which isn't much) it sounds like a la carte Christianity.

Or a church for agnostics who like the fluffier bits of the NT and who want to be part of a "religion".

Goduznt Xzst

Dades wrote: »

From what I've know of Unitarianism (which isn't much) it sounds like a la carte Christianity.

Or a church for agnostics who like the fluffier bits of the NT and who want to be part of a "religion".

lol pretty much they are yeah. I'd say most Christians are a form of this in some areas of their beliefs, at least the Unitarians are owning up to it

Rev Hellfire

Unitarianism is for Christians who don't have the balls to be Christians.

Tim Robbins

Dades wrote: »

From what I've know of Unitarianism (which isn't much) it sounds like a la carte Christianity.

Or a church for agnostics who like the fluffier bits of the NT and who want to be part of a "religion".

They look at nice parts of all religious scriptures. Hindu, Buddhist, Christian, Islam etc.

They seem just people who like a little spiritual buzz but have the honesty to say they haven't a concrete definition of what it is they belief in, except a compassionate, loving philosophy.

Quakers seem the same.

It seems most Catholics are a bit like this. How many Catholics honestly belief the Pope is infallable?

The Mad Hatter

Tim Robbins wrote: »

It seems most Catholics are a bit like this. How many Catholics honestly belief the Pope is infallable?

I think in general (with the exception of the members of a few extreme churches) most religious people are like this.

Tim Robbins

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

I think in general (with the exception of the members of a few extreme churches) most religious people are like this.

But would you agree most of the Religious posters here are a little more convinced that their religion is correct and the other 12,456 (or whatever) are wrong?

Húrin

What I find fascinating is how one revolutionary ideologue - Hong - who believed that everything should be shared equally among the people, caused tens of millions of deaths; and was then followed a century later by another revolutionary ideologue - Mao - who believed that everything should be shared equally among the people and caused tens of millions of deaths.

The Mad Hatter

Tim Robbins wrote: »

But would you agree most of the Religious posters here are a little more convinced that their religion is correct and the other 12,456 (or whatever) are wrong?

tbh I sometimes wonder how many people really take it that seriously. Yes, most of the people on this forum certainly believe strongly that they are right, and everyone who disagrees with them is wrong. But that's the thing about internet forums: you get people who are strongly interested in what they're posting about. I don't think you can really apply internet experiences to the real world, though.

Tim Robbins

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

tbh I sometimes wonder how many people really take it that seriously. Yes, most of the people on this forum certainly believe strongly that they are right, and everyone who disagrees with them is wrong. But that's the thing about internet forums: you get people who are strongly interested in what they're posting about. I don't think you can really apply internet experiences to the real world, though.

My Mother told me once, "of course when you look at it logically it doesn't make sense and isn't true, but I like praying".

Says it all really. I really think it's about how tolerant you are of bad logic. Most of the Christian posters aren't really interested in science, even though they respect it. I doubt it would be so easy to have their dogmatic views and a meaningful interest in science.

Rev Hellfire

Tim Robbins wrote: »

My Mother told me once, "of course when you look at it logically it doesn't make sense and isn't true, but I like praying".

If something works for you and gives comfort what reason would you have to reject. Seems like a fairly logical response to me.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Most of the Christian posters aren't really interested in science, even though they respect it. I doubt it would be so easy to have their dogmatic views and a meaningful interest in science.

I suspect most people in general have an interest in science in the same way the general population have an interest in their cars. They're keen to know the basics but are happy enough to ignore the more technical details about engines and stuff.

As Mad Hatter states, for anyone to even post here, much less read these forums implies they have a strong interest in the subject and are more likely to hold polarised views than the average man/woman on the street.

stevejazzx

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

If something works for you and gives comfort what reason would you have to reject it

Becasue something else which is actually true may well be able to replace it, then you have a win win situation as opposed to a 'hmmm this is a bit whacy but I like it situation....'

Seems like a fairly logical response to me.

Logical? Noone needs false hope, real hope is available, it's like tinned food - the fresh food is two aisles over...look--->

Tim Robbins

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

If something works for you and gives comfort what reason would you have to reject. Seems like a fairly logical response to me.

I see where you are coming from. There's a massive difference between Religious people who genuinely respect other Religions and those that think their chosen one out of the other 13,467 or whatever there is, is 100% correct and they must tell everyone about it even though they couldn't be bothered finding out any of the other 13,467.

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote: »

But would you agree most of the Religious posters here are a little more convinced that their religion is correct and the other 12,456 (or whatever) are wrong?

Some of us are like that. It seems crazy, I know, but we actually choose to follow a religion we believe to be true instead of picking one that we believe to be false.

stevejazzx

PDN wrote: »

Some of us are like that. It seems crazy, I know, but we actually choose to follow a religion we believe to be true instead of picking one that we believe to be false.

Do you chose it or does it chose you?
I can't believe that a modern day Muslim in particular choses Islam?
Also wasn't Tims point that no one could be aware of all religions in existence let alone understand or 'know' them therefore it is somewhat premature to be declaring one true religion.

PDN

stevejazzx wrote: »

Do you chose it or does it chose you?
I can't believe that a modern day Muslim in particular choses Islam?

1. I'm not a Muslim.
2. I said "some of us".
3. While it might seem surprising to both you and me, some modern day Muslims do indeed choose Islam.

Also wasn't Tims point that no one could be aware of all religions in existence let alone understand or 'know' them therefore it is somewhat premature to be declaring one true religion.

If that was his point then it was rather poorly put.

You could equally argue that since no one could be aware of all religions in existence then it is somewhat premature to be declaring oneself an atheist.

Mickeroo

PDN wrote: »

You could equally argue that since no one could be aware of all religions in existence then it is somewhat premature to be declaring oneself an atheist.

Only if you wrongly considered atheism to be a religion.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

You could equally argue that since no one could be aware of all religions in existence then it is somewhat premature to be declaring oneself an atheist.

One doesn't have to travel the length and breadth of the universe to be pretty sure that moons are not made out of green cheese.

PDN

Mickeroo wrote: »

Only if you wrongly considered atheism to be a religion.

Are you drunk? My argument does not depend on atheism being a religion at all.

robindch wrote:

One doesn't have to travel the length and breadth of the universe to be pretty sure that moons are not made out of green cheese.

No, and once you are convinced the moon is made out of rock you don't need to be aware of every single false notion that the moon is composed of other substances.

stevejazzx

PDN wrote: »

1. I'm not a Muslim.
2. I said "some of us".
3. While it might seem surprising to both you and me, some modern day Muslims do indeed choose Islam.

1.I didn't say you were, I was giving the most pertinent example.
2.The argument I put forward is still applicable and relevant no natter how many are involved.
3.In the same way that they 'chose' to be suicide bombers. No other influences involved?

PDN wrote:

If that was his point then it was rather poorly put.

You could equally argue that since no one could be aware of all religions in existence then it is somewhat premature to be declaring oneself an atheist.

You could argue that but not equally.:) Unless you can magic equanimity in the same way you do your God.

stevejazzx

PDN wrote: »

No, and once you are convinced the moon is made out of rock you don't need to be aware of every single false notion that the moon is composed of other substances.

The only people that I am aware of who question that kind of hard science are those of a religious persuasion.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

once you are convinced the moon is made out of rock you don't need to be aware of every single false notion that the moon is composed of other substances.

A conviction which works fine right up until the moons of Saturn, one of which is made of water.

Mickeroo

PDN wrote: »

Are you drunk? My argument does not depend on atheism being a religion at all.

Yes i'm drunk, your argument still depends on atheism being a religion though.....

PDN wrote: »

You could equally argue that since no one could be aware of all religions in existence then it is somewhat premature to be declaring oneself an atheist.

For that statement to be true atheism would have to fall into the same bracket as religion...... theres only one atheism but 100's,even 1000's of religions, it's not the same thing at all.

Naz_st

PDN wrote: »

You could equally argue that since no one could be aware of all religions in existence then it is somewhat premature to be declaring oneself an atheist.

The logic doesn't hold in that way:

Set Q contains objects (any belief system) that has attribute p (requires the existence of a God)

The set can be a set of unknown size, or infinitely large, since it is the attribute "p" that is being denied by atheism, not the individual elements of the set. The logic still holds for any new religion that may be non-existent now but created at some point in the future.

Rev Hellfire

stevejazzx wrote: »

Becasue something else which is actually true may well be able to replace it, then you have a win win situation as opposed to a 'hmmm this is a bit whacy but I like it situation....'

And that 'truth' is really only of value if it leads to the betterment of the people involved. Its a totally subjective thing, wholly dependant on the individuals involved. There's no value in truth alone ihmo, only if it can lead to an advancement. But I fully admit that's my own personal taken on the matter.

stevejazzx wrote: »

Logical? Noone needs false hope, real hope is available, it's like tinned food - the fresh food is two aisles over...look--->

Again as above, the assumption is that truth is always the better answer. For those of us in an affluent free society, happy with our day to day lot it probably is, but that's not true for everyone.

Some times a little lie is the best medicine. imho etc etc...

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote: »

Some of us are like that. It seems crazy, I know, but we actually choose to follow a religion we believe to be true instead of picking one that we believe to be false.

That's a false dichotomy. Have you read Baginni's Duck that won the Lottery yet?