Wild Roses wrote:The Bible is not the only religious text considered a masterpiece. The Bhagavad-Vita has long been considered a masterpiece as well and an influence on literature in eastern countries. Since I have taken world literature courses, I feel I can correct your assertion in that the Bible only became an influence in other cultures when colonism took place. Having taken ethnic studies and literature courses, I can also assert that most people of color in countries colonized are rejecting the Bible in favor of using pre-colonization myths as standard bearers for their tales.
First, why don't you try to comment on the quotes of those literary geniusus I mentioned. Second, so most people of color reject the Bible in favor of of their pre-colononization myths? I know of several Indonesian tribes who did just the opposite. And oh, Indonesia is a country formerly colonized by the forefathers of yours truly
. And for your information, the old Indonesian religion has since been almost totally replaced by Islam, NOT by the religion of the colonizer. How about that! Isn't that ironic. Or am I missing something here? Why do you leave out the obvious "other side of the coin?" I'm sure it's not on purpose, but I do understand it would take away the force of the argument if you did. Also, the fact that these people reject the Bible doesn't mean they do so because of their literary skills
Neither do some of them hold on to their pre-colonization myths because they think those stories make for better entertainment or higher-quality literature. There are several other reasons for that.
Wild Roses wrote:Yes, I have read the Qur'an. If you are going to accuse Muslims of pilfering off Christianity, you might keep in mind Christianity is an outgrowth of the Jewish religion. I do believe the eastern world has much to offer and I appreciate the wisdom of the east. Being a literature major, I would be more apprecRtive than you of the the other written philosophies and writings of other cultures. I appreciate beautiful language when I see it and I am not going to demean it just because it doesn't celebrate Jesus. So, just because 115 people voted for creationist doesn't mean it should be taught as a science. Nor does it mean they are stupid for favoring creationism. However, it doesn't mean that those who believe in evolution are stupid and spiteful either, although your post seems to suggest that all who believe in evolution must be that way. (Way to generalize there.) There are thousands of Creation stories out there--if we are going to teach the Christian POV in the science classroom, we might as well add every other religious creation text within the classroom. You act as if only non-believers attack Christians, but there are plenty of Christians out there who attack non-believers. Both sides attack each other. It is not as if non-believers have a monopoly on attacking Christians. Certainly, I do believe the Native Americans rightfully critique and/or attack Christians for advent of colonialism and other horrors perpetrated on sovereign tribes and I do understand why they would reject Christianity in favor of their beliefs when for nearly 400+ years Christians have been denying rights to Native Americans. No, I don't believe I can learn everything from the History Channel. I take all their programs with a grain of salt. However, they do use scholars who are highly respected to gather their materials. I read the Epic of Gilgamesh in my world Lit course and we learned the scholarship on it and I read up on in in Encyclopedias and other respected academic sources.
You grew up in a Baptist Church (I was in one also for several years), but if you knew christianity, you would know that in Gods mind, the Church already existed before there was even a nation called IsraÃ«l, and that the Jewish religion was not the end of Gods way, but the beginning. The Jewish tabernacle for example was but a shadow of the heavenly tabernacle, which is Christ Himself. It's not unlike the famous question: Which came first, the chicken or the egg. By the way, the Son of God had an existence in heaven long before He became a Jew ... When I come to think of it, you could actually say that the heavenly pattern (the Church chosen before the foundation of the world) was the heavenly hen laying the egg of judaism on earth, which hatched and in turn layed the egg of christianity
After all, God's eternal purpose was not Judaism, but Christ having the preeminence over all things. That's actually the reason why IsraÃ«l and the Hebrew religion were created in the first place. You take it out of context, viewing things only from an earthly standpoint, and not from God's eternal heavenly standpoint.
I never said I did not respect certain eastern values or teachings, but they are not as Christ is, the sum of all Wisdom. I also do not demean literature just because it doesn't celebrate Jesus. Whether Jesus is celebrated or not doesn't say anything about the quality of literature itself. I would very much like you to react on the quote by former Oxford professor M. Monier-Williams who studied eastern literature for 42 years, where he says there isn't any book that can remotely be compared with the Bible, you know, "the gulf between tyhe Bible and the so-called sacred books of the East".
You know what? I'll give you a larger part of his speech. After all, he was called by some the greatest authority on all questions affecting the literature and faiths of the Orient who ever lived. The quote I mentioned before was taken from a speech given at an anniversary of the Church Missionary Society in London in 1888, where he delivered a most remarkable address, in which he said that, when he began investigating Hinduism and Buddhism, he began to believe in what is called the evolution and growth of religious thought. But he adds, and here are his own memorable words:
"I am glad of the opportunity of stating publicly, that I am persuaded I was misled by the attractiveness of such a theory, and that its main idea was erroneous ... And now I crave permission at least to give two good reasons for venturing to contravene the favorite philosophy of the day. Listen to me, ye youthful students of the so-called sacred books of the East: search them through and through, and tell me, do they affirm of Vyasa, of Zoroaster, of Confucius, of Buddha, of Mohammed, what our Bible affirms of the founder of Christianity, that He, a sinless man, was made sin? Not merely that He is the eradication of sin, but that He, the sinless son of man, was himself made sin. Vyasa and the other founders of Hinduism, enjoined severe penances, endless lustral washings, incessant purifications, infinite repetitions of prayer, painful pilgrimages, arduous ritual, and sacrificial observances, all with the one idea of getting rid of sin. All their books say so. But do they say that the very men who exhausted every invention for the eradication of sin were themselves sinless men made sin? ... This proposition put forth in our Bible stands alone, it is wholly unparalleled; it is not to be matched by the shade of a shadow of a similar declaration in any other book claiming to be the exponent of the doctrine of any other religion in the world.
"Once again, do these sacred books of the East affirm of Vyasa, of Zoroaster, of Confucius, of Buddha, of Mohammed, what our Bible affirms of the founder of Christianity, that He, a dead and buried man, was made life. Not merely that He is the giver of life, but that He, the dead and buried man, is life. All I contend for is, that such a statement is absolutely unique; and I defy you to produce the shade of a shadow of a similar declaration in any other sacred book of the world. And bear in mind that these two matchless unparalleled declarations are closely, intimately, indissolubly connected with the great central facts and doctrines of our religion: the incarnation, the crucifixion, the resurrection, the ascension of Christ.
"The two unparalleled declarations quoted by me from our Holy Bible make a gulf between it and the so-called sacred books of the East, which severs the one from the others utterly, hopelessly, and forever; not a mere rift which may be easily closed up, but a veritable gulf which cannot be bridged over by any science of religious thought, yes, a bridgeless chasm which no theory of evolution can ever span."
I never said that all evolutionists are arrogant. I only said it about Dawkins, and I have heard him speak about religion on tape. Believe me, it's not a prety "sight." I heard how he treated Wilder-Smith, who stayed a perfect gentleman. When Wilder-Smith started to explain things about information-theory, one professor in the front row aggressively interrupted him saying rather harshly "I know information-theory!" As if Smith suggested otherwise, or as if Smith was only talking to him. O yes, christians also attack non-believers, true. I know enough about debates to know that debating creation/evolution isn't a very intelligent thing to do, because it tends to bring out the worst in us, also in me. Often after posting something I regret the way I acted. I'm not perfect, what a surprise.
Christians and colonialism, and horrors perpretrated on natives. A totally different but interesting subject. Can simply be refuted by quoting tribes who were very thankful for rceiving the gift of eternal life. Tribes who did not have to give up anything, but were instead delivered from the scare of evil spirits asking sacrifices in order to ward of bad things. I once saw a documentary about how a tribe in Irian Jaya was saved and delivered from fears that had haunted them for generations. It moved me to tears when I saw how the tribe elders one by one let themselves be baptized with a great smile and joy on their faces. And who says it were real christians that perpretrated horrors on the natives. Sounds more like a political thing to me, of which I earlier said that in my view is something christians shouldn't be a part of anyway. I already thought you didn't believe everything on the history channel, I guess you know that. I was trying to make a point.
Wild Roses wrote:Actually, you are misquoting me. I didn't say but I heavily implied that I believe ALL religions to not be trustworthy. I take all of them with a grain of salt, because all of them have writings that are racist, sexist, homophobic and classist. My own beliefs are in line with L.M.M.--each religion has wise teachers but they are not the be-all-and-end-all on wisdom. That goes for everything---from Wicca to Christianity, from Islam to Hinduism. They are all problematic, but each does have wisdom in them. However, your self-serving smugness is beginning to grate. Its ***very*** obvious you think people who don't identity as Christian are inferior to you. That comes on top of your constant MISQUOTING and MAKING UP statements I never said. Since you obviously are only using me to further your own agenda, I am going to cease talking to you. (Although I wryly note with a bit of irony and a hearty laugh that you didn't answer my question about reading actually reading the Harry Potter books.)
Tell me where the Bible is homophobic, as in fear of homosexuals. Yes, it says that the homosexual act is a sin, because it goes against Gods order. I don't know if you know it, but up to the 70s most psychatrists considered homosexuality a perversion, and many still do, christian or not. It changed when one meeting of psychiatrists on the subject was disrupted by the often very aggressive gay lobby demanding they changed their views. Quote from one of Erwin Lutzer's books. I also once heard on tape how aggressive gays were banging on the door of a Church in Texas screaming "we want your children!" After which several old ladies had to be taken care of because they were in total shock. Since my brother is a homosexual, I think you can hardly accuse me, a fundamental christian of being homophobic, and I have read a lot about the subject, enough to know that up till this moment there is no evidence that "God made them that way" or that they were born that way. And yes I've read also material and research of pro-gay organizations. Visit http://www.narth.com
and you read all about the so-called gay-gene studies. The problem with those who claim the Bible is against certain human beings is really ludicrous. The reason why you say that is because you do not agree with Gods view on humanity, and with God's view on morality. The same goes for the suggested sexism or racist issues. The Bible is "against" the whole human race, in the sense that is no longer able to fulfill God's purpose. That's why the entire human race was crucified on the cross in Christ.
There you go again, misquoting and misinterpreting me. I never said I considered non-christians as inferior. Didn't Paul call himself the worst of all sinners? Please explain to me how that can be considered feeling oneself superior to others? I'm sorry but although you claim you know christianity, your answers make it very clear that you don't. I'm not blaming you for that, but if you wanto to debate christianity with me, you really have to do better. I'm not one to brag, but I have translated 17 theological books into Dutch. By the way, I do not claim to be superior to those who endorse another religion. It was Jesus Himself who said that no man can come to the Father except through Him. If there is one who claims superiority over all, it is Jesus. You find fault with Jesus, not with me. Perhaps it is time to admit that.
As I already told you before, I am not dodging your bullets, I don't have to (sorry for my ostensible arrogance). No I have not fully read the Potter books, only paragraphs, excerpts. But don't cheer to soon. Let me ask you a question. Do you really believe that it is necessary to read the books entirely? Or do you not also readily agree with me that reading paragraphs in which she talks about the subject matter is enough to know what kind of witchcraft she writes about. It really isn't necessary to know the context in the Potter books. It's not the Bible, to interpret the Bible correctly you need to know the context. I know her witchraft, as I said before. Not because I have completely read the Potter books, but because I know illuminist witchcraft. So in fact the more important question is, what do you know about illuminism and illuminist witchcraft ...
Before I forget, I'm very curious what parts of christianity actually are copied according to you, because you mentioned earlier that you didn't think that everything was copied, but at least part of it. What part exactly? You must have your sources, I'd like to know who they are ... If you can prove it, I take my hat of for you. As you probably have guessed already, I'm fairly confident you can't.
For those interested in the debate between Dawkins and Wilder-Smith (who said about Dawkins: "That man has nothing to offer science"), you can still order the audio CD of the debate here:
The Huxley Memorial Debate
A man fell in a deep pit and suffered greatly. A Buddhist said: 'Meditate and ignore your circumstances.' A Hindu said: 'You must have bad karma, you deserve your fate.' But Jesus had pity on the man, climbed down and rescued him.