World Forums

Hope Felix checks what happens around here too, I'll answer here...

Yes I do, even though this subforum has been rather quiet for quite a few months if not years...

Felix K wrote:

Captain Shithead wrote:Not completely correct on the law. But anyway, though luck, why an extra deal for religious people? If you feel oppressed enough, get a gun and make a revolution. Like everybody else.

That wouldn't be Jesus' style, to be sure.

Well, in theory. Practically we both know that christians and other religious people haven't always followed Jesus' word. You want to talk about Utopia or the real world? Utopia for you... everybody is christian, the same denomination as you (since I assume that you regard your faith as the right one), everybody is happy, everybody is healthy, a contributing member to society. Correct? No need for religious freedom since everybody is christian on their own free will. Mine would be similar, with the exception of everybody following your belief. Either none or whatever, wouldn't be all that important actually, as long as it's nice and peaceful and Juve wins the Scudetto every year. Ok, no evangelizing though. Nice, but not the real world.In the real world christians, muslims etc. have all fought their wars, have all had no qualms about using violence to achieve their goals. Maybe you personnally wouldn't get violent in any case, but in that case you would seem to be the exception, not the rule. At least historically.

God's existence is not dependant of your believing in Him. "Auch Atheisten müssen irgendwann dran glauben." (Sorry for the non-German speakers here, but there just doesn't exist an adequate English equivalent to that...)

If it makes you happy...

Well, according to the German Wiki entry about the cultural revolution, they did try such a thing before:

Da das Züchten von Blumen und das Halten von Haustieren als bürgerlich galt, wurden Parks und Gärten in Getreide- und Gemüsefelder umgewandelt. Auch vor Skurrilitäten schreckten die Roten Garden nicht zurück. Da „rot“ und „links“ als revolutionär galten, entschieden sie, dass der Rechtsverkehr durch Linksverkehr ersetzt werden sollte und dass an Ampelkreuzungen künftig „Rot“ das Zeichen für freie Fahrt sein sollte. Rote Garden stellten sich an Kreuzungen zusammen mit Polizisten auf, um den Verkehr nach ihren Vorstellungen umzuleiten, was zu Chaos und zahllosen Unfällen führte und schließlich von Premier Zhou Enlai verboten wurde.

Cool, didn't know that!

Ah, and needless to say, China do have their own cult: their god is Chinese style socialism, and their prophet is Mao.

A big nice BULLSHIT to that one. Your usual attempt to equate political belief to religious belief. Both are influenced by propaganda, information etc. But the political belief/orientiation comes from the brain, rational (more or less, depending on the capacity and the amount of information available) though, the religious one from faith.

Chinese-style socialsm... you can't mean "socialism with chinese characteristics", since that has nothing to do with Mao .... It's basically capitalism with socialist talk... and even the socialist talk is no more than just saying "China as a great socialist country bla bla bla." Put in some "workers" and "farmers" and that's it. Have you been asleep since 1976?? Ever heard of Deng Xiaoping? Google him. Mao... like Stalin in Russia he certainly still has his following, a clear tiny minority. For the rest he has respect for reuniting China, he is accepted as the father figure of modern china (well, with Sun Yat sen) he get's his picture as good luck charm in some trucks. That's it. He's a figure, no more. His vision of China is dead, nobody, certainly nobody that has anything to say wants any form of Mao or Maoism back. 7 good, 3 bad is the official position, practically he is completely irrelevent in China today. With no chances of a comeback, maybe as a light bulb sold to tourists.

If you find it "for the good of the country" to deny people freedom of religion, then all I can say is that I am really glad that you do not have any such power in my country, or anywhere else.

Basically you want to put all other human rights behind the one you support, freedom of religion. Why?

And change the law so that non-citizens like you can come in and fulfil your obligations towards your god? A god that is completely imaginary in my view?

It's very interesting to see you defending the Chinese system of oppression and censorship. Why do you hate Christians so much?

You really really like your role as a victim. I think I made it clear that I was talking about religions in general. And interesting how you interprete my position as defending chinese oppression and censorship. We poor christians are so oppressed and persecuted and everybody hates us, wäääää. Stop crying. Chinese oppression and censorship certainly isn't only there for christians. Which you imply here. Since you claim that I'm defending the chinese system of oppression and censorship. What I'm defending is the idea of not letting christians and other religions (but if it's ok for you I'll just limit it to christians mostly form now on, so you can share your victimhood with less people) undermine the power of the state. And if you read closely you might have noticed that my plan for oppression and censorship is still a bit different from the chinese one.

Well, if I let religious people and religious fanatics run the country.... no, I prefer something else in power. You regard god as the highest authority, I don't. The chinese don't. Why should they or any other country allow an outside group come in and try to build a second powerbase in the country?

Can you spell "Paranoia"? Christians are not interested in messing with the state any more than Jesus was interested in ousting the Romans from Israel.

Can you spell "history"? Again this is a reality vs utopia thing. In the history of the world religions and religious leaders have been more than happy to grab worldly power as soon as they could. From the holy roman empire to Iran. Get power, get the money, get the girls, occasionnally some boys, I'm sure you know that in Europe the clergy was just another career path. Yeah, believers too. Now your faith might be different, but again, history, even recent history just says something else. Even you yourself seemed kind of shocked of me even asking what law you'll follow, gods or that of your or any other country. Clearly your god's. Where exactly does that end? You oppose every law that doesn't conform with your god's law? Abortion, only for you (if you were female) or does that extend to the whole country? Isn't it just easier to make your god's law the laws of the country?

Ironic that you demand your right to interfere in other countries and oppose worldly laws with another worldly "law": Freedom of religion. I'm sure it has some basis in judeo christian tradition, but the idea of human rights still comes from the enlightment. Whatever quote from the bible you'll come up with, please show me how that was implemented and how it worked under christian rule. And the idea of freedom of religion came about exactly how? It's kind of like the elections in Algeria in 92... the FIS wins, even though one of the 2 bosses basically made it clear that democracy wasn't really compatible with his view of Islam. Win a democratic election to end democracy after the first election...

thank God that you'll never get to become a king of any country, much less mine...

Just wait and see....

Well, you might find out that not all Christians interpret the other cheek rule as literally as you think they do... I'd advise you to restrict yourself to verbal means of communication...

What happened to "That wouldn't be Jesus' style, to be sure."

Well, you are very naive if you think I think there is religious freedom in China. And you are naive if you think it's the most pressing issue in China.

I never said that this is "the most pressing issue". It is one issue of many, no doubt.

And I never said that I think there is religious freedom in China. I understand and in the end support the decision not to let in or try to restrict, oppress, foreign missionaries. I don't support torture for christians etc. I don't support torture for atheists, agnostics and whatever other label we can find either. either, and I'm aware that that happens in China. I don't support jailing someone just because of his beliefs, be it religious or not religious (if you can accept that their are opinions that are not religious) I understand and support control over religions to a certain degree.

Actually having christians running around wild with their bibles right now wouldn't improve anything.

Well, actually it would improve something - you just cannot imagine how happy many Chinese Christians would be if they had a Bible of their own...

And by having another power in the country that can create disturbances it could hrt the country and the people of china as well. What China needs is stabilty, not social unrest. And while I wouldn't go as far as a german friend who predicts civil war in China in the next 10 years, there certainly is the potential for major unrest in China in the future. No need for another potential source.

Just to be a pain in the ass: Isn't it like the homosexuality deal? Homosexual thoughts are not a sin according to you (might be mistaking you with somebody, hope not) but acts yes.

You're misrepresenting my view on homosexuality.

Very helpful. And a lie. I don't misrepresent, that's just the way I remember it. Obviously wrong, thousand apologies my sensitive friend. Could you please inform me on your view on homosexuality?

Same deal in China. Being a christian is not against the law, attending a church is not against the law, it's against the law to attend a non registered illegal church. So to say "Christians are oppressed" is wrong.

Yeah, it's only those who *really* follow Jesus Christ that are oppressed.

Can you spell "hypocrisy"?

No, but I plan to learn that one in September. Why are the christians in the official churches not really following Jesus Christ?

Captain Shithead wrote:

Felix K wrote:

Captain Shithead wrote:Not completely correct on the law. But anyway, though luck, why an extra deal for religious people? If you feel oppressed enough, get a gun and make a revolution. Like everybody else.

That wouldn't be Jesus' style, to be sure.

Well, in theory. Practically we both know that christians and other religious people haven't always followed Jesus' word.

Can't argue with that. Can't even argue that missionaries who go to China will always follow God's word. However, one thing I am sure about is that overthrowing the Chinese government is not one of their goals.

You want to talk about Utopia or the real world? Utopia for you... everybody is christian, the same denomination as you (since I assume that you regard your faith as the right one), everybody is happy, everybody is healthy, a contributing member to society. Correct? No need for religious freedom since everybody is christian on their own free will.

Attending a certain church every Sunday is not as important as _truly_ following Christ, and I doubt that more than 5 per cent of the members of my denomination are truly following Christ; so I don't really care that much about what denomination everybody is. And Christ did not promise that whoever follows Him would be happy or healthy. In fact, He warned that following Him would prove costly, cause division within the family or even worse (obviously, Chinese Christians pay a higher price for following Christ than Christians in Europe). And how is being "a contributing member to society" a Christian value? There are both Christianity-based and atheist ideologies that put an emphasis on that concept...

In the real world christians, muslims etc. have all fought their wars, have all had no qualms about using violence to achieve their goals. Maybe you personnally wouldn't get violent in any case, but in that case you would seem to be the exception, not the rule. At least historically.

Yes, people have used the name of Christ to justify all kinds of bad things. However, does this mean all that violence wouldn't have occured if these people were had not been Christians? I doubt that. Non-religious leaders are no less likely to resort to violence than religious ones. So, putting somebody under general suspicion on the ground of him being a Christian is quite a stretch, IMHO.

Well, according to the German Wiki entry about the cultural revolution, they did try such a thing before:

Da das Züchten von Blumen und das Halten von Haustieren als bürgerlich galt, wurden Parks und Gärten in Getreide- und Gemüsefelder umgewandelt. Auch vor Skurrilitäten schreckten die Roten Garden nicht zurück. Da „rot“ und „links“ als revolutionär galten, entschieden sie, dass der Rechtsverkehr durch Linksverkehr ersetzt werden sollte und dass an Ampelkreuzungen künftig „Rot“ das Zeichen für freie Fahrt sein sollte. Rote Garden stellten sich an Kreuzungen zusammen mit Polizisten auf, um den Verkehr nach ihren Vorstellungen umzuleiten, was zu Chaos und zahllosen Unfällen führte und schließlich von Premier Zhou Enlai verboten wurde.

Cool, didn't know that! [/quote]

Well, on second thought, since the German Wiki is the only place where I found that, and no sources are provided, there is no guarantee that this anecdote is actually true...

Ah, and needless to say, China do have their own cult: their god is Chinese style socialism, and their prophet is Mao.

A big nice BULLSHIT to that one. Your usual attempt to equate political belief to religious belief. Both are influenced by propaganda, information etc. But the political belief/orientiation comes from the brain, rational (more or less, depending on the capacity and the amount of information available) though, the religious one from faith.

I disagree about that differenciation. Socialism depends no more on rational arguments and no less on faith/beliefs than Christianity.

Chinese-style socialsm... you can't mean "socialism with chinese characteristics", since that has nothing to do with Mao .... It's basically capitalism with socialist talk... and even the socialist talk is no more than just saying "China as a great socialist country bla bla bla." Put in some "workers" and "farmers" and that's it. ...

You're of course right. China is really no more socialist than the state-run churches are Christian...

Basically you want to put all other human rights behind the one you support, freedom of religion. Why?

No, that's not what I want. The other elementary human rights are just as important. Some rights (e.g. the right to life) are IMO more important than religious freedom.

What I'm defending is the idea of not letting christians and other religions (but if it's ok for you I'll just limit it to christians mostly form now on, so you can share your victimhood with less people) undermine the power of the state. And if you read closely you might have noticed that my plan for oppression and censorship is still a bit different from the chinese one.

Well, your plan for oppression and censorship is still such that I would probably sooner or later end up in prison if it applied where I live.

Also, how does Christianity undermine the power of a state? A state that needs to fear Christianity must be a very weak state, to be sure.

Can you spell "history"? Again this is a reality vs utoia thing. In the history of the world religions and religious leaders have been more than happy to grab worldly power as soon as they could. From the holy roman empire to Iran. Get power, get the money, get the girls, occasionnally some boys, I'm sure you know that in Europe the clergy was just another career path. Yeah, believers too.

People who took this career path, even within the clergy, were, for the most part, no more "religious fanatics" than Deng Xiaoping was a fanatic communist.

Also, you're mixing up two things. Clergy often became very powerful, that's true. Missionaries, not so much.

Now your faith might be different, but again, history, even recent history just says something else. Even you yourself seemed kind of shocked of me even asking what law you'll follow, gods or that of your or any other country. Clearly your god's. Where exactly does that end? You oppose every law that doesn't conform with your god's law?

Well, the debate was more about disobeying any law that contradicts God's word. Fortunately, I live in a country where such a situation won't occur. If I were a doctor and lived in a US state where doctors can be obligated to perform an abortion (there do exist one or two states with such rules), it would be different. China would force me to break the law almost every day. North Korea even more so.

Abortion, only for you (if you were female) or does that extend to the whole country?

In my eyes, abortion is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being. IOW, outright murder. Can't condone it under any circumstances. Naturally, totally outlawing abortion doesn't work because all it does is lead to more illegal abortions. Therefore, solving this problem requires other means than an outright ban.

Isn't it just easier to make your god's law the laws of the country?

Oh, I'd certainly not mind about the constitution or the law being based on Christian values. And fortunately, this is true for much of German law. However, this must not go so far that courts consult the Bible to determine their judgment. That would be a gross violation of religious freedom.

Ironic that you demand your right to interfere in other countries and oppose worldly laws with another worldly "law": Freedom of religion. I'm sure it has some basis in judeo christian tradition, but the idea of human rights still comes from the enlightment.

It would be interesting to examine the roots of enlightment, but that would lead too far here...

Whatever quote from the bible you'll come up with, please show me how that was implemented and how it worked under christian rule.

The Christian roots of Europe did not disappear overnight when enlightment came...

thank God that you'll never get to become a king of any country, much less mine...

Just wait and see....

I'm not holding my breath...

Well, you might find out that not all Christians interpret the other cheek rule as literally as you think they do... I'd advise you to restrict yourself to verbal means of communication...

What happened to "That wouldn't be Jesus' style, to be sure."

Nothing. It's just that single Bible verses trown out of context may not mean exactly what you at first think...

I don't support jailing someone just because of his beliefs, be it religious or not religious

No, you'd merely jail people for actually practicing their beliefs...

And by having another power in the country that can create disturbances it could hrt the country and the people of china as well. What China needs is stabilty, not social unrest. And while I wouldn't go as far as a german friend who predicts civil war in China in the next 10 years, there certainly is the potential for major unrest in China in the future. No need for another potential source.

And suppressing Christianity will help stabilize the country?

Just to be a pain in the ass: Isn't it like the homosexuality deal? Homosexual thoughts are not a sin according to you (might be mistaking you with somebody, hope not) but acts yes.

You're misrepresenting my view on homosexuality.

Very helpful. And a lie. I don't misrepresent, that's just the way I remember it. Obviously wrong, thousand apologies my sensitive friend. Could you please inform me on your view on homosexuality?

Sorry. I would have corrected you before, but I felt my reply was already too long, on that other thread, so I left this piece out as it was an off-topic part of an off-topic discussion...

Now for my answer: According to Jesus, thoughts can very well be sinful. Jesus on one instance even equates being angry with one's brother with murder - so a Christian who claims he has always kept the "thou shalt not murder" commandment is a liar. A little later He says that merely looking at a woman lustfully constitutes the sin of adultery. By extension, since homosexual acts are sinful, thoughts of homosexual acts can be sinful, too. No more sinful than any of the other sins mentioned, and nothing that can't be forgiven, but sinful nevertheless.

(I am saying they "can be" sinful, not that they "are" sinful, because a thought starts as a temptation on becomes a sin only when not resisted enough - the line is easily crossed, but not automatically.)

What you were probably trying to say is that according to me homosexual orientation isn't sinful, but homosexual behavior is. Now that would have been correct.

Why are the christians in the official churches not really following Jesus Christ?

Not sure about single members of these churches. Only God can judge who of them is following Him and who isn't. The churches themselves, however, don't look particularly Christian to me. For example, that "Three-Self Patriotic Movement" apparently does not even teach the resurrection of the dead, which is a very core of Christianity. So they are not even a Christian church, except by the name. Naturally, similar cases can be made about many European mainstream Protestant churches as well... but in Europe, people who are unhappy about the existing churches are free to found their new ones, or to simply arrange worship meetings with fellow believers.

tired... answer tomorrow...

God bless you

Seems that now as the Olympics are over, Zeus' internet access is being censored again...

No my usual lazyness.... today!

Today? I think I meant tomorrow.

Ah... ok, last first lazy, then busy, then 2 days lazy again.... sorry for the very late reply.

Can't argue with that. Can't even argue that missionaries who go to China will always follow God's word. However, one thing I am sure about is that overthrowing the Chinese government is not one of their goals.

Ok. But as you say yourself, you are not sure if the missionaries who go to China always follow your interpretation of gods word. According to you probably most "christians" don't really follow christ's word. Is overthrowing the government one of the goals? No, agree. Even if I have to say that I often have the impression that missionaries, especially americans ones, seem to try to get into politics very often as well. It's not just "give bibles to believers, they are happy". No examples, no links, just an impression, might be wrong.

Attending a certain church every Sunday is not as important as _truly_ following Christ, and I doubt that more than 5 per cent of the members of my denomination are truly following Christ; so I don't really care that much about what denomination everybody is. And Christ did not promise that whoever follows Him would be happy or healthy. In fact, He warned that following Him would prove costly, cause division within the family or even worse (obviously, Chinese Christians pay a higher price for following Christ than Christians in Europe). And how is being "a contributing member to society" a Christian value? There are both Christianity-based and atheist ideologies that put an emphasis on that concept...

Last sentence.. nothing wrong with that I would think... Why can't atheist and religious people have some of the same ideas? The "not easy to follow part"... well... standard disclaimer I would say. Every new sect, religion will have that one somewhere. The outsiders vs the enlightened insiders, the majority vs the minority. But ok, you don't expect followers of your god to be automatically happy or healthy since he didn't promise that.

Yes, people have used the name of Christ to justify all kinds of bad things. However, does this mean all that violence wouldn't have occured if these people were had not been Christians? I doubt that. Non-religious leaders are no less likely to resort to violence than religious ones. So, putting somebody under general suspicion on the ground of him being a Christian is quite a stretch, IMHO.

Because religion is organzied. Powerful to rally people around it. Of course non religious people are as violent as religious ones, of course if there weren't any christians violence would still happen. And why putting somebody under suspicion for being christian or religious? Because as I said above organized religions are powerful organizations. So are political parties, sure. The problems I see with letting missionaries in is: An alternative powerbase, dominated and supported by western christians. While political parties will normally be homegrown, chinese, churches will not. Allegiance to god first, and what god wants is decided by the pope or by the missionaries. If china would allow missionaries in tomorrow, I wouldn't expect christians running wild and killing people left and right after 2 years. But they have the potential to create another powerbase. And China of course doesn't want that, doesn't allow independent parties, unions etc. etc. I would allow parties and unions before letting missionaries in.

I disagree about that differenciation. Socialism depends no more on rational arguments and no less on faith/beliefs than Christianity.

Other topic, but if you ever have time (and are not as lazy as me) maybe you can elaborate? And only socialism or other political ideologies as well?

Well, your plan for oppression and censorship is still such that I would probably sooner or later end up in prison if it applied where I live.

I haven't really gone into that many details.... no foreign missionaries allowed, no religious propaganda outside of the designated spaces, control over churches.. that already enough to send you to jail?

Well, the debate was more about disobeying any law that contradicts God's word. Fortunately, I live in a country where such a situation won't occur. If I were a doctor and lived in a US state where doctors can be obligated to perform an abortion (there do exist one or two states with such rules), it would be different. China would force me to break the law almost every day. North Korea even more so.

Ok, how would china and North Korea force you to break the law. (Of course you would CHOSE to break the law) which laws exactly, and what are the things that are so important to your faith that are forbidden in China?

In my eyes, abortion is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being. IOW, outright murder. Can't condone it under any circumstances. Naturally, totally outlawing abortion doesn't work because all it does is lead to more illegal abortions. Therefore, solving this problem requires other means than an outright ban.

Is your view based on your faith? And if you were a missionary in a third world country, what would you tell the people there?

It would be interesting to examine the roots of enlightment, but that would lead too far here...

The Christian roots of Europe did not disappear overnight when enlightment came...

Nobody said that christianity disappeared when enlightement came...

Nothing. It's just that single Bible verses trown out of context may not mean exactly what you at first think...

Well, it means something different to everybody I guess... just because you believe in the bible and I don't doesn't mean your interpretation is the correct one.

Now for my answer: According to Jesus, thoughts can very well be sinful. Jesus on one instance even equates being angry with one's brother with murder - so a Christian who claims he has always kept the "thou shalt not murder" commandment is a liar. A little later He says that merely looking at a woman lustfully constitutes the sin of adultery. By extension, since homosexual acts are sinful, thoughts of homosexual acts can be sinful, too. No more sinful than any of the other sins mentioned, and nothing that can't be forgiven, but sinful nevertheless.

(I am saying they "can be" sinful, not that they "are" sinful, because a thought starts as a temptation on becomes a sin only when not resisted enough - the line is easily crossed, but not automatically.)

What you were probably trying to say is that according to me homosexual orientation isn't sinful, but homosexual behavior is. Now that would have been correct.

Ok, then the nice comparison doesn't work anymore, bah... But ok, what is homosexual behaviour??? Not resisting lustful looks at my enourmous belly enough? Where is the difference between orientation and behaviour according to you exactly?

Not sure about single members of these churches. Only God can judge who of them is following Him and who isn't. The churches themselves, however, don't look particularly Christian to me. For example, that "Three-Self Patriotic Movement" apparently does not even teach the resurrection of the dead, which is a very core of Christianity. So they are not even a Christian church, except by the name. Naturally, similar cases can be made about many European mainstream Protestant churches as well... but in Europe, people who are unhappy about the existing churches are free to found their new ones, or to simply arrange worship meetings with fellow believers.

OK, but "apparently" isn't really convincing btw. But too lazy to check, just believe you for once...

Question: God said something about spreading his word (not going to look for your exact quote in the general chat or olympics thread or whereever it was) You say that many christians in Europe don't really follow Jesus and gods word. So why not spread his word in Europe? Why the need to go to third world countries?

Zeus,

thanks for your reply. Busy week ahead of me, so it could take a couple of days till I reply...

Took me weeks, no problem, you can let me wait for months if you want.

Captain Shithead wrote:Ah... ok, last first lazy, then busy, then 2 days lazy again.... sorry for the very late reply.

No problem at all. A few days, even weeks, are certainly in order when replies are getting this long...

Can't argue with that. Can't even argue that missionaries who go to China will always follow God's word. However, one thing I am sure about is that overthrowing the Chinese government is not one of their goals.

Ok. But as you say yourself, you are not sure if the missionaries who go to China always follow your interpretation of gods word. According to you probably most "christians" don't really follow christ's word. Is overthrowing the government one of the goals? No, agree. Even if I have to say that I often have the impression that missionaries, especially americans ones, seem to try to get into politics very often as well. It's not just "give bibles to believers, they are happy". No examples, no links, just an impression, might be wrong.

Christian missionaries basically want to introduce people to Christ. People who do know Christ will change their lives, and, in some cases, their attitudes. This will, in some instances, also affect their political views; no doubt. For example, it is impossible for a Christian to be indifferent towards subjects such as gay marriage, or abortion, to name the classical ones. No doubt that as a result, Christians will sometimes form political interest groups. Not a problem in a democracy, but I can understand how China is afraid of these.

Why can't atheist and religious people have some of the same ideas?

I wasn't saying that they haven't. My point was (and perhaps I should have been more clear) that "being a contributing member to society" isn't a Christian value at all. If some Christians believe in "being a contributing member to society", then there's nothing wrong with that, but it's not a Christian value, in the strict sense. It's certainly very different from the Biblical commandments to love your neighbor as yourself and to serve those in need, feed the hungry, clothe the poor, etc.

Yes, people have used the name of Christ to justify all kinds of bad things. However, does this mean all that violence wouldn't have occured if these people were had not been Christians? I doubt that. Non-religious leaders are no less likely to resort to violence than religious ones. So, putting somebody under general suspicion on the ground of him being a Christian is quite a stretch, IMHO.

Because religion is organzied. Powerful to rally people around it. Of course non religious people are as violent as religious ones, of course if there weren't any christians violence would still happen. And why putting somebody under suspicion for being christian or religious? Because as I said above organized religions are powerful organizations. So are political parties, sure. The problems I see with letting missionaries in is: An alternative powerbase, dominated and supported by western christians. While political parties will normally be homegrown, chinese, churches will not. Allegiance to god first, and what god wants is decided by the pope or by the missionaries. If china would allow missionaries in tomorrow, I wouldn't expect christians running wild and killing people left and right after 2 years. But they have the potential to create another powerbase. And China of course doesn't want that, doesn't allow independent parties, unions etc. etc. I would allow parties and unions before letting missionaries in.

Well, I know how the Polish government was trembling when JP2 visited his native country, and I know their fears were justified, so China's stance is certainly comprehensible. Any system that is based on suppression certainly does have to fear Christianity, in the long run. No doubt on that.

I disagree about that differenciation. Socialism depends no more on rational arguments and no less on faith/beliefs than Christianity.

Other topic, but if you ever have time (and are not as lazy as me) maybe you can elaborate? And only socialism or other political ideologies as well?

I would need to know more about other political ideologies before I could do that. However, classical socialist, and especially communist states, have all the properties of a theocracy, except that their alleged source of authority is not God. The Guardian Council is to Iran exactly what the Central Comittee of the CPC is to China. I am sure that you'd find a lot more analogies if you were thoroughly comparing the two systems.

Well, your plan for oppression and censorship is still such that I would probably sooner or later end up in prison if it applied where I live.

I haven't really gone into that many details.... no foreign missionaries allowed, no religious propaganda outside of the designated spaces, control over churches.. that already enough to send you to jail?

Well, let me see.
- no foreign missionaries: What if I serve as a translator at a community that is run by foreign missionary? Do I go to prison, or are you just going to destroy the community?
- no religious propaganda: What if I pass out flyers inviting people to our service and other church events? And when does normal smalltalk end and actual "propaganda" begin?
- control over churches: Every Tuesday I meet in private with some fellow believers from my church to worship God, pray, have fellowship, etc. Do we need a permit for this meeting? And if so, are we permitted to spontaneously invite other people to it, even without asking you for permission in advance? How private is our meeting allowed to be?

Ok, how would china and North Korea force you to break the law. (Of course you would CHOSE to break the law) which laws exactly, and what are the things that are so important to your faith that are forbidden in China?

Do I even need to begin to tell you about North Korea, a country where merely owning a Bible can send you to a working camp?

As for China, there are lots of situations where Christians are forced to break the law. It begins when Christians meet without a permit. Of course, they could seek one, but it is questionable if they would obtain one, even if the formal criteria are met. Plus, if the formal criteria require that they recognize the state as their supreme authority, thus denying the role of God, they cannot even afford to seek such a permit, and need to resort to clandestinity.

Being a Christian in China is a constant battle; there is a reason why many Christians there are in constant danger of prison.

In my eyes, abortion is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being. IOW, outright murder. Can't condone it under any circumstances. Naturally, totally outlawing abortion doesn't work because all it does is lead to more illegal abortions. Therefore, solving this problem requires other means than an outright ban.

Is your view based on your faith? And if you were a missionary in a third world country, what would you tell the people there?

Well, fortunately, God has not called me there. But those who were called there also know that actions speak louder than works. A couple of years ago, my ex-girlfriend spent a couple of weeks with a missionary in Mozambique who had built up a home for children. Most of the children they are raising are of course AIDS orphans, but some of them were simply given to them by mothers who could not afford to pay for the children themselves. These missionaries are always short of money, but it would never occur to them to reject a child in need. What they do is certainly a good answer to that question. It is certainly exactly the kind of thing a Christian is supposed to do in such a situation. It's not about lecturing people on theology and morality, but about feeding the hungry, clothing the poor - in brief, about loving people. The very essence of Christianity.

Ok, then the nice comparison doesn't work anymore, bah... But ok, what is homosexual behaviour??? Not resisting lustful looks at my enourmous belly enough? Where is
the difference between orientation and behaviour according to you exactly?

Homosexual orientation = being homosexual. Being sexually attracted to people of the same gender.
Homosexual behavior = actually living out the orientation, e.g. a man having sex with a man, or watching gay porn, or wearing women's clothing, etc. Naturally, the exact point where a temptation becomes a sin is difficult to grasp. But homosexuality is not unique in this respect. The same thing occurs when a heterosexual man is looking at a woman.


Simply put, homosexual behavior relates to homosexual orientation as theft relates to kleptomania. Kleptomania isn't a sin as such, but theft is; even when committed by a kleptomaniac.

Not sure about single members of these churches. Only God can judge who of them is following Him and who isn't. The churches themselves, however, don't look particularly Christian to me. For example, that "Three-Self Patriotic Movement" apparently does not even teach the resurrection of the dead, which is a very core of Christianity. So they are not even a Christian church, except by the name. Naturally, similar cases can be made about many European mainstream Protestant churches as well... but in Europe, people who are unhappy about the existing churches are free to found their new ones, or to simply arrange worship meetings with fellow believers.

OK, but "apparently" isn't really convincing btw. But too lazy to check, just believe you for once...

My source is Wikipedia. Can't say how reliable they are, of course...

Question: God said something about spreading his word (not going to look for your exact quote in the general chat or olympics thread or whereever it was) You say that many christians in Europe don't really follow Jesus and gods word. So why not spread his word in Europe? Why the need to go to third world countries?

Because in Mark 16, Jesus says "Go into all the world (not: "Stay right where you are") and preach the good news to all creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. "

You are, of course, right. Europe is probably more in need of God's word than Africa. But well, each Christian has a certain calling. Some are called to spread the gospel in the city where they were born; others are called to go to Africa.

LOL@felix

why don't you tell us more about the Vatican's views during the second world war....

What exactly would that have to do with the subject of this thread, which is "Freedom of religion"?

If you want to discuss the subject at hand, be welcome. However, if all you want to do is rant against Christianity in general and the Vatican in particular (even ignoring the repeatedly stated fact that I AM NOT EVEN CATHOLIC), then, please, go someplace else. I am not going to waste my time dealing with your brain farts.

I think the discussion is more or less finished, from now on we would be going around in circles even more than before... main point was to try to explain why I said "good policy" to the chinese not letting in missionaries even if they only want to bring bibles and get to understand why it seems so important to you. Not get you to agree with my point of view...

Hope you kind of got what I was trying to say... short summary anyway:

Religion can be a destablizing force in developing countries. By developing I mean developing, not something like North Korea. Development not only economically but the whole society. And China seems to be developing in the right direction. Half of China anyway, the cities, growing middle class that isn't always happy just agreeing with anything they are being told, we'll see how long it takes for the countryside to catch up. New religions, especially big religions that are not established in that country yet can be destablizing, outside influence, and even if not the suspicion that they are influenced from the outside. Plus of course the "moral" factor in the west, look at Sudan, the christian south that in reality is far from being christian, it's a big mix between christian, animists and yes, muslims as well, multi-religious south where the muslim north did indeed kill thousands of people. Of all religions. Hijacked as a purely Islam vs Christianity conflict by the west. Meaning having christians in your country mostly means bad news... (In Sudans case deserved, in Chinas case a lot of it deserved too, but not all, see Tibet, different topic though) Not what a developing country (going IMO in the right direction needs)

More or less clear? Again, not asking you to agree.

Answer to the last post:

Christian missionaries basically want to introduce people to Christ. People who do know Christ will change their lives, and, in some cases, their attitudes. This will, in some instances, also affect their political views; no doubt. For example, it is impossible for a Christian to be indifferent towards subjects such as gay marriage, or abortion, to name the classical ones. No doubt that as a result, Christians will sometimes form political interest groups. Not a problem in a democracy, but I can understand how China is afraid of these.

What about working on sundays etc.? Don't get why gay marriage is such a big deal... if it's a sin like any other working on sundays, being a lazy fuck who it's too much like me (gluttony? (hope the movie seven is good enough as a source...) isn't better I think? Forbid McDonalds? Give out food stamps and forbid to eat more than you're allocated food?

I wasn't saying that they haven't. My point was (and perhaps I should have been more clear) that "being a contributing member to society" isn't a Christian value at all. If some Christians believe in "being a contributing member to society", then there's nothing wrong with that, but it's not a Christian value, in the strict sense. It's certainly very different from the Biblical commandments to love your neighbor as yourself and to serve those in need, feed the hungry, clothe the poor, etc.

Contributing could be contributing in the sense of helping those in need... but ok, so not in a strictly christian utopia.

Well, I know how the Polish government was trembling when JP2 visited his native country, and I know their fears were justified, so China's stance is certainly comprehensible. Any system that is based on suppression certainly does have to fear Christianity, in the long run. No doubt on that.

System based on suppression.. no. There is suppression in China, but the system is not based on it. And not every system that is based (or not based) on suppression has to fear christianity. Not if the suppressors are Christian. (yes, claim to be, not true ones according to you)

I would need to know more about other political ideologies before I could do that. However, classical socialist, and especially communist states, have all the properties of a theocracy, except that their alleged source of authority is not God. The Guardian Council is to Iran exactly what the Central Comittee of the CPC is to China. I am sure that you'd find a lot more analogies if you were thoroughly comparing the two systems.

Still disagree. A mass movement, an opinion shared by many is not a religion. What defines religion is the existence of a higher being (to me at least). Is the opinion that the founding fathers of the US were great people a religion?

Well, let me see.
- no foreign missionaries: What if I serve as a translator at a community that is run by foreign missionary? Do I go to prison, or are you just going to destroy the community?

They are not getting in, no foreign missionaries. So can't happen.

- no religious propaganda: What if I pass out flyers inviting people to our service and other church events? And when does normal smalltalk end and actual "propaganda" begin?

Depends where. You get a radius around your churches where you can hand out flyers. Normal smalltalk end... you go knocking at peoples doors, they complain, that's propaganda. You speak with me at a party, you mention god, no problem. You invite somebody to the church... if he later complains you get into trouble.

- control over churches: Every Tuesday I meet in private with some fellow believers from my church to worship God, pray, have fellowship, etc. Do we need a permit for this meeting? And if so, are we permitted to spontaneously invite other people to it, even without asking you for permission in advance? How private is our meeting allowed to be?

Why can't you just go to church... so much easier. You make it a small private thing, no problem. Make it a big thing with 50 people I'll want a permit... haven't really thought all the rules out yet, still a few years away from heading Shitheadistan. Let's say more than 10 people need a permit.

If I take over germany the rules would be completely different though. As long as you only drink belgian beer before or after praying do whatever you want. Except the knocking on door thing, that one would be out in Germany as well.

Do I even need to begin to tell you about North Korea, a country where merely owning a Bible can send you to a working camp?

As for China, there are lots of situations where Christians are forced to break the law. It begins when Christians meet without a permit. Of course, they could seek one, but it is questionable if they would obtain one, even if the formal criteria are met. Plus, if the formal criteria require that they recognize the state as their supreme authority, thus denying the role of God, they cannot even afford to seek such a permit, and need to resort to clandestinity.

Being a Christian in China is a constant battle; there is a reason why many Christians there are in constant danger of prison.

Ok on North Korea. China... agree with no missionaries, doesn't mean I agree with all of the rest. I can pick and chose. Not enough bibles, print more, ok. Permits, easier to get, not a specific Christian problem btw, more general, the official rules laid out in Beijing are generally way more progressive than how it's handled in the provinces, partly accepted or maybe even encouraged by Beijing, partly not. General problem that need to be solved sooner or later, here again, the countryside is far behind the cities, and not only the BIG cities like Shanghai, Beijing and Guangzhou. Supreme authority of the state, ok could be worded differently? Follow the law of the state or something.

Simply put, homosexual behavior relates to homosexual orientation as theft relates to kleptomania. Kleptomania isn't a sin as such, but theft is; even when committed by a kleptomaniac.

Stupid questions, but why is homosexual behaviour a sin? Aren't there 100 other sins that are disregarded today.. TV series West Wing, when the president lectures the right wing radio chick... Ok ok, shouldn't take to long to find a quote:

ok, just youtube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHaVUjjH3EI

Is there more in the bible that makes homosexuality a sin and kind of makes those other things not really sins anymore?

Well, fortunately, God has not called me there. But those who were called there also know that actions speak louder than works. A couple of years ago, my ex-girlfriend spent a couple of weeks with a missionary in Mozambique who had built up a home for children. Most of the children they are raising are of course AIDS orphans, but some of them were simply given to them by mothers who could not afford to pay for the children themselves. These missionaries are always short of money, but it would never occur to them to reject a child in need. What they do is certainly a good answer to that question. It is certainly exactly the kind of thing a Christian is supposed to do in such a situation. It's not about lecturing people on theology and morality, but about feeding the hungry, clothing the poor - in brief, about loving people. The very essence of Christianity.

More stupid questions. How does god call you?
Then, here it seems you claim the good for Christianity, but reject the bad. Violence due to religion, would have happened anyway, religion only a "pretext" not real christians, but the good you take. I think Christianity can have a good influence on people. But it can be a bad one as well. There are NGOs not affiliated with religion in Africa as well of course. Are they automatically better (for the atheist) or worse (for the believer) than the christian ones? Shouldn't be. One thing that makes me prefer non religios help is the nagging suspicion that christians are more interested in the afterlife than the life. Unfair question: What's more important, saving a soul or saving a life? Ok, you kind of already answered that, only god can save a soul, so for you it would be the life I guess. But I don't deny that missionaries can have a positive impact on third world countries. But they can create splits in society as well. Not that non-religious help projects are perfect, I'm sure there's many examples of big fuck ups there as well.

Because in Mark 16, Jesus says "Go into all the world (not: "Stay right where you are") and preach the good news to all creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. "

Ok, that wasn't planned was quoting one thing after the other, and here comes that.. back to the unfair question. 2 dying, one already believes and has been baptized, the other not... so according to the quote here one will be saved, the other not. Who do you concentrate on? Unfair question I know, very hypothetical.

Whoa Captain Shithead...you sound just like you could land a job at the Foreign Ministry in Sweden.

A hypothetical question...if i have a legal problem and would like for instance someone like Anthony Scalia to settle it for me (and he agree) why would would I have to settle for a pop artist without adequate skills for the actual matter other than being friendly and paid by politicians who are out of their field just for the sake that "in a democracy anyone should have a right to practice"?

Does the swedish foreign ministry pay well?

But didn't get your question...

"Simply put, homosexual behavior relates to homosexual orientation as theft relates to kleptomania."


Not all thieves would actually be diagnosed as kleptomanias I believe.

I don't know if the foreign ministry pays well, I don't work there but at a department under the Finance Ministry but i recall from my law studies that the Foreign Ministry was considered as a bit...well..."Posh" and thereby a desirable workplace. But from what I've heard they aren't that paid much, just as basically most public sector jobs (albeit it could impose special difficulties if you're stationed abroad and at a place where costs are high). But for some reasons it looks like a lot of responsibilities is also located with the foreign ministry which I seriously wonder whether it all should be there at all.

Whichever it is I will though in this years pay raise discussion tell my boss that he can give me zero and whatever amount he suggest I would like to donate as a pro bono ticket for a couple of Human Rights baronesses of all genders at the Foreing Ministry of Sweden to climb up in the Eifel Tower and see how high they can get, with subsided Hensleybeers from whichever corrupt NATO state if the money is sufficient, otherwise they could perhaps take some from the precisou wedding fund since Victoria and daniel is not about to get married this year and likely not next year either.
I can't possibly see that Feminist...pardon...Finance Minister Anders Borg would have anything against it.

But that has been sort of a way with the foreign ministry long before Bildt was Minister there I presume

"Does the swedish foreign ministry pay well?"

As i said, I don't know exactly, I don't work there so if you need details on that I suppose you have to ask your mom (obscure Calvin and Hobbes reference)...

Zeus,

don't worry, I'm not getting the point lillie is trying to make, either.

BTW, sorry for not yet replying to your post. Might take some more time till I have the time ...

Is lillie Lolli?

And no worries Felix, I plan to live another 87 years at least, so we have time.

Felix K wrote:Zeus,

don't worry, I'm not getting the point lillie is trying to make, either.

BTW, sorry for not yet replying to your post. Might take some more time till I have the time ...

I rarely get what Lillie says. I suspect not by design.

"I rarely get what Lillie says. I suspect not by design."

Lol....Capacity to listen?...you're not alone. I actually don't say much really... (even if I have a habit of typing off to extrem lengths at times). Call it a bad habit or whatever on my behalf but experience have taught me that it's pointless to try and tell someone who isn't interested in listening anyway. Btest one look after oneself only.

Captain Shithead wrote:I think the discussion is more or less finished, from now on we would be going around in circles even more than before...

Agreed.

More or less clear? Again, not asking you to agree.

Yes. I do understand (as I did from the start), but I don't agree at all.

Christian missionaries basically want to introduce people to Christ. People who do know Christ will change their lives, and, in some cases, their attitudes. This will, in some instances, also affect their political views; no doubt. For example, it is impossible for a Christian to be indifferent towards subjects such as gay marriage, or abortion, to name the classical ones. No doubt that as a result, Christians will sometimes form political interest groups. Not a problem in a democracy, but I can understand how China is afraid of these.

What about working on sundays etc.? Don't get why gay marriage is such a big deal... if it's a sin like any other working on sundays, being a lazy fuck who it's too much like me (gluttony? (hope the movie seven is good enough as a source...) isn't better I think? Forbid McDonalds? Give out food stamps and forbid to eat more than you're allocated food?

Well, churches in Germany are typically among those who oppose "shopping Sundays". Anyway, even Jesus has already warned against being too legalistic about the Sabbath commandment (blasting the Pharisees for crizicizing Him for doing a healing work on a Sabbath), so the special status of the Sunday really isn't a primary concern for Christians, after all. Sunday is a specially protected time in Germany (even by virtue of our constitution), but this, while ultimately stemming from Judeo-Christian values, is a secular value at the same time. I mean, it is not only churches who fight to maintain the special status of Sundays. Trade unions agree with this cause, although not for exactly the same reasons.

Well, I know how the Polish government was trembling when JP2 visited his native country, and I know their fears were justified, so China's stance is certainly comprehensible. Any system that is based on suppression certainly does have to fear Christianity, in the long run. No doubt on that.

System based on suppression.. no. There is suppression in China, but the system is not based on it. And not every system that is based (or not based) on suppression has to fear christianity. Not if the suppressors are Christian. (yes, claim to be, not true ones according to you)

Well, even if the suppressors are (professed) Christians, this would not mean that Christians have nothing to fear. For example, Christians who disagreed with Calvin theologically definitely did have something to fear in Calvin ruled Geneva. To put it mildly.

I would need to know more about other political ideologies before I could do that. However, classical socialist, and especially communist states, have all the properties of a theocracy, except that their alleged source of authority is not God. The Guardian Council is to Iran exactly what the Central Comittee of the CPC is to China. I am sure that you'd find a lot more analogies if you were thoroughly comparing the two systems.

Still disagree. A mass movement, an opinion shared by many is not a religion. What defines religion is the existence of a higher being (to me at least). Is the opinion that the founding fathers of the US were great people a religion?

To me, what defines a religion, is Scriptures to refer to, scholars with an at times unquestionable authority to interpret them, and holy sites to visit. Communism does fulfill these criteria.

Of course, definitions are not true or false, but, if at all, merely sensible or pointless. So, no discussion possible about the veracity of a definition. Let's agree to disagree.

Well, let me see.
- no foreign missionaries: What if I serve as a translator at a community that is run by foreign missionary? Do I go to prison, or are you just going to destroy the community?

They are not getting in, no foreign missionaries. So can't happen.

You misunderstood me. I was wondering what would happen if you, miraculously, suddenly became the absolute dictator over Germany. Since the missionary in question is already "in", there is no way for you to say it "can't happen".

- no religious propaganda: What if I pass out flyers inviting people to our service and other church events? And when does normal smalltalk end and actual "propaganda" begin?

Depends where. You get a radius around your churches where you can hand out flyers. Normal smalltalk end... you go knocking at peoples doors, they complain, that's propaganda. You speak with me at a party, you mention god, no problem. You invite somebody to the church... if he later complains you get into trouble.

Needless to say, we disagree. You are apparently opposing religious freedom, while I consider religious freedom to be quintessential for a society.

Why can't you just go to church... so much easier. You make it a small private thing, no problem. Make it a big thing with 50 people I'll want a permit... haven't really thought all the rules out yet, still a few years away from heading Shitheadistan. Let's say more than 10 people need a permit.

Well, we are more than 10 people, if everybody comes. So I guess I will have to do everything possible to prevent the above mentioned miraculous situation from happening...

If I take over germany the rules would be completely different though. As long as you only drink belgian beer before or after praying do whatever you want.

Zeus, Zeus, Zeus. Can't you avoid this utterly insulting word?

Simply put, homosexual behavior relates to homosexual orientation as theft relates to kleptomania. Kleptomania isn't a sin as such, but theft is; even when committed by a kleptomaniac.

Stupid questions, but why is homosexual behaviour a sin?

A sin is an action that is not in line with God's will. As a Christian, I believe that God has used the Bible to definte what is in line with His will. And the Bible condemns homosexual behavior outright. I could name you the relevant Scriptures, but I am assuming you are not really interested in them. So, I ask you to take my word for it.

Aren't there 100 other sins that are disregarded today.. Is there more in the bible that makes homosexuality a sin and kind of makes those other things not really sins anymore?

Short answer: Yes. The Old Testament basically contains three types of laws:
1. timeless ones
2. ones applicable solely to Jews
3. Criminal and civil Law of the Jewish state in OT time.

Only category 1 is still applicable today. Category 2 is applicable today only if you are a Jew (that includes all the dietary laws, such as ban on pork meat etc). The Bible reports about the controversy as to whether Christians should observe all these laws, but it also gives the answer, somewhere in the book of Acts. The issue is discussed at length in some of the New Testament letters, as well. And Category 3 does not apply today any more (e.g. death penalty for adultery), as they are basically the law of a now disfunctional state. And the wording of the Bible also makes that clear. I can dig out all the relevant Bible quotes if you're interested.

Well, fortunately, God has not called me there. But those who were called there also know that actions speak louder than works. A couple of years ago, my ex-girlfriend spent a couple of weeks with a missionary in Mozambique who had built up a home for children. Most of the children they are raising are of course AIDS orphans, but some of them were simply given to them by mothers who could not afford to pay for the children themselves. These missionaries are always short of money, but it would never occur to them to reject a child in need. What they do is certainly a good answer to that question. It is certainly exactly the kind of thing a Christian is supposed to do in such a situation. It's not about lecturing people on theology and mora