Originally posted by turtonm:
I'm not about to move to Asia. I was wondering if you could tell us more about the belief and what it is based on, or what inspires it, and how it seems to fit into their overall worldview.

Do Asians (Indians, Chinese, Japanese, Indonesians, Filipinos) have an overall worldview?

Several things underscore anti-Christian attitudes in Asia. One is several centuries of Confucian attitude in East Asia, which has been spreading propaganda among the locals about Christians for four centuries now. To them Christianity, with its objections to ancestor worship, the weird death of its leader, the emphasis on blood, and so forth, was weird and shocking. In the 1840s the Emperor of Vietnam (a Confucian state) read the Bible for the first time in Chinese translation, and was so shocked he
banned it. This was after pursuing a policy of accomodation. Confucians wrote that Christians kidnapped babies, dismembered bodies for alchemical rituals, etc. Lots of these beliefs linger. Additionally, local gentry, along with the Confucian elites, disliked it because its social work aspect looked to replace those functions of the gentry and elites. Finally,, missionaries have long been viewed in ruling circles as a entering wedge for western imperialism, which of course they were and are.

Michael

Originally posted by turtonm:
I should have said overall worldviews, plural.

Thanks for the info. Very interesting.

Now now rodahi, don't try and change the subject please. Michael specifically said that Christians worship Satan. He has yet to withdraw this ridiculous charge, and far from calling him to task, you actually jumped in and made an attempt to support him.

If either of you were to merely drop the subject, or best of all, apologize, then we could move beyond this bit of unpleasantness.

No. I didn't like the fact that someone made a false statement about what Christians believed. At first I considered it an error brought on by excessive zeal. Now that I have seen that he will not withdraw, nor apologize for it, I consider it to be a lie. The fact that you will defend this lie is especially absurd, as you have claimed to be a Christian yourself at one point (although even here you have refused to explain how your past beliefs as a Christian led you to embrace Michael's assertion).

Since no evidence has ever been presented to support the claim that Christians worship Satan, my point stands.

See how you are trying to change the subject? We are not talking about alleged polytheism within Christianity, but rather, that Christians worship Satan. This is not a minor charge. It is a gross error, and now that both of you know that it is an error, to cling to it is to propogate a bigoted lie.

No need to judge rodahi. It is a truism that an unchallenged lie will be believed by some. Michael said that Christians worship Satan. You have said that Christians consider Satan and angels to be supreme beings. These are both lies, and I will continue to label them as such.

Well, if that was all I did, you wouldn't get yourself so riled up every time you read one of my posts now would you?

Are you talking about Christians worshipping Satan? Is that a fact in your books? Who taught you this? Where is your evidence?

I was not talking about you on this point. I was talking about Michael. You merely stated that Christians consider Satan and angels to be supreme beings. That is plenty dumb on its own, and equally without evidenciary support. In fact, you know that it runs counter to all of the evidence, so your saying it is bizarre to say the least.

Done.

Done.

I have not misquoted you or Michael on this issue, so what's the problem rodahi?

Perhaps in the future both of you will show more restraint. If not, we will no doubt have more threads like this.

Nomad

Hi Kate

This all began on the thread Taking History Seriously.

Since that point Michael has tried to steer the conversation back to the topic of the thread, but so long as he sticks with such a twisted view of Christianity, I have decided not to respond to his posts.

Basically, I participate on a large number of threads on these boards, and when one of the people I am talking with demonstrates this degree of pig-headedness, I tend to move on.

This was on the same thread, when rodahi attempted to help Michael.

Repeated questioning by Layman and I on this point has failed to produce a retraction, nor a withdrawal of these absurd charges. See my post above on this point as well.

I have to admit, the thread went completely off the rails after that. As a result, I will begin a new thread shortly, and talk more about the unique nature of Christianity and its achievements in history.

Peace,

Nomad

[This message has been edited by Nomad (edited April 07, 2001).]

Since that point Michael has tried to steer the conversation back to the topic of the thread, but so long as he sticks with such a twisted view of Christianity, I have decided not to respond to his posts.

Actually, I had been trying to get Nomad to answer the question he had hinted about, but utterly failed. After repeatedly failed to respond to open, direct questions, Nomad bailed, since he couldn't.

That was a great thread, full of Nomad howlers. Nomad started by posting an absurd essay about history that several posters destroyed. Then he claimed that he only meant it to apply to the west, so we destroyed it again on that basis, then he started editing what he had posted.

Early Nomad: "Christianity is a relatively new introduction to India, China and the other countries.

After I blew that out of the water, he then backtracked again:

Later Nomad:Christianity is relatively new to modern China.

Which is pretty funny, when you think that in modern China, it could hardly be anything but new....except it is not, of course.

All through the thread, I kept asking him to elaborate on these statements...

Why do you think Christianity succeeded largely without the benefit of state support
and conquoring armies?....I like the idea that it is more plausible to accept Christianity.....isn't this at least a little odd to the average atheist out there?

Repeated attempts to get him to say what was so amazing that could not be accounted for by mundane, if complex reasons, failed utterly.

All this happened before the 40th post (Koy's 40th is a classic and well worth reading), and he bailed about post 80, so it is clear that he had already decided he couldn't answer.

And then, when I intimated Christianity might be polytheistic, he used that as an excuse to bail on a thread wherein he had been decisively squashed, on the grounds that my remarks were so absurd nobody could take them seriously (except about a billion muslims).

Back in post 38 or 39, Omnedon predicted what Nomad would do:

When you cannot refute the points, you feign personal injury and exit the conversation.

A more dead-on prophecy can hardly be imagined.

The remark about "worshiping Satan" was just a slip from typing fast, fun to argue about, and not too far short of the truth, as we saw. I already withdrew it.

So, other than stung pride and a rather circumscribed understanding of history, Nomad has no reason not to continue posting after me.

I hope you post again, Nomad. After all the information I fed you, you should do much better this time around. I'll be nice, and not call your religion "polytheistic" or complain that you Xtians seem to worship Satan.

Michael

[This message has been edited by turtonm (edited April 07, 2001).]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by rodahi:
Nomad: Now, if a moderator comes here and offers an absurd claim (like Christians worship Satan, for example), and a second moderator jump in to support the claim, then lurkers may well think that the view has some merit.

This is a false analogy, Nomad. The view that Christians practice a form of polytheistic worship has evidence to support it. This evidence was presented.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nomad: Now now rodahi, don't try and change the subject please. Michael specifically said that Christians worship Satan. He has yet to withdraw this ridiculous charge, and far from calling him to task, you actually jumped in and made an attempt to support him.

Michael has a right to his opinion. You have yet to show that it is "ridiculous." I have never said that Christians worship Satan.

Nomad: If either of you were to merely drop the subject, or best of all, apologize, then we could move beyond this bit of unpleasantness.

Apologize for what, Nomad?


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You didn't like the fact that someone disagreed with you, so you resorted to ad hominem attacks.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nomad: No. I didn't like the fact that someone made a false statement about what Christians believed.

There are hundreds of denominations of "Christians," so don't pretend you know what ALL Christians believe.

Nomad: At first I considered it an error brought on by excessive zeal. Now that I have seen that he will not withdraw, nor apologize for it, I consider it to be a lie.

What are you going to do, pitch a hissy fit?

Nomad: The fact that you will defend this lie is especially absurd, as you have claimed to be a Christian yourself at one point (although even here you have refused to explain how your past beliefs as a Christian led you to embrace Michael's assertion).

I have never claimed that Christians worship Satan.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nomad: This is how the worst forms of bigoted opinion begins.
Incorrect, Nomad. It is not "bigoted" to give evidence to support a claim.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nomad: Since no evidence has ever been presented to support the claim that Christians worship Satan, my point stands.

Deal with Michael.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nomad: A respected person in a leadership position (and the status of professional or volunteer does not matter in this case) offers a left field idiotic claim.
Again, you use an inappropriate word, "idiotic." I have presented evidence to support the view that Christians practice a form of polytheism. Only you and a couple of others consider this to be "idiotic" or "bigoted."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nomad: See how you are trying to change the subject? We are not talking about alleged polytheism within Christianity, but rather, that Christians worship Satan.

I presented evidence demonstrating that Christians practice a form of polytheism by worshipping the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. I also stated that, in the Christian view, angels and Satan are supreme beings compared to humans. I never said that Christians worship Satan.

Nomad: This is not a minor charge. It is a gross error, and now that both of you know that it is an error, to cling to it is to propogate a bigoted lie.

Rather than keep saying it is a "lie," demonstrate the falseness of the claim. Deal with someone who has made the claim, not me.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nomad: People who are less well read or informed than many of the regulars then read this assertion, and consider it to now be at least respectable to hold this opinion.
How condescending of you, Nomad. So, YOU are the judge of how smart the "regulars" are and precisely what is "idiotic" and what is not. WHO elected you JUDGE?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nomad: No need to judge rodahi. It is a truism that an unchallenged lie will be believed by some. Michael said that Christians worship Satan. You have said that Christians consider Satan and angels to be supreme beings. These are both lies, and I will continue to label them as such.

SOME Christians believe in the existence of angels and Satan. If they believe they have supernatural powers, then they ARE supreme beings. This is not a lie.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nomad: On this basis alone I will not stand still when such a thing is done.
You will do precisely what everyone else does here.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nomad: Well, if that was all I did, you wouldn't get yourself so riled up every time you read one of my posts now would you?

Look who is saying others have lied and pitching a hissy fit about it. Quite frankly, Nomad, most of your nonsense is not worth getting "riled up" about.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nomad: They can even bad mouth my religion to the point of equating it with the Nazis or whatever.
Pointing out FACTS and evidence IS NOT "bad mouthing." Do you understand the difference?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nomad: Are you talking about Christians worshipping Satan? Is that a fact in your books? Who taught you this? Where is your evidence?

Deal with Michael. I never said Christians worship Satan.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nomad: In all honesty when I saw the opinion expressed that Christians worshipped Satan, I thought it was just an error, and wanted to tweak the person for saying it (a part of the fun of participating on discussion boards is catching people in a foot-in-mouth moment, and I would expect as much quarter as I give on this one). I then figured that the subject would be dropped, or even better, an apology would be issued. Instead, I saw this lie defended, and by two people who easily should know better. At that point exposing that lie for what it was became an important issue. Had either of these gentlemen stuck merely with the accusation that Christians were polytheists, then I would not have a problem. I get that from the Jews for Judaism crowd, some Muslims, and lots of other people. I actually consider it to be a valid point of discussion
Christians worshipping Satan does not fall into this catagory.

Please point out where I stated "Christians worship Satan."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nomad: I was not talking about you on this point. I was talking about Michael.

Then deal with Michael.

Nomad: You merely stated that Christians consider Satan and angels to be supreme beings. That is plenty dumb on its own, and equally without evidenciary support.

IF Christians consider angels and Satan to have supernatural powers then they, by definition, are supreme beings when compared to human beings. Can you not understand this simple idea?

Nomad: In fact, you know that it runs counter to all of the evidence, so your saying it is bizarre to say the least.

You just got your hockey hot because someone said something you didn't like.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nomad: When they lie
Give evidence idicating that I have told a "lie," Nomad.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nomad: Done.

NOT done.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nomad: or express an opinion that is plainly bigoted and wrong, I will do all that I can to expose it for what it is.
Give evidence indicating that I have "expressed an opinion that is plainly bigoted and wrong."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nomad: Done.

NOT done.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nomad: And this is not ad hominem attacks on my part, it is what I consider to be one of my primary roles as an apologist and defender of the faith.
Has it ever occured to you that you could be mistaken, in error, flat wrong, in what you "consider?"


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nomad: I have not misquoted you or Michael on this issue, so what's the problem rodahi?

You are in error, mistaken, and flat wrong in saying that I have done anything inappropriate.

Nomad: Perhaps in the future both of you will show more restraint.

LOL!

Nomad: If not, we will no doubt have more threads like this.

YOU caused this thread, Nomad.

rodahi

I think "divine" would be more accurate than "supreme". As far as "supreme" goes, like the Highlander, there can be only one!

Having one supreme being is not contrary to polytheism; Zeus is certainly the supreme god of classical Greek theism.

Hmm... intimated.

From Websters:

Main Entry: 1in·ti·mate
Function: transitive verb
1 : to make known especially publicly or formally : ANNOUNCE
2 : to communicate delicately and indirectly : HINT

LOL! This is rich Michael. How exactly did you "hint" that Christianity was polytheistic? You mean by stating it directely and unequivically?

I'll have to look. Where exactly did you withdraw it?

Since you have said that it is "not to far short of the truth" I am not optimistic on this front.

While your summation was interesting, and no doubt you drew some comfort by having the likes of Omnedon and Koy come to you your defence, I would not be so quick to pronounce judgement on the thread Michael.

If by this you are promising not to spread any more lies about our religion, that would be a bare minimum requirement from my point of view. It may play well to the crowds here, but then I would hope you are more interested in studying history that winning the accolades of the mouth breathers.

So, if you have truly withdrawn your spurious nonsense, I guess we can resume the discussion. Just point out were you did this noble deed please so that I might read it.

Nomad

Rodahi

SingleDad and others are trying to give you a graceful way out of this one. Take it.

Just so the confusion is cleared up, I will offer the dictionary again (it is astonishing to see such supposedly educated individuals so weak in their English skills. I do hope that things improve in the future):

Once again from Websters:

Main Entry: Supreme Being
Function: noun
Date: 1699
: GOD 1

And what is God?

Main Entry: 1god
Function: noun
1 capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: as a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshiped as creator and ruler of the universe

As I said earlier, I am astonished that things like this even need to be said on this discussion board. I have, in the past, assumed a bare minimum of basic theological knowledge from the participants, and when I see the regulars like Michael and rodahi confused on such basic points, well, things do not look too good for constructive discussions.

I will remain hopeful however.

Nomad