Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Christian Tolerance

Options
12357

Comments

  • Options
    #122
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    monosharp wrote: »
    On the contrary, I don't care about the middle, I care about these two ends. So my question has nothing to do with the middle.

    Since the vast majority of Christians, including those who post on this board, beloing to that middle, then you are basically admitting that you're trolling here.

    Banging on about a few extremists, while admitting that you don't care about the views of most Christians (yet pretending this is a thread about the tolerance of Christians in general), is just attempting to inflame the natives. Please don't do it again.


  • Options
    #123
    monosharp
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,981 ✭✭✭monosharp


    PDN wrote: »
    Since the vast majority of Christians, including those who post on this board, beloing to that middle, then you are basically admitting that you're trolling here.

    Banging on about a few extremists, while admitting that you don't care about the views of most Christians (yet pretending this is a thread about the tolerance of Christians in general), is just attempting to inflame the natives. Please don't do it again.

    You know perfectly well thats not the spectrum we are talking about.

    The other poster said one end was 'homosexual' and the other was 'send to curing camp', I said I didn't care about the middle here (non-homosexual people who weren't sent to cure camp).

    And you still haven't answered my questions.

    Are you beyond admitting fault PDN ?


  • Options
    #124
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    monosharp wrote: »

    And you still haven't answered my questions.

    Are you beyond admitting fault PDN ?

    And, as I have told you before, I answer points as and when I have the time. At present I'm in a Conference at Sicily and the only internet available is in the hotel lobby so I'm limiting myself to moderating trolls & posts that can be answered in a few quick sentences.

    Also, as you don't answer to every single point that every other poster makes, please don't ever try badgering me or any other poster because we don't respond to something quick enough for your satisfaction. OK?

    Confucianism, in its purest form, is a philosphy not a religion. Read up on the history of the Jesuits for a whole debate on that.

    Animism is certainly a religion as it involves the worship of supernatural deities that inhabit trees and rocks etc.

    I'm not interested in getting into a big long debate with you where you can bang your drum about how lovely Buddhists are and how horrible Christians are, but Buddhism's claims to be atheistic are, to my mind, decidedly unconvincing.

    North Koreans may be gullible, but so are so many other atheists. That does not hinder them from being atheists. Gullibility does not equate to religion.


  • Options
    #125
    monosharp
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,981 ✭✭✭monosharp


    PDN wrote: »
    At present I'm in a Conference at Sicily ...

    Is it nice ?
    Confucianism, in its purest form, is a philosphy not a religion. Read up on the history of the Jesuits for a whole debate on that.

    There is debate about the classification of Confucianism as a religion or a philosophy. Many attributes common among religions—such as ancestor worship, ritual, and sacrifice—apply to the practice of Confucianism; however, the religious features found in Confucian texts can be traced to traditional non-Confucian Chinese beliefs (chinese folk religion). The position adopted by some is that Confucianism is a moral science or philosophy.[9] The problem clearly depends on how one defines religion. Since the 1970s scholars have attempted to assess the religious status of Confucianism without assuming a definition based on the Western model (for example, Frederick Streng's definition, "a means of ultimate transformation"[10]). Under such a definition Confucianism can legitimately be considered a religious tradition.
    Animism is certainly a religion as it involves the worship of supernatural deities that inhabit trees and rocks etc.

    You said atheism means lack of belief in a god or gods. Some types of animism, whilst believing in the supernatural, do not consider them to be deities.
    I'm not interested in getting into a big long debate with you where you can bang your drum about how lovely Buddhists are and how horrible Christians are,

    I have no drum to beat about that, that's what you have taken from the facts I have presented in the past.

    What I stated was that a large percentage of Christians (in Korea) have very intolerant views on many things while I also said that the majority of Buddhists and Catholics and 'Protestant'/Other Christians do not.

    Actually maybe you can help me, when I use the term 'protestant' I don't just mean the kind of churches like the COI, COE etc, I mean the ones who aren't fundamentalist but I don't know if there's a term for it.
    but Buddhism's claims to be atheistic are, to my mind, decidedly unconvincing.

    Then you don't know enough about it then.

    Many types of Buddhism do indeed believe in deities, heaven, hell etc. Many others do not.
    North Koreans may be gullible, but so are so many other atheists. That does not hinder them from being atheists. Gullibility does not equate to religion.

    That was not the question and you completely sidestepped the point.

    North Koreans worship Kim Il-Sung just as much as any fundamentalist Christian or Muslim worships their god. They believe Il-Sung was a gift from heaven and when he died his body was taken back up to heaven and now he looks down upon them. They believe that Il-Sung carried out miracles when he was here on Earth including transforming an acorn into a grenade (no joke).

    I assume you know what Juche is ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juche

    From here http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html

    #10 is Juche.
    www.adherents.com wrote:
    Juche is the only government-authorized ideology in North Korea, to the point of excluding all other religions. "Juche" means "self-reliance" in the Korean language. Some writers cited in the Adherents.com database (under "Juche" as well as "Kimilsungism") classify Juche as a North Korean form of Marxist Communism. Juche began in the 1950s and is the official philosophy promulgated by the North Korean government and educational system. Its promoters describe Juche as simply a secular, ethical philosophy and not a religion. But, from a sociological viewpoint Juche is clearly a religion, and in many ways is even more overtly religious than Soviet-era Communism or Chinese Maoism.

    From here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_religious_groups#Western_classification

    Juche 23 million, Chondogyo 3 million, Tenrikyo 2 million, Cao Ðài 2 million, Ahl-e Haqq 1 million, Seicho-No-Ie 800,000, Yazidism 700,000, Unitarian-Universalism 630,000

    Why is this not a religion ? You yourself stated that religion is a belief in god or gods. Well the great leader is a god in North Korea.

    These quotes are from the website linked below.

    "According to party covenant, Article 1, section 1, all North Koreans are required to worship Kim Il Sung with all our heart and might, even after his death. We have to venerate the pictures and status of Kim Il Sung."

    "We must hang [Kim Il Sung's] pictures. The pictures indicate that Kim Il Sung is god, as we hang the pictures for the purpose of reminding ourselves that we depend on him."

    "Having faith in God is an act of espionage. Only Kim Il Sung is a god in North Korea."

    When Kim Il-Sung died;
    wikipedia wrote:
    His funeral in Pyongyang was attended by hundreds of thousands of people from all over North Korea, many of whom were mourning dramatically (there were reports that many people committed suicide or were killed in the resulting mass mourning crushes), weeping and crying Kim Il-sung's name during the funeral procession.
    wikipedia wrote:
    Political scientist Han S. Park in his book Juche: The Politics of Unconventional Wisdom (2002) and theologian Thomas J. Belke in Juche: A Christian Study of North Korea's State Religion (1999) liken Juche to a religious movement.

    Here's a Christian website stating as much.

    http://northkoreanchristians.com/religion-north-korea.html


  • Options
    #126
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    monosharp wrote: »


    Right so when my wife spends a day cooking and preparing food, sets up a feast on a table with said food and alcohol at midnight, opens the door of our apartment and the subsequent outer door to allow the spirit of her ancestors to come in for a bite to eat, that's atheistic is it ?

    Yep. could be called that.
    Last time I checked economics didn't say anything about the divinity of money.

    Exactly ! No divinity. Atheistic Communism for instance can be classified as a religion.
    I never said it was Christianity and I never said it was monotheistic. I said it was a religion.

    so what I just pointed out what could be classes as religion. You might note you are posting on a discussion about CHRISTIAN tolerance in a CHRISTIANITY discussion group?
    North Korea is the most religious country in the world, Kim Il Sung is their god and Kil Jung Il is the son of a god.

    They believe Kim Il Sung is not dead, he has simply gone back to heaven, they think hes watching them all the time, they think he performed miracles when he was here on earth.

    Please explain how that is not a religion.

    I didn't say it wasn't did I? If you want to push the envelope Nor is ancestor worship, economics or atheism. The point is HERE i.e. in this discussion group we are dealing with Christianity and monotheism.
    Nor has it anything to do with the argument of negative influence of religion on society.

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=64716317&postcount=117
    You responded to this comment:
    No, all you've demonstrated is that certain societies before Christianity tolerated older men forcing themselves on slaves and young boys - in other words, child rape and sexual exploitation.

    by saying
    child rape and sexual exploitation occurred as well as consensual sex just like it does today.

    If you were not referring to sexual exploitation by Christians as opposed to non Christians then what were you referring to? If it occurred in history and all sorts of other terrible things occurred in history and you say it occurred "like it does today" you are making a comparison between pre christian or atheistic societies (for example in China or Russia) with christian ones (for example in Europe) . and you are suggesting that there is little or no difference with respect to the terrible things that happened such as child abuse or mass murder. I am suggesting that in non - christian atheistic cultures (which as we have seen above can be considered religious or non religious but certainly NOT christian) the amount of death and destruction is noticeably HIGHER in comparison to Christian culture
    One need only look at the examples of Mao and Stalin to see that is true.

    When it was a crime how many churches jumped behind homosexuals to decriminalise it ?

    What is your point here? Most Christians don't approve of homosexual acts even today.
    Nor of prostitution. Yet do you somehow think that churches should work to decriminalise prostitution? At the same time churches work with prostitutes.
    On the contrary, I don't care about the middle, I care about these two ends. So my question has nothing to do with the middle.

    In which lies the fallacy! It isn't a case of one must ne homosexual or one must be in a deprogramming camp. Please look up "excluded Middle" While you are at it consider that either you supported George Bush or you supported Saddam with respect to invading Iraq.
    See what happens? most of the world didn't support Bush but they didn't support Saddam either.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #127
    monosharp
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,981 ✭✭✭monosharp


    ISAW wrote: »
    so what I just pointed out what could be classes as religion. You might note you are posting on a discussion about CHRISTIAN tolerance in a CHRISTIANITY discussion group?

    ... I'm writing about these things in response to PDN, I know they are slightly off topic. You clearly don't.

    Please read the posts your responding to and not just the thread title.
    I didn't say it wasn't did I? If you want to push the envelope Nor is ancestor worship, economics or atheism. The point is HERE i.e. in this discussion group we are dealing with Christianity and monotheism.

    The point is IN MY POSTS I was answering a different subject from the thread title.
    In which lies the fallacy! It isn't a case of one must ne homosexual or one must be in a deprogramming camp.

    I really have no idea what you are talking about and when I begin to think I do I read the next sentence and realise I don't again.

    I NEVER said one must be homosexual or in a deprogramming camp, my question was regarding people who ARE homosexual Or ARE in deprogramming camps.
    Please look up "excluded Middle" While you are at it consider that either you supported George Bush or you supported Saddam with respect to invading Iraq.
    See what happens?

    .... :confused:

    I never suggested there was no middle ground, I wanted PDN's opinion ON those two things, I was not suggesting he fit into one of them.

    Honestly please read the posts you are replying to.


  • Options
    #128
    Greaney
    Registered Users Posts: 1,247 ✭✭✭Greaney


    You've got to be kidding me!!

    I didn't know the Taliban were Christian??:D


    The Wall steet journal noted in one of it's articals how Christianaphobia in Islamist regimes was largely going unreported in the Western media. They thought fit to quote open doors on the matter. Here's their table of countries who have the worst human rights records towards Christians.
    http://www.opendoorsuk.org/resources/persecution/#concern

    And this artical from the Wall Street journal should put Islams attitude to straight sex in perspective

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703444804575072311001250780.html?KEYWORDS=islam

    Dunno about you but I'd call whipping folk for extramarital sex and human rights violations an 'intolerant' quality

    Not blessing a gay union is just not in the same league:rolleyes:


  • Options
    #129
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    monosharp wrote: »
    ... I'm writing about these things in response to PDN, I know they are slightly off topic. You clearly don't.

    Like one can be "sightly" wrong or "approximately" exact?

    Please read the posts your responding to and not just the thread title.

    Please take off topic issues elsewhere.
    The point is IN MY POSTS I was answering a different subject from the thread title.

    Well then, find another thread!
    I really have no idea what you are talking about and when I begin to think I do I read the next sentence and realise I don't again.

    I NEVER said one must be homosexual or in a deprogramming camp, my question was regarding people who ARE homosexual Or ARE in deprogramming camps.

    It is quite simple. There is a little arrow beside the poster of the message click on it to go to the previous one.

    follw the last one back to http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=64716317&postcount=117

    where you mention
    "intolerance of consensual homosexuality."

    In relation to PND saying "that Christianity played a large party in reducing such paedophilia"

    And yourcomment being:
    PDN are you seriously suggesting that a person being homosexual is as unacceptable/acceptable as people trying to brainwash their children to suppress a natural frame of mind ? Because there are mountains of evidence which say such camps are damaging to the children they try and 'cure'.

    to which I replied:
    it isnt a case of one must one homosexual or one must be in a deprogramming camp.

    and to which you posted in reply
    On the contrary, I don't care about the middle, I care about these two ends. So my question has nothing to do with the middle.
    Which is a contradiction of
    I NEVER said one must be homosexual or in a deprogramming camp,

    Who is not reading the messages now?
    I never suggested there was no middle ground, I wanted PDN's opinion ON those two things, I was not suggesting he fit into one of them.
    Honestly please read the posts you are replying to.

    Your words:
    I don't care about the middle, I care about these two ends


  • Options
    #130
    monosharp
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,981 ✭✭✭monosharp


    ISAW wrote: »
    Like one can be "sightly" wrong or "approximately" exact?

    Apparently, your responses to me so far in this thread have been all over the place.
    Please take off topic issues elsewhere.
    Well then, find another thread!

    Its my thread and currently the topic is veering slightly off what the original question was.
    where you mention
    "intolerance of consensual homosexuality."

    In relation to PND saying "that Christianity played a large party in reducing such paedophilia"

    So one must be a consensual homosexual OR practice pedophilia ?

    Wheres the middle ground man ? :pac:

    I can make false assessments too mate.
    to which I replied:
    it isnt a case of one must one homosexual or one must be in a deprogramming camp.

    Which is complete nonsense because I never inferred such a thing.
    Your words:
    I don't care about the middle, I care about these two ends

    Please see above.


  • Options
    #131
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    monosharp wrote: »
    Apparently, your responses to me so far in this thread have been all over the place.

    Sweeping statements are not argument! If you can list which responses were "all over the place" as you claim and define what you mean by "all over the place" then you might throw some light on the claim you are making.
    Its my thread and currently the topic is veering slightly off what the original question was.

    Back to the "slightly" off topic. Look. First , you don't own the thread and second YOU were the one who admitted that you yourself posted off topic and third it is off topic or it isn't no "slightly" about it. You were the one who said it is one end or the other and whatever "slightly" lies in between is of no interest to you. Now when it suits you you are dumping your own principle in order to fudge the grey area between on topic and off topic into "slightly off topic" .

    So one must be a consensual homosexual OR practice pedophilia ?

    YOU were the person who made the comparison between people who are practicing homosexuals and people who try to deprogram them in camps.

    the original comparison was about "intolerance of consensual homosexuality" ie between the people that practice homosexuality and those that try to "cure" them by treating them in camps.

    I pointed out you are making a comparison between two things and ignoring all the other possibilities.

    Wheres the middle ground man ? :pac:

    It is all the OTHER POSSIBILITY. By the way I didn't bring up pedophilia !
    I can make false assessments too mate.

    Are you saying I am lying now?

    clearly you made the comparison

    Which is complete nonsense because I never inferred such a thing.


    Yes you DID! You inferred that "deprogrammers" in camps and practicing homosexuals were on opposite ends of a morality scale when you asked:
    are you seriously suggesting that a person being homosexual is as unacceptable/acceptable as people trying to brainwash their children to suppress a natural frame of mind ?

    NOTE the words "is as unacceptable as " ? A comparison of the two is inferred!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #132
    monosharp
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,981 ✭✭✭monosharp


    ISAW wrote: »
    Sweeping statements are not argument! If you can list which responses were "all over the place" as you claim and define what you mean by "all over the place" then you might throw some light on the claim you are making.

    You came into this thread and started making arguments against my postings misinterpreting their meaning.

    e.g. Your first posting to me starts by telling me that
    "Yep. Bhuddism can be viewed as a form of atheism."

    When that was directed at PDN. I never suggested Buddhism was or wasn't a religion, it was PDN who made the sweeping statement that religion is a belief in god or gods only.

    I didn't say it was a religion or not, I didn't say whether it was atheist or not. yet you are trying to correct me about something I didn't say. You THOUGHT I said it.

    You later went on to say
    It isn't Christianity. It isn't monotheism. If you are going to move the goalposts every time someone points out a "non- religious society" as an example of how religion was good for the world then you can win any argument with a "only true scotsman" fallacy!

    The thread title is Christian tolerance but the discussion me and PDN are having is about religion in general, not just Christianity.

    Specifically we are discussing what is and is not a religion. He claims that North Korea is an atheist state, I am arguing that North Korea is the most religious state in the world. Not the most christian, the most religious.

    North Korea is as much an atheist state as it is a socialist republic or democratic. It is neither. It is a totalitarian Stalinist dictatorship and its religion is 주체사상 (Juche).
    Back to the "slightly" off topic. Look. First , you don't own the thread and second YOU were the one who admitted that you yourself posted off topic and third it is off topic or it isn't no "slightly" about it.

    The discussion started about Christian tolerance, what we are discussing is related to that. This happens in every single thread on boards.
    YOU were the person who made the comparison between people who are practicing homosexuals and people who try to deprogram them in camps.

    I made no comparison, I asked PDN's opinion on such people who do send their children/others to get 'deprogrammed' because it is related to our discussion.

    And the reason I don't care about the 'middle' i.e the people who are neither homosexual nor sent to deprogramming camps is that its not relevant. I made the statement that mainstream Christians don't go for this nonsense, my point was that they accept the people that DO go for this nonsense.

    We have already discussed the 'middle', the mainstream, of which the vast majority of Christians are a part of. I have nothing against them, I want a mainstream Christians opinion ON the fundamentalist end of the spectrum.

    I don't believe that mainstream Christianity or mainstream christians have any problem with homosexuality, I do believe that they should denounce the fundamentalist christians who do have a problem with homosexuality.

    Is that clear enough ?
    Are you saying I am lying now?

    clearly you made the comparison

    No but you are completely misinterpreting our conversation and making sweeping statements that are not relevant.
    Yes you DID! You inferred that "deprogrammers" in camps and practicing homosexuals were on opposite ends of a morality scale when you asked:
    NOTE the words "is as unacceptable as " ? A comparison of the two is inferred!

    And where do you get from that that I don't allow for other possibilities ?


  • Options
    #133
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    monosharp wrote: »
    You came into this thread and started making arguments against my postings misinterpreting their meaning.
    Where?
    e.g. Your first posting to me starts by telling me that

    Telling you that Bhudism can be viewed as atheism!
    When that was directed at PDN. I never suggested Buddhism was or wasn't a religion, it was PDN who made the sweeping statement that religion is a belief in god or gods only.

    Here is what you asked: So according to you my Buddhist relatives here in Korea are not religious because they don't believe in a god or gods ?

    I just pointed out that Bhuddism and Shinto can be viewed as atheism.
    I didn't say it was a religion or not, I didn't say whether it was atheist or not. yet you are trying to correct me about something I didn't say. You THOUGHT I said it.

    clearly you were TOLD it was atheistic and a religion as well as being atheistic since in the prior message PDN stated an this is the actual quote above to which you were replying when you mnentioned about Koraeans and Bhuddism:
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=64713787#post64713787
    in The only way you can support the thesis that tolerance increases when the least proportion of the population practices religion is by redefining 'religion' to mean "adherence to an ideology" rather than the commonly understood idea of religion being related to belief in God or gods.

    clearly PDN is taking on the tolerance claims made by you about Christianity versus non believers is by extending the definition of "religion" to include atheists!

    So , as regard being a religion or not you were told that your claimed intolerance against homosexuals by religious people as opposed to tolerance by non religious peoples can only be shown when you include non believer as "religious" when PND was clear about his reference to intolerance being with respect to possible monotheism but really I believe he was referring to christian monotheism in particulr since the thread is abot tolerance of Christians.
    The thread title is Christian tolerance but the discussion me and PDN are having is about religion in general, not just Christianity.

    No it wasn't! The above quote was in response to PDN comment on redefining "religion"
    to include atheistic ones.

    Not alone that but uin the Perceeding reply whiuch PDN made he referred to you post
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=64712822#post64712822
    in which you stated:
    I also made the point that homosexuality was tolerated before Christianity and christianity played a large part in changing this.

    And even now, regardless of the wording of it, Christians largely do not accept homosexuality. You yourself aren't 'anti'-homosexual but you have stated that you believe its against gods wishes.

    clearly you made a comment in your immediately prior posting on christianity to which PDN gave the above reply about you switching definitions of "religion " as it suited you!

    You are now contradicting yourself!
    Specifically we are discussing what is and is not a religion. He claims that North Korea is an atheist state, I am arguing that North Korea is the most religious state in the world. Not the most christian, the most religious.

    that is what you say NOW. But clearly then you where shown when you asked:
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=64712822#post64712822

    Do you consider that tolerance ?

    The reply was:
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=64713787&postcount=115
    The only way you can support the thesis that tolerance increases when the least proportion of the population practices religion is by redefining 'religion' to mean "adherence to an ideology" rather than the commonly understood idea of religion being related to belief in God or gods.

    If you want to use 'religion' in such a loose term then you are free to do so, but in that case you probably want to take it to another forum than Christianity.

    You were clearly shown this was a discussion about Christian tolerance and you tried to make sweeping statements about "religion" using a definition which may include atheists and communists. You can't lumpo in Bhuddists Shinto animists and Communists and with Christians and then make a sweeping statement about Christianity and homosexuals and claim it proves Christian intolerance is true based on the lumping together of a whole load of disparate beliefs.
    The discussion started about Christian tolerance, what we are discussing is related to that. This happens in every single thread on boards.

    No! clearly you are contradicting yourself. You began by suggesting tolerance decreased with the introduction of Christianity. when shown that believe in Christ didn't imply this you jumped over to suggesting tolerance decreased with all religion but rather than stick with belief in gods you broadened religion to include atheism. If you had began with "atheistic communism and atheistic Oriential regimes were intolerant" I don't think people would disagree with you but it would have nothing to do with Christianity then would it?
    I made no comparison, I asked PDN's opinion on such people who do send their children/others to get 'deprogrammed' because it is related to our discussion.

    Yawn. Comprehension 101
    What do the words "is as unacceptable as " indicate in the sentence:
    "Are you seriously suggesting that a person being homosexual is as unacceptable/acceptable as people trying to brainwash their children to suppress a natural frame of mind ?"?
    And the reason I don't care about the 'middle' i.e the people who are neither homosexual nor sent to deprogramming camps is that its not relevant.

    Not relevant to someone considering only the extremes of a false dichotomy and excluding the middle!
    I made the statement that mainstream Christians don't go for this nonsense, my point was that they accept the people that DO go for this nonsense.

    Just as they accept the people that don't go for this nonsence! Who was it who wanted to lecture us on tolerance?
    We have already discussed the 'middle', the mainstream, of which the vast majority of Christians are a part of. I have nothing against them, I want a mainstream Christians opinion ON the fundamentalist end of the spectrum.

    That would be a different issue to the one above then where you suggest Christianity in general is intolerant of homosexuals or that as society became more Christian homosexuality suffered more intolerance! Now it seems you take an example of fringe Christians and attempt to prove you case with them!
    I don't believe that mainstream Christianity or mainstream christians have any problem with homosexuality,

    Then why did you suggest that tolerance decreased as Christianity grew?
    I do believe that they should denounce the fundamentalist christians who do have a problem with homosexuality.


    LOL! they should not tolerate them? You are a bit like the anti Nazis who do not believe in censorship and believe in free speech - except for nazis and others that they oppose!
    Is that clear enough ?

    It is clearly a different issue! You began with a false assertion that in history Christianity in general was intolerant. Now you suggest that contrary to that Christians should be intolerant of a minority of people whose practices and beliefs they do not approve of!
    No but you are completely misinterpreting our conversation and making sweeping statements that are not relevant.

    To my knowledge I have cited the source of every claim made. I am not mis representing that YOU CLAIMED something about christianity being tolerant which you could not support without redefining religion and when this was pointed out toi you you diverged into multiple unrelated arguments.
    And where do you get from that that I don't allow for other possibilities ?

    Probably from your own words where you say:
    On the contrary, I don't care about the middle, I care about these two ends. So my question has nothing to do with the middle.


  • Options
    #134
    monosharp
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,981 ✭✭✭monosharp


    ISAW wrote: »
    I just pointed out that Bhuddism and Shinto can be viewed as atheism.

    Yes, which is entirely irrelevant because I didn't state what Buddhism or Shinto were or weren't. I asked a question whole sole purpose was to point out the incorrect nature of PDN's previous definition of what is and is not a religion.

    Is it that hard to grasp ?
    clearly you were TOLD it was atheistic and a religion as well as being atheistic since in the prior message ...

    I DON'T CARE WHAT YOU THINK IT IS OR ISN'T. That was not my argument.

    It was not my argument that Buddhism was a religion or atheistic or both or neither.

    This is the third time I have had to re-state this, I asked the question to point out to PDN his definition of religion was wrong or at least very simplistic.

    But if you absolutely insist on having an argument about what Buddhism is, then using your invalid and wide sweeping definition you could just as easily call Christianity atheistic.

    Thats what the Romans called the early Christians, atheists, because they didn't believe in the Roman gods.
    So , as regard being a religion or not you were told that your claimed intolerance against homosexuals by religious people as opposed to tolerance by non religious peoples can only be shown when you include non believer as "religious" when PND was clear about his reference to intolerance being with respect to possible monotheism but really I believe he was referring to christian monotheism in particulr since the thread is abot tolerance of Christians.

    Since your so found of using fallacies, theres a nice straw-man right there.

    Regarding homosexuality, I made the argument that homosexuality was very accepted before Christianity came about especially in ancient Greece and to a lesser extent Rome which clearly were religious states.


  • Options
    #135
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    monosharp wrote: »
    You came into this thread and started making arguments against my postings misinterpreting their meaning.

    where?
    e.g. Your first posting to me starts by telling me that

    When that was directed at PDN.

    It makes no difference to whom your post was directed. If he made a definition of religion and you queried it and asked if Bhuddists are atheist and i answered that they certainly could be seen that way I am not misinterpreting anything! Your example is therefore NOT an example of me misinterpreting anything as you claimed!
    I never suggested Buddhism was or wasn't a religion,

    So what? The above example is of me saying Bhuddhism can be atheistic. Whatever you said or didn't say you cited what I STATED as an example of misinterpretation. It is NOT
    such an example as you claim!
    it was PDN who made the sweeping statement that religion is a belief in god or gods only.

    PDN supplied a definition and not a sweeping statement! He also showed that your inference doesw not apply unless you CHANGE the definition.
    I didn't say it was a religion or not,


    Yes you did and you reitterated saying that!
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=64731051&postcount=121
    I never said it was Christianity and I never said it was monotheistic. I said it was a religion.

    it is in the same massage where you stated
    I don't care about the middle, I care about these two ends.
    I didn't say whether it was atheist or not. yet you are trying to correct me about something I didn't say. You THOUGHT I said it.

    what I stated was:
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=64730996&postcount=120


    that Bhuddism (and other religions) can be atheistic. Atheistic communism for example can be called a "religion" by some. But in doing that as PDN pointed out one has to broaden the definition of "religion".

    Let me take a different example which often occurs.
    A atheist says Christianity had a terrible influence on history that it is better to be atheist and religion is a terrible thing. I then point out that christianity in particular was responsible for a lot of good in history and that atheistic communism or Atheistic china for example was responsible for much more death. The atheist then says that communism is a religion too! He has now fudged the original argument about Christianity being good for society by changing the definition to include Chinese ancestor worshipers, atheistic Buddhists, and communists when the original definition was about Christians and how they affected history.

    See?

    You have done similar by broadening PDNs DEFINITION .


    NO! I just pointed to the original definition and that your claim :
    The thread title is Christian tolerance but the discussion me and PDN are having is about religion in general, not just Christianity.

    now who is "all over the place"?
    I didn't say it was a religion or not,I didn't say whether it was atheist or not. yet you are trying to correct me about something I didn't say. You THOUGHT I said it.

    aopparently now you thought you said it!


    And the discussion above is Not in the above case about religion in general.
    clearly it was about Christian toleration of homosexuals in hstory as compared to others:

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=64713787#post64713787
    The only way you can support the thesis that tolerance increases when the least proportion of the population practices religion is by redefining 'religion' to mean "adherence to an ideology" rather than the commonly understood idea of religion being related to belief in God or gods.

    Specifically we are discussing what is and is not a religion. He claims that North Korea is an atheist state, I am arguing that North Korea is the most religious state in the world. Not the most christian, the most religious.

    The only way you can support the thesis that tolerance increases when the least proportion of the population practices religion is by redefining 'religion' to mean "adherence to an ideology" rather than the commonly understood idea of religion being related to belief in God or gods.

    I made no comparison, I asked PDN's opinion on such people who do send their children/others to get 'deprogrammed' because it is related to our discussion.


    You COMPARED the two extremes!
    And the reason I don't care about the 'middle'

    the reason isn't necessary to show there is an excluded middle!
    We have already discussed the 'middle', the mainstream, of which the vast majority of Christians are a part of. I have nothing against them, I want a mainstream Christians opinion ON the fundamentalist end of the spectrum.

    Apparently you don't! Because you believe mainstream Christians accept such fundamentalists.
    I don't believe that mainstream Christianity or mainstream christians have any problem with homosexuality,

    They don't! They have problems with homosexual acts.
    I do believe that they should denounce the fundamentalist christians who do have a problem with homosexuality.

    Why? they might denounce the ACTS of fundamentalists but not the fundamentalists themselves.
    Is that clear enough ?

    That seems quite clear yes.
    It is clear you have beliefs about mainstream Christians which are in error but which you still maintain are true.
    It is clear that Christians are tolerant of homosexuals, fundamentalists, bigots and people with biased opinions.
    No but you are completely misinterpreting our conversation and making sweeping statements that are not relevant.


    REally? Care to list three of these statements so I can withdraw them?
    You haven't provided any yet.
    And where do you get from that that I don't allow for other possibilities ?

    Wher you say you aren't interested in the middle?


  • Options
    #136
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    monosharp wrote: »
    Yes, which is entirely irrelevant because I didn't state what Buddhism or Shinto were or weren't.

    Actually you DID
    See here:
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=64731051&postcount=121
    I asked a question whole sole purpose was to point out the incorrect nature of PDN's previous definition of what is and is not a religion.

    Is it that hard to grasp ?

    Yes because PDN is referring to CHRISTIANITY and toleration and explains that be religion he is referring to belief in Gods and the ONLY WAY you could be right about a claim toleration by religions in history is to CHANGE THE DEFINITION to include non theistic or atheistic groups! Whic is exactly what you attempted to do!
    I DON'T CARE WHAT YOU THINK IT IS OR ISN'T. That was not my argument.


    It was EXACTLY your argumet! PDN supplied the "belief in god" definition and stated that the only way you could be right is if you changed that definition to mean non belief as well. which is what you continually try to do.
    It was not my argument that Buddhism was a religion or atheistic or both or neither.

    so what? PDN supplied the "belief in god" definition and stated that the only way you could be right is if you changed that definition to mean non belief as well. which is what you continually try to do.
    This is the third time I have had to re-state this, I asked the question to point out to PDN his definition of religion was wrong or at least very simplistic.

    PDN supplied the "belief in god" definition and stated that the only way you could be right is if you changed that definition to mean non belief as well. which is what you continually try to do.
    But if you absolutely insist on having an argument about what Buddhism is, then using your invalid and wide sweeping definition you could just as easily call Christianity atheistic.

    I didn't insist on such! i pointed out that one can argue for a definion of religion or of some religions as atheistic. But to do so would be changing PDNs original definition. PDN supplied the "belief in god" definition and stated that the only way you could be right is if you changed that definition to mean non belief as well. which is what you continually try to do.

    That's what the Romans called the early Christians, atheists, because they didn't believe in the Roman gods.
    PDN supplied the "belief in god" definition and stated that the only way you could be right is if you changed that definition to mean non belief as well. which is what you continually try to do.

    Regarding homosexuality, I made the argument that homosexuality was very accepted before Christianity came about especially in ancient Greece and to a lesser extent Rome which clearly were religious states.

    "religius" in the sense that they believed in gods and were not atheistic!

    You are now going around in circles PND already stated:
    The only way you can support the thesis that tolerance increases when the least proportion of the population practices religion is by redefining 'religion' to mean "adherence to an ideology" rather than the commonly understood idea of religion being related to belief in God or gods.

    PDN supplied the "belief in god" definition and stated that the only way you could be right is if you changed that definition to mean non belief as well. which is what you continually try to do.


  • Options
    #137
    monosharp
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,981 ✭✭✭monosharp


    ISAW wrote: »
    So what? The above example is of me saying Bhuddhism can be atheistic. Whatever you said or didn't say you cited what I STATED as an example of misinterpretation. It is NOT such an example as you claim!

    My point was that PDN had said something short sightedly, but if you insist on this argument (which I didn't intend to have) then if Buddhism can be classed as atheist, please explain why and how Christianity cannot ?
    Yes you did and you reitterated saying that!
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=64731051&postcount=121

    No, I quoted a website. I never said it was or was not.
    that Bhuddism (and other religions) can be atheistic. Atheistic communism for example can be called a "religion" by some. But in doing that as PDN pointed out one has to broaden the definition of "religion".

    Is the North Korean worship of Kim a religion or not ? Why ?
    Let me take a different example which often occurs.
    A atheist says Christianity had a terrible influence ......

    Nice. I didn't say anything of the sort, but nice.
    The only way you can support the thesis that tolerance increases when the least proportion of the population practices religion is by redefining 'religion' to mean "adherence to an ideology" rather than the commonly understood idea of religion being related to belief in God or gods.
    re·li·gion
    –noun
    1.
    a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
    2.
    a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
    3.
    the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
    4.
    the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
    5.
    the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
    6.
    something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.

    The commonly understood idea of religion in the west might be worship of a god and/or gods but that is certainly not the case around the world.

    And as for this commonly understood idea of religion, Buddhism is commonly understood to be a religion.

    Please explain to me why the worship of Kim Il-Sung in North Korea and Juche is not a religion.


  • Options
    #138
    monosharp
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,981 ✭✭✭monosharp


    ISAW wrote: »
    "religius" in the sense that they believed in gods and were not atheistic!
    PDN supplied the "belief in god" definition and stated that the only way you could be right is if you changed that definition to mean non belief as well. which is what you continually try to do.

    Bit confused are we ?

    PDN stated that the commonly understood meaning of religion is a belief in god or gods. That is incorrect.


  • Options
    #139
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    monosharp wrote: »
    Bit confused are we ?

    Your use of the first person plural is very apt.


  • Options
    #140
    monosharp
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,981 ✭✭✭monosharp


    PDN wrote: »
    Your use of the first person plural is very apt.

    Why is Juche not a religion ?


  • Options
    #141
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    monosharp wrote: »
    Why is Juche not a religion ?

    Religion is derived from the Latin religare - 'to bind fast', referring to the bond between the worshipper and the object he worships.

    Juche teaches that "man is the master of everything and decides everything". It is specifically atheist.

    You have been woefully inconsistent in this thread. You tried to claim that intolerance of homosexuals was a Christian thing, and that homosexuality was tolerated by previous societies (which were themselves religious).

    Now, leaving aside the fact that you have failed to demonstrate that previous societies were in any way tolerant of consensual homosexual unions (as distinct from the sexual exploitation and abuse of children and slaves) - you tried to jump ship half way through the debate by claiming that you were really trying to say that tolerance increases where religion in general decreases. Then, in order to support your new claim, you try to redefine 'religion' so as to encompass the vast majority of professed atheists that ever lived.

    In contrast, my own position has been consistent throughout.
    1. Religion refers to systems of belief where humans submit to a greater or higher non-human power. This may be theistic or pantheistic.
    2. Christendom has, due to the sinfulness of human nature, taken many wrong turns and has been responsible for some awful injustices and atrocities.
    3. Nevertheless, viewed over a long historical period, long exposure to Christianity has tended to develop in societies a form of rationalism (including the scientific method), tolerance, and ultimately secularism which other types of societies failed to develop.
    4. This kind of rationalism and tolerance developed much quicker in societies where diversity of beliefs was permitted rather than where one monolithic version of Christianity ruled the roost. This would indicate that the transforming power at work in such societies was more that of Christian values in general rather than the power structures and establishments of Christendom.
    5. While diversity and secularism tend to produce more tolerant societies - irreligion does not. Those societies that have jettisoned religion in favour of the supremacy of man have often, in living memory, taken us back centuries when it comes to the development of rationalism, tolerance and even science.

    Despite pages of debate, and a dramatic switch by yourself mid-thread, I don't think you have produced anything approaching a rebuttal of my position.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #142
    monosharp
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,981 ✭✭✭monosharp


    PDN wrote: »
    Religion is derived from the Latin religare - 'to bind fast', referring to the bond between the worshipper and the object he worships.

    Oh really ?
    wikipedia wrote:
    Religion is derived from the Latin religiō, the ultimate origins of which are obscure. One possibility is derivation from a reduplicated *le-ligare, an interpretation traced to Cicero connecting lego "read", i.e. re (again) + lego in the sense of "choose", "go over again" or "consider carefully". Modern scholars such as Tom Harpur and Joseph Campbell favor the derivation from ligare "bind, connect", probably from a prefixed re-ligare, i.e. re (again) + ligare or "to reconnect," which was made prominent by St. Augustine, following the interpretation of Lactantius.[3][4] However, the French scholar Daniel Dubuisson notes that relying on this etymology "tends to minimize or cancel out the role of history"; he notes that Augustine gave a lengthy definition of religio that sets it quite apart from the modern word "religion".
    Juche teaches that "man is the master of everything and decides everything". It is specifically atheist.

    Atheists believe humans are the masters of and decide everything ? You might want to go over to the Atheist forum and try that one there. :D
    wikipedia wrote:
    The Juche outlook requires absolute loyalty to the revolutionary party and leader. In North Korea, these are the Workers' Party of Korea and Kim Jong-il, respectively.
    You have been woefully inconsistent in this thread. You tried to claim that intolerance of homosexuals was a Christian thing, and that homosexuality was tolerated by previous societies (which were themselves religious).

    No I didn't. I tried to claim that intolerance of homosexuals was made worse by Christianity in the areas it became popular and that previous societies were much more tolerant of it.
    Then, in order to support your new claim, you try to redefine 'religion' so as to encompass the vast majority of professed atheists that ever lived.

    Right now I am arguing with you that North Korea is a religious state, not an atheist one. Lets take it case by case shall we ? I've given you a mountain of evidence in my last few replies about this.
    In contrast, my own position has been consistent throughout.
    1. Religion refers to systems of belief where humans submit to a greater or higher non-human power. This may be theistic or pantheistic.

    How is that consistent with
    PDN wrote:
    "the commonly understood idea of religion being related to belief in God or gods.
    "

    A 'non-human power' is also completely incorrect. I've given the dictionary definition two posts back. Heres wikipedia's take;
    wikipedia wrote:
    A religion is any systematic approach to living that involves beliefs about one's origins, one's place in the world, or a responsibility to live and act in the world in particular ways. Religion is often equated with faith and belief in a higher power or truth, but it is more commonly defined in religious studies as the patterns that express that faith and reinforce it in day-to-day living. One can share the philosophy of a religion, believing in its higher truth, without manifesting that faith religiously.

    And as for 'non-human' power, do you think North Koreans believe Kim Il-Sung was/is a mere human ?
    http://dissidentvoice.org/Oct06/Leupp16.htm wrote:
    According to North Korean scriptures, when the Great Leader Kim Il-song died in 1994, thousands of cranes descended from Heaven to fetch him, and his portrait appeared high in the firmament.
    His birth in a humble log cabin brought joy to the cosmos: a double rainbow appeared over the peak, a new star rose in the heavens, and a swallow descended to herald his birth. (Thus he is called, among other monikers, the Heaven-Descended General.) When he was 32-years-old, the Workers Party of Korea and the people of Korea unanimously elected him their leader. When he visited Panmunjom, a fog descended to protect him from South Korean snipers, but when he was out of danger, the mist dramatically listed and glorious sunlight shone all around him.
    2. Christendom has, due to the sinfulness of human nature, taken many wrong turns and has been responsible for some awful injustices and atrocities.

    Accepted, agreed.
    3. Nevertheless, viewed over a long historical period, long exposure to Christianity has tended to develop in societies a form of rationalism (including the scientific method), tolerance, and ultimately secularism which other types of societies failed to develop.

    Completely disagree. you have not given any evidence to show that this was something specific with Christianity. You might as well say that long exposure to the English language is responsible for the above.
    4. This kind of rationalism and tolerance developed much quicker in societies where diversity of beliefs was permitted rather than where one monolithic version of Christianity ruled the roost. This would indicate that the transforming power at work in such societies was more that of Christian values in general rather than the power structures and establishments of Christendom.

    Diversity of beliefs like ancient Greece which was responsible for the foundations of western civilisation ?
    5. While diversity and secularism tend to produce more tolerant societies - irreligion does not. Those societies that have jettisoned religion in favour of the supremacy of man have often, in living memory, taken us back centuries when it comes to the development of rationalism, tolerance and even science.

    You haven't given any evidence for that. In fact most evidence points to the contrary. Just look at what happened to the Arabic world.
    Despite pages of debate, and a dramatic switch by yourself mid-thread, I don't think you have produced anything approaching a rebuttal of my position.

    You have not made a position with any evidence to rebut. Granted I am probably wrong about homosexuality been tolerated to such a high degree in antiquity, especially your point about pedophilia but my main points stand.

    And you are wrong about North Korea and whats more, you know your wrong and you won't admit it.

    I have given you a mountain of evidence and links to the contrary of your position, I have given you links to Christian websites which proclaim Juche as a religion, I have shown you dictionary and wikipedia definitions which are in compatible with your definition of religion.


  • Options
    #143
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    monosharp wrote: »
    Atheists believe humans are the masters of and decide everything ? You might want to go over to the Atheist forum and try that one there. :D
    We are on the Christianity forum, not the beacon of enlightenment and tolerance that is A&A.
    No I didn't. I tried to claim that intolerance of homosexuals was made worse by Christianity in the areas it became popular and that previous societies were much more tolerant of it.
    A claim that you have not been able to support with evidence.
    Right now I am arguing with you that North Korea is a religious state, not an atheist one. Lets take it case by case shall we ? I've given you a mountain of evidence in my last few replies about this.
    If you keep changing your position within a thread then it can be somewhat difficult to keep up whatever it is you are arguing 'right now'.

    Ever hear the phrase 'making a mountain out of a molehill'?

    You have given evidence that the atheists in North Korea are particularly brainwashed and gullible. That does not equate to religion.
    And as for 'non-human' power, do you think North Koreans believe Kim Il-Sung was/is a mere human ?
    I'm sure different individual North Koreans think all kinds of things. The official position however, appears to be that Kim-Il Song was indeed human.
    How is that consistent with
    Because a deity, or a 'god', is a greater or higher non-human power.

    Completely disagree. you have not given any evidence to show that this was something specific with Christianity. You might as well say that long exposure to the English language is responsible for the above.
    The evidence is over 1500 years of history. The same kind of development equally occurred in societies that spoke other languages than English such as German, Norwegian, or Dutch. So ascribing it to long exposure to the English language is not the same. Do you understand that point?
    Diversity of beliefs like ancient Greece which was responsible for the foundations of western civilisation ?
    Diversity in beliefs was certainly helpful for the development of ideas in some parts of ancient Greece.
    You haven't given any evidence for that. In fact most evidence points to the contrary. Just look at what happened to the Arabic world.
    You're doing it again, dodging valid points with irrelevant nonsense.

    The effects caused by jettisoning religion for the supremacy of man remain the same irrespective of what happens or doesn't happpen in the Arabic world. I'm beginning to wonder whether there's any point in even trying to have a discussion with you.
    You have not made a position with any evidence to rebut. Granted I am probably wrong about homosexuality been tolerated to such a high degree in antiquity, especially your point about pedophilia but my main points stand.
    Your main point was that Christianity was more intolerant of homosexuality than the societies that preceded it. That point does not stand if you were wrong about the tolerance in those preceding societies.
    And you are wrong about North Korea and whats more, you know your wrong and you won't admit it.
    You are entitled to disagree with me. But don't you ever think that you have any idea what I know or don't know. Unless, of course, you are claiming to be psychic?
    I have given you a mountain of evidence and links to the contrary of your position, I have given you links to Christian websites which proclaim Juche as a religion, I have shown you dictionary and wikipedia definitions which are in compatible with your definition of religion.
    Your faith in Christian websites as an authority is touching. Almost as touching as your faith in wikipedia.


  • Options
    #144
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    monosharp wrote: »
    My point was that PDN had said something short sightedly,

    and in that you are wrong!
    how was giving his definition of religion as belief in a god "shortsighted" when he specifically defines what he is saying and says that it is only if you extend religion into atheism that you can be correct.
    but if you insist on this argument (which I didn't intend to have) then if Buddhism can be classed as atheist, please explain why and how Christianity cannot ?
    Nor did i! I didn't claim Christianity was atheistic! I claimed that Bhuddism can be viewed as a religion and also as atheistic!
    No, I quoted a website. I never said it was or was not.

    No you didn't! No citation reference is given and the words you gave were neither enclosed in quotes or in a quote box. In addition if you did properly attribute the citation (which you DID NOT do) you would be doing it to support YOUR CLAIM about religion having a broader definition than belief in god.
    Is the North Korean worship of Kim a religion or not ? Why ?

    If religion is defined as the belief in god or gods and they believe he is a god then under that definition it is a religion.


    Nice. I didn't say anything of the sort, but nice.

    But yu did similar as I pointed out. You CHANGED PDNs original definition as outlined by himn to be belief in god(s).
    The commonly understood idea of religion in the west might be worship of a god and/or gods but that is certainly not the case around the world.

    Which would involve a different changed definition
    And as for this commonly understood idea of religion, Buddhism is commonly understood to be a religion.

    AS i pointed out. But it is an atheistic one! Religions can be atheistic biut PDN was ruling these out by defining it as NON ATHEISTIC at the very beginning of his point!
    Please explain to me why the worship of Kim Il-Sung in North Korea and Juche is not a religion.

    Where did I claim it was? PDN had returned from his conference now so he can take up his own definition.


  • Options
    #145
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    PDN wrote: »
    Your use of the first person plural is very apt.

    I don't understand. are you insinuating that I am confused as well?


  • Options
    #146
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    ISAW wrote: »
    I don't understand. are you insinuating that I am confused as well?

    I was pointing out that monosharp includes himself among the company of the confused.


  • Options
    #147
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    PDN wrote: »
    I was pointing out that monosharp includes himself among the company of the confused.

    I think we understand that now. :)


  • Options
    #148
    monosharp
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,981 ✭✭✭monosharp


    ISAW wrote: »
    I think we understand that now. :)

    do we ? :P


  • Options
    #149
    monosharp
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,981 ✭✭✭monosharp


    PDN wrote: »
    A claim that you have not been able to support with evidence.

    I admit that its almost as lacking in evidence as your position.
    If you keep changing your position within a thread then it can be somewhat difficult to keep up whatever it is you are arguing 'right now'.

    Fine. I want to get this North Korea thing sorted so.
    I'm sure different individual North Koreans think all kinds of things. The official position however, appears to be that Kim-Il Song was indeed human.

    Uh huh ?

    North Koreans believe that Kim Il-Sung (and Kim Juing-Il) doesn't/didn't defecate the same way as normal people. They believe that they decended from heaven and turned into human beings and that Kim Il-sung was lifted back to heaven by a flock of cranes. They believe that Kim Il-Sung is their father watching them now (from the after-life or whatever, I don't know specifically where hes supposedly watching them from). They believe that Kim Il-sung magically changed an acorn into a grenade, they believe that he singlehandedly defeated the Japanese army.

    Doesn't sound too human-like to me.

    If you don't like wikipedia, heres some other links.

    http://authoritarianism.blogspot.com/2007/02/top-10-profile-kim-il-sung.html
    http://northkoreanchristians.com/religion-north-korea.html
    http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1P2-1013921.html (requires free registration)

    And heres Mr Kims biography, http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread527601/pg1
    Because a deity, or a 'god', is a greater or higher non-human power.

    Like a man flying down to earth as a bird, changing into a human being, magically turning acorns into grenades, defeating the japanese army singlehandedly, is protected by nature itself (mist to stop snipers seeing him) and when he 'died' was brought back up to heaven by a flock of cranes and is now watching his people like the loving great leader he was/is ?
    So ascribing it to long exposure to the English language is not the same. Do you understand that point?

    Sure. So I'll change it to instead say that the usage of the Latin alphabet and variants thereof are responsible for the tolerance etc in western society.
    Your main point was that Christianity was more intolerant of homosexuality than the societies that preceded it. That point does not stand if you were wrong about the tolerance in those preceding societies.

    I was not wrong concerning consensual homosexual sex between adults being tolerated far more in antiquity then now.
    Your faith in Christian websites as an authority is touching. Almost as touching as your faith in wikipedia.

    What links would you like ? I prefer wiki because its easily accessed and read. I could easily give you other links if you'd prefer. Something wrong with wikipedia ?

    And would you please care to explain how all of my links to various dictionaries, various encyclopedias, and various websites, Christian and otherwise, are all wrong when it comes to referring to Juche as a religion ?

    Why is the dictionary definition and the wikipedia definition of a religion wrong ? Why are Asian people wrong to consider buddhism a religion when some of them don't even have gods ?

    Why is your definition right ?


  • Options
    #150
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    monosharp wrote: »
    I

    http://authoritarianism.blogspot.com/2007/02/top-10-profile-kim-il-sung.html
    http://northkoreanchristians.com/religion-north-korea.html
    http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1P2-1013921.html (requires free registration)

    And heres Mr Kims biography, http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread527601/pg1

    A quick glance shows that your first link describes NK as officially atheist :confused:


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #151
    monosharp
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,981 ✭✭✭monosharp


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    A quick glance shows that your first link describes NK as officially atheist :confused:

    Yes and its also officially democratic, north koreans are officially allowed to travel wherever they like and officially everyone in NK enjoys a high standard of living. Oh and officially theres religious freedom.

    Oh yes and officially I'm a Catholic. (Unless i've been excommunicated)


Advertisement