25 Churches Now In Khao Lak

[thaibebop]

as regarding monotheism - those 3 are not the only religions and neither first to propagate it :

I was referring specifically to Abrahamic monotheisms, whose sacred scriptures, I believe, promote or encode a subtle culture of fear in the their discourse.

Thaibebop, foundationalists don't read St Augustine or any other commentators, they believe only the confirmed holy scriptures (Bible, Koran, etc) contain the message they would follow, and furthermore that the scriptures can be boiled down to a few ethical tenets. The proliferation of thought found in theology or academics is of no interest to a foundationalist.

That's distinct from fundamentalists, who follow every word of their chosen scripture without the boiling down process. Fundamentalists are more dangerous because they are adept at choosing bits of scripture to justify almost any action.

Both fall into what philosopher Peter Klein has called 'the infinite regress of reason' where the justification for faith or belief is assigned to God or scripture, rather than reason. This meta-justifcation is thus arbitrary, and since, by definition, an arbitrary belief is unjustified, there is an infinite regress of reason.

This is the exact opposite of the ways in which Augsutine, Thomas of Aquinas, Teilhard de Chardin, Blaise Pascal, etc would justify belief.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Now I know why I am confused. I didn't post anything about Augustine or any other commentors. So, I agree with you, but why were you directing that at me? Did I miss something again?

[ArtfulD]

Are Christians really good or are they doing it to impress god and secure their reward in heaven?

I know plenty of non religious people who are simply kind and good because that's how they are naturally.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Same can be applied to those building Merit, and Karma....is their only reasons for doing something good because they want something good to happen to themselves? Every single religion going uses some sort of reward/punishment system. Could it then be said that anyone who is religious is doing good deeds for personal gain alone, be it a better next life or securing a place in heaven.

[suegha]

Are Christians really good or are they doing it to impress god and secure their reward in heaven?

I know plenty of non religious people who are simply kind and good because that's how they are naturally.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Same can be applied to those building Merit, and Karma....is their only reasons for doing something good because they want something good to happen to themselves? Every single religion going uses some sort of reward/punishment system. Could it then be said that anyone who is religious is doing good deeds for personal gain alone, be it a better next life or securing a place in heaven.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Good point ArtfulD...

[sabaijai]

Now I know why I am confused. I didn't post anything about Augustine or any other commentors. So, I agree with you, but why were you directing that at me? Did I miss something again?

It was in (your) post #25:

So, you believe in a state of grace then? Now, that's outdated right there. So, then God already knows who is going and who is not? So, what the point of doing any converting or praying? Are you sure you have not read Augustine?

[thaibebop]

Now I know why I am confused. I didn't post anything about Augustine or any other commentors. So, I agree with you, but why were you directing that at me? Did I miss something again?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It was in (your) post #25:

So, you believe in a state of grace then? Now, that's outdated right there. So, then God already knows who is going and who is not? So, what the point of doing any converting or praying? Are you sure you have not read Augustine?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Okay, but I think there may have been a missunderstanding. In the thread about converts in the Buddhism forum Suegha and I were discussing similar topics and he had said he had not read Augustine, but then he, in this thread, starts talking about the state of grace, which is an Augustine view. So, I asked him why he would believe in grace when most Christian nowadays believe that you could earn your way into heaven by being a good Christian, thus missionaries. I am making sense, or did I miss the point you were making. I can be slow sometimes, sorry.

[nephron]

and strictly speaking atheism / agnostisism or  ghedonism (practically any -ism) - is merely another kind of faith or religion    : they also BELIEVE that THERE IS NO God. all same things they accuse theists in - can be turned back on them.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

http://www.religioustolerance.org/agnostic.htm

Actually, agnsostics believe that the existence of god cannot be proved or disproved... a far cry from believing that there is no god.

Similarly, an athiest will not believe that there is a god, however, the atheist may not believe that there could not possibly be a god.

[suegha]

Now I know why I am confused. I didn't post anything about Augustine or any other commentors. So, I agree with you, but why were you directing that at me? Did I miss something again?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It was in (your) post #25:

So, you believe in a state of grace then? Now, that's outdated right there. So, then God already knows who is going and who is not? So, what the point of doing any converting or praying? Are you sure you have not read Augustine?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Okay, but I think there may have been a missunderstanding. In the thread about converts in the Buddhism forum Suegha and I were discussing similar topics and he had said he had not read Augustine, but then he, in this thread, starts talking about the state of grace, which is an Augustine view. So, I asked him why he would believe in grace when most Christian nowadays believe that you could earn your way into heaven by being a good Christian, thus missionaries. I am making sense, or did I miss the point you were making. I can be slow sometimes, sorry.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I hate to sound Like I'm repeating my self - No I have not read Augustine, nor do I care what he wrote. However, on the subject 'of grace' thaibebop wrote "Now, that's outdated right there." No it's not, it's biblical. The word is used 170 times in the Bible, 130 of those in the NT and the one I quoted was from Eph 2 vv 8-9 "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith - and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God - not by works, so that no one can boast." So it's not outdated, God never changes. This also deals with thaibebop's comment "most Christian nowadays believe that you could earn your way into heaven by being a good Christian". I have never met a Christian who said this. They can think it if they like but it's not scriptural! We can not earn our salvation!

Just one more thing, thaibebop wrote "So, then God already knows who is going and who is not? " I'm taking this to mean God knows who will have salvation and who won't, correct me if I'm wrong. Yes, God does know, he is the all seeing all knowing omnipotent God, he knows the beggining from the end, however, we don't! This is exactly the point of us (as you put it) "doing any converting or praying". I hope that clarifys things.

[toptuan]

Do those Buddhists actually try and convert anyone to Buddhism?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

IMO, Buddhism, especially in Thailand, is becoming increasingly "evangelistic", if I can use the term.

In Vancouver, Canada, I took some of my Vietnamese immigrant English-language students to visit a well-known Buddhist temple there, as it was a well-known tourist attraction for it's beauty. When we arrived I was beset upon by the monks and was rather taken aback by the English language literature they loaded me up with, unsolicited. Well, that was "western Buddhism."

What about Thailand?

I took a Bangkok Airways flight from BKK to Phnom Penh last year. For the entire flight, the "entertainment" was a video extolling the virtues of Buddhism, a "sermon" by a well-known monk, and clear instructions at the end on what you can do to find more information about Buddhism (phone numbers, email addresses, etc.). The video was in English and clearly aimed at westerners. I really didn't feel that a plane flight by a commercial airline was the proper venue for an evangelistic effort to be perpetrated onto its unsuspecting passengers.

Two years ago, some Thai friends took me to visit a well-known "forest temple" near Udon Thani, where there's a concentration of farang monks. What started out as a simple tour of the temple and grounds, turned into an attempted brain-washing session. They brought me into a hut for a "conference" with a farang monk, and first instructed me to bow my head to the dirt in reverence to the guy. As a non-Buddhist, I felt that it went a little bit beyond a simple show of respect, and I didn't feel comfortable doing it. He had to be happy with a simple "wai" from me, as I would give to any dignitary, religious or otherwise.

Then there followed a pretty high-pressure proselityzing sales pitch. I finally got so uncomfortable, I told my Thai friends, "You know, I respect your religion and beliefs, and even enjoy learning about it--but in a different context. Can we bring this to a close?" They obliged, and even admitted later that it was a bit of a "sneaky" and heavy-handed approach.

I know this is only anecdotal evidence from only one person, but three conversion attempts in three years? That's more than I've gotten from any Christian!

So, throw your mud at Christianity. If any religion believes that it is really the only way to eternal happiness and personal salvation, it is a given that it will make efforts to reach the pagan. If it makes no effort, then in my opinion, it's not worth its salt.

Despite my negative experiences above, I admire my Buddhist friends for their logical and practical follow-through of their beliefs. I admire a sincere Christian for the same reason. At the same time, I abhor any pressure, manipulation or deceipt to accomplish said goals.

Edited January 4, 2006 by cdnvic

[toptuan]

...I abhor any pressure, manipulation or deceipt to accomplish said goals.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And yes, that includes the Medieval Crusades, the sale of Indulgences to spring your tortured sweet grandma out of Purgatory, and the destruction of the "infidels' Twin Towers."

[suegha]

...I abhor any pressure, manipulation or deceipt to accomplish said goals.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And yes, that includes the Medieval Crusades, the sale of Indulgences to spring your tortured sweet grandma out of Purgatory, and the destruction of the "infidels' Twin Towers."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well said toptuan!

[thaibebop]

Now I know why I am confused. I didn't post anything about Augustine or any other commentors. So, I agree with you, but why were you directing that at me? Did I miss something again?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It was in (your) post #25:

So, you believe in a state of grace then? Now, that's outdated right there. So, then God already knows who is going and who is not? So, what the point of doing any converting or praying? Are you sure you have not read Augustine?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Okay, but I think there may have been a missunderstanding. In the thread about converts in the Buddhism forum Suegha and I were discussing similar topics and he had said he had not read Augustine, but then he, in this thread, starts talking about the state of grace, which is an Augustine view. So, I asked him why he would believe in grace when most Christian nowadays believe that you could earn your way into heaven by being a good Christian, thus missionaries. I am making sense, or did I miss the point you were making. I can be slow sometimes, sorry.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I hate to sound Like I'm repeating my self - No I have not read Augustine, nor do I care what he wrote. However, on the subject 'of grace' thaibebop wrote "Now, that's outdated right there." No it's not, it's biblical. The word is used 170 times in the Bible, 130 of those in the NT and the one I quoted was from Eph 2 vv 8-9 "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith - and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God - not by works, so that no one can boast." So it's not outdated, God never changes. This also deals with thaibebop's comment "most Christian nowadays believe that you could earn your way into heaven by being a good Christian". I have never met a Christian who said this. They can think it if they like but it's not scriptural! We can not earn our salvation!

Just one more thing, thaibebop wrote "So, then God already knows who is going and who is not? " I'm taking this to mean God knows who will have salvation and who won't, correct me if I'm wrong. Yes, God does know, he is the all seeing all knowing omnipotent God, he knows the beggining from the end, however, we don't! This is exactly the point of us (as you put it) "doing any converting or praying". I hope that clarifys things.

Yeah, so, let me repeat myself, CHRISTIANS AREN"T LIKE YOU. Okay? You have your nose so far in the book you don't know what other Christians are doing or what they believe. So, please read something else before telling me what Christians are, becuase you have no clue. I said it before, but, you should care what Augustine wrote and others like him because they have influenced modern Christian thinking, thus how that book of yours is understood by other Chirstians. And the whole grace thing has been thrown out a long time ago because why would any want to be a Christian if what they did had no effect of getting them into heaven? The Church (which ever one you want to use) isn't going to get modern people in the pews by saying that God has predetermined who is going to h3ll and who to heaven and there is nothing you can do about it. So, yes it is an outdated concept.

[Lilyflower]

Yeah, so, let me repeat myself, CHRISTIANS AREN"T LIKE YOU. Okay? You have your nose so far in the book you don't know what other Christians are doing or what they believe. So, please read something else before telling me what Christians are, becuase you have no clue. I said it before, but, you should care what Augustine wrote and others like him because they have influenced modern Christian thinking, thus how that book of yours is understood by other Chirstians. And the whole grace thing has been thrown out a long time ago because why would any want to be a Christian if what they did had no effect of getting them into heaven? The Church (which ever one you want to use) isn't going to get modern people in the pews by saying that God has predetermined who is going to h3ll and who to heaven and there is nothing you can do about it. So, yes it is an outdated concept.

wow thaibebop! your post reads like you think all christians are the same... are you saying that all modern christians think the same, and that all christians believe in going to heaven or he11? i think suegha describes himself as a christian - but he just doesn't believe some stuff that some other christians believe.

i know loads of christians who believe (fundamentally) different things to each other - and i know loads of christians who don't believe in the concepts of heaven and he11 as places of eternal reward or punishment...

i think from the people i discuss these things with that there are variations of belief within people who share the same 'title' (eg christian) - sometimes over absolutely fundamental things (eg heaven and hel_l!). i think that's the same for other major religions too - eg some muslims think islam justifies killing non-muslims, some think the opposite and say it condemns the taking of innocent life - and i'm sure there are similar examples in other religions...

a previous 'poster' wrote about foundationalists and fundamentalists... i really appreciated those definitions - i'd not heard of foundationalists before. sounds to me like suegha is a 'foundationalist' who believes that christ was the 'messiah', and that the 'holy scriptures' are complete (which could be why he calls himself a christian). if that's the case, why should he read augustine (except out of general interest)? it would have no effect on his general beliefs or faith. i'm sure there must be many writers (across religions and with no religion) who don't believe in the concept of 'grace' - but then there are church of england bishops in england who don't believe quite a bit of what the bible says!

surely by definition, a foundationalist wouldn't believe that it's possible for the bible to be 'outdated'? (would welcome the original poster's view on this...)

ps - just wanted to apologise ... as you can tell, i'm new to this!

i didn't know how to check who'd said about foundationalists and fundamentalists once i'd started to post a reply!!! so, thanks sabaijai for your definitions. and, as i said, i'd appreciate your response to the question at the end of my previous post.

i'll get the hang of this soon...

[thaibebop]

Yeah, so, let me repeat myself, CHRISTIANS AREN"T LIKE YOU. Okay? You have your nose so far in the book you don't know what other Christians are doing or what they believe. So, please read something else before telling me what Christians are, becuase you have no clue. I said it before, but, you should care what Augustine wrote and others like him because they have influenced modern Christian thinking, thus how that book of yours is understood by other Chirstians. And the whole grace thing has been thrown out a long time ago because why would any want to be a Christian if what they did had no effect of getting them into heaven? The Church (which ever one you want to use) isn't going to get modern people in the pews by saying that God has predetermined who is going to h3ll and who to heaven and there is nothing you can do about it. So, yes it is an outdated concept.

wow thaibebop! your post reads like you think all christians are the same... are you saying that all modern christians think the same, and that all christians believe in going to heaven or he11? i think suegha describes himself as a christian - but he just doesn't believe some stuff that some other christians believe.

i know loads of christians who believe (fundamentally) different things to each other - and i know loads of christians who don't believe in the concepts of heaven and he11 as places of eternal reward or punishment...

i think from the people i discuss these things with that there are variations of belief within people who share the same 'title' (eg christian) - sometimes over absolutely fundamental things (eg heaven and hel_l!). i think that's the same for other major religions too - eg some muslims think islam justifies killing non-muslims, some think the opposite and say it condemns the taking of innocent life - and i'm sure there are similar examples in other religions...

a previous 'poster' wrote about foundationalists and fundamentalists... i really appreciated those definitions - i'd not heard of foundationalists before. sounds to me like suegha is a 'foundationalist' who believes that christ was the 'messiah', and that the 'holy scriptures' are complete (which could be why he calls himself a christian). if that's the case, why should he read augustine (except out of general interest)? it would have no effect on his general beliefs or faith. i'm sure there must be many writers (across religions and with no religion) who don't believe in the concept of 'grace' - but then there are church of england bishops in england who don't believe quite a bit of what the bible says!

surely by definition, a foundationalist wouldn't believe that it's possible for the bible to be 'outdated'? (would welcome the original poster's view on this...)

ps - just wanted to apologise ... as you can tell, i'm new to this!

i didn't know how to check who'd said about foundationalists and fundamentalists once i'd started to post a reply!!! so, thanks sabaijai for your definitions. and, as i said, i'd appreciate your response to the question at the end of my previous post.

i'll get the hang of this soon...

Trying reading my post and then respond. It might work better.

Edited January 6, 2006 by thaibebop

[suegha]

Thaibebop wrote "Yeah, so, let me repeat myself, CHRISTIANS AREN"T LIKE YOU. Okay? You have your nose so far in the book you don't know what other Christians are doing or what they believe. So, please read something else before telling me what Christians are, becuase you have no clue. I said it before, but, you should care what Augustine wrote and others like him because they have influenced modern Christian thinking, thus how that book of yours is understood by other Chirstians. And the whole grace thing has been thrown out a long time ago because why would any want to be a Christian if what they did had no effect of getting them into heaven? The Church (which ever one you want to use) isn't going to get modern people in the pews by saying that God has predetermined who is going to h3ll and who to heaven and there is nothing you can do about it. So, yes it is an outdated concept."

I respond with...

Thaibebop, let me deal with your points in turn in and add a few more constructive comments.

1. I don’t like people SHOUTING at me so please desist!

2. How can you say I haven’t got a clue? 30 years of bible study and a ‘thinking’ mind tells me I have got a clue!

3. I believe the bible to be the inspired word of God and therefore it can never be outdated, regardless of what a man (or men) might say.

4. I don’t care what other Christians might think if it contradicts what the bible says.

5. I don’t believe in he11 or heaven going at death, it is apostate doctrine and not what the bible teaches.

6. Yes, God is omnipotent, knowing the beginning from the end, this is what the bible teaches so it’s good enough for me.

7. How can you know what ‘all’ Christians believe? I don’t claim to. Also, I have never met a Christian who disagrees with salvation by grace through faith!

Finally I found your post (and your subsequent post to lilyflower) confrontational and that is not what I wish to encounter on a forum. If you wish to post more, please avoid the confrontational tone and I would be happy to respond.

Edited January 6, 2006 by suegha

[Lilyflower]

thaibebop wrote...

Trying reading my post and then respond. It might work better.

hmmmn... did you think i responded without reading your post? what was it i said that made you think that?

i thought i was responding quite clearly to the points you made in your post.

[thaibebop]

Thaibebop wrote "Yeah, so, let me repeat myself, CHRISTIANS AREN"T LIKE YOU. Okay? You have your nose so far in the book you don't know what other Christians are doing or what they believe. So, please read something else before telling me what Christians are, becuase you have no clue. I said it before, but, you should care what Augustine wrote and others like him because they have influenced modern Christian thinking, thus how that book of yours is understood by other Chirstians. And the whole grace thing has been thrown out a long time ago because why would any want to be a Christian if what they did had no effect of getting them into heaven? The Church (which ever one you want to use) isn't going to get modern people in the pews by saying that God has predetermined who is going to h3ll and who to heaven and there is nothing you can do about it. So, yes it is an outdated concept."

I respond with...

Thaibebop, let me deal with your points in turn in and add a few more constructive comments.

1. I don’t like people SHOUTING at me so please desist! I have said a number of times yet your posts do identify that you have read or understood this, so perhaps if I type it caps you will take notice. For your benefit I will say it again. I am not having a go at you, we are discussing other people, a group to be sure, who are not all the same, yet hold similar beliefs. This is not about you. Yes?

2. How can you say I haven’t got a clue? 30 years of bible study and nothing else? tells me I have got a clue. And I say you don't because I have read the words and heard from the lips of many Christians the views which I have shared here. No, they are not all alike and I think you need reminding more of that then me. What branch are you? Do you support a branch? What verison of the Bible are you reading from? Is is protestant or Catholic? If protestant, again which branch? Don't sit here and tell me that you are influenced by only the Bible, for how that book was translated over the years in the influence of man, and even if you refuse to learn about those men, you are still being influenced by them.

3. I believe the bible to be the inspired word of God and therefore it can never be outdated, regardless of what a man (or men) might say. It's not about you, it's about these other Christians and their beliefs.

4. I don’t care what other Christians might think if it contradicts what the bible says. But, that is what we are talking about so if you don't care stop talking about it.

5. I don’t believe in he11 or heaven going at death, it is apostate doctrine and not what the bible teaches. It's not about you, it's about these other Christians and their beliefs.

6. Yes, God is omnipotent, knowing the beginning from the end, this is what the bible teaches so it’s good enough for me. It's not about you, it's about these other Christians and their beliefs.

7. How can you know what ‘all’ Christians believe? I don’t claim to. Everytime you defend them instead of looking at what they are doing you claim to. Also, I have never met a Christian who disagrees with salvation by grace through faith! Grace through faith? Grace is God's ticket to heaven. Before the church split grace was something that was given by god through on action on your part. Grace of God meant that he already knew you were going to heaven. So, for those that did not have this grace it mattered little what they do because there was no way for them to escape h3ll. Grace through faith is the new verison which says that through faith and good works any one can get to heaven. Which is the point I was trying to make earlier, that Grace was outdated, because the church now says anyone can go to heaven. You don't know any of this because you have only read one book. So, why debate me? I am not talking about what is in the bible but what the different sects of Christianity are currently teaching. Are we clear yet? I have had to be the confrontational because I do not wish to repeat myself any more. So, perhaps if I make sure there is no beating around the bush you will understand me. Okay?

Finally I found your post (and your subsequent post to lilyflower) confrontational and that is not what I wish to encounter on a forum. If you wish to post more, please avoid the confrontational tone and I would be happy to respond.

Edited January 7, 2006 by thaibebop

[RonanTheBarbarian]

Suegha:

You claim to not want a "confrontational" board and yet you throw around accusations of other Christian denominations that they are "apostate" quite freely.

AFAIK (i was brought up a Catholic but didnt pay much attention in religion class) the Catholic church believes in Heaven and hel_l (along with the Orthodox churches), so to claim that churches that preach the existence of Heaven and hel_l are apostate straight away offends about 60 to 70% of Christians worldwide.

Casually referring to their beliefs as "apostate" seems pretty confrontational to me.

In addition you boast about having read the Bible many times, but you also say you have never read St. Augustine. (In the interests of full disclosure I should state that i never read a word of thim either). Since St. Augustine is regarded as an extremely significant theological thinker by both the aforementioned churches and most Anglican, (and i think Lutheran) churches, basically you are out of step with 80% of Christians worldwide.

Not that there is necessarily anything wrong with that, for all i know you could be right and they could all be wrong.

However, it does mean that (from a purely statistical point of view) thaibehop was nearly right to state that (to copy his irritating use of caps and all) CHRISTIANS AREN"T LIKE YOU. He would have been more right to state that "OVER 80% OF CHRISTIANS AREN"T LIKE YOU".

Even still i am not sure what point he was trying to make, but perhaps the above provides some clarification.

Edited January 7, 2006 by RonanTheBarbarian

[thaibebop]

Yeah, so, let me repeat myself, CHRISTIANS AREN"T LIKE YOU. Okay? You have your nose so far in the book you don't know what other Christians are doing or what they believe. So, please read something else before telling me what Christians are, becuase you have no clue. I said it before, but, you should care what Augustine wrote and others like him because they have influenced modern Christian thinking, thus how that book of yours is understood by other Chirstians. And the whole grace thing has been thrown out a long time ago because why would any want to be a Christian if what they did had no effect of getting them into heaven? The Church (which ever one you want to use) isn't going to get modern people in the pews by saying that God has predetermined who is going to h3ll and who to heaven and there is nothing you can do about it. So, yes it is an outdated concept.

wow thaibebop! your post reads like you think all christians are the same...No, I even said so in caps. are you saying that all modern christians think the same, and that all christians believe in going to heaven or he11? i think suegha describes himself as a christian - but he just doesn't believe some stuff that some other christians believe.

i know loads of christians who believe (fundamentally) different things to each other - and i know loads of christians who don't believe in the concepts of heaven and he11 as places of eternal reward or punishment...Look at my post, see the word highlighted and enlarged, that is what we are talking about, not heaven and h3ll, but the concept of Grace being out dated. Read my other new post to suegha if grace is confusing you.

i think from the people i discuss these things with that there are variations of belief within people who share the same 'title' (eg christian) - sometimes over absolutely fundamental things (eg heaven and hel_l!). i think that's the same for other major religions too - eg some muslims think islam justifies killing non-muslims, some think the opposite and say it condemns the taking of innocent life - and i'm sure there are similar examples in other religions...

a previous 'poster' wrote about foundationalists and fundamentalists... i really appreciated those definitions - i'd not heard of foundationalists before. sounds to me like suegha is a 'foundationalist' who believes that christ was the 'messiah', and that the 'holy scriptures' are complete (which could be why he calls himself a christian). if that's the case, why should he read augustine (except out of general interest)? it would have no effect on his general beliefs or faith. i'm sure there must be many writers (across religions and with no religion) who don't believe in the concept of 'grace' - but then there are church of england bishops in england who don't believe quite a bit of what the bible says!

surely by definition, a foundationalist wouldn't believe that it's possible for the bible to be 'outdated'? (would welcome the original poster's view on this...)

ps - just wanted to apologise ... as you can tell, i'm new to this!

i didn't know how to check who'd said about foundationalists and fundamentalists once i'd started to post a reply!!! so, thanks sabaijai for your definitions. and, as i said, i'd appreciate your response to the question at the end of my previous post.

i'll get the hang of this soon...

thaibebop wrote...

Trying reading my post and then respond. It might work better.

hmmmn... did you think i responded without reading your post? what was it i said that made you think that?

i thought i was responding quite clearly to the points you made in your post.

Most of what I wrote in my post is part of the growing history between Suegha and myself which started in another thread in another forum, so not understanding all of what I wrote isn't your fault, however, I will repeat that we were discussing grace.

[RonanTheBarbarian]

Thaibehop, could you provide some clarification?

You said "And the whole grace thing has been thrown out a long time ago"

When exactly do you mean by "a long time ago"

Which churches exactly have thrown it out? I thought that the Catholic church (which, everyone should remember, is the most important Christian church by far, statistically speaking) never really bought in to the whole "salvation by grace alone" theory in the first place?

And, do you know, do

a) Anglicans

b)Eastern orthodox

c) Presbyterians

d)Baptists

currently beleive in Grace?

Edited January 7, 2006 by RonanTheBarbarian

[khall64au]

I reckon OFF TOPIC... you lot want to argue religion but the OP was discussing the rise of churches in Khao Lak....

Any first hand knowledge to contibute here? That would make for an interesting discussion

Edited January 7, 2006 by khall64au

[thaibebop]

Thaibehop, could you provide some clarification?

You said "And the whole grace thing has been thrown out a long time ago"

When exactly do you mean by "a long time ago"

Which churches exactly have thrown it out? I thought that the Catholic church (which, everyone should remember, is the most important Christian church by far, statistically speaking) never really bought in to the whole "salvation by grace alone" theory in the first place?

And, do you know, do

a) Anglicans

b)Eastern orthodox

c) Presbyterians

d)Baptists

currently beleive in Grace?

Yes, you are right I should be more clear. Many sects outside of the ones you have mentioned do not hold to the grace idea, but I was lazy because I was thinking of American Christians who are mostly of Protestant sects which do not believe in grace. They are the majority here, so that is what I was thinking of. So, very outdated for America. I have family members who are Presbyterians and they are not taught the "only through grace" thing.

I reckon OFF TOPIC... you lot want to argue religion but the OP was discussing the rise of churches in Khao Lak....

Any first hand knowledge to contibute here? That would make for an interesting discussion

And what are churches Khall?

[Lilyflower]

Suegha:

You claim to not want a "confrontational" board and yet you throw around accusations of other Christian denominations that they are "apostate" quite freely.

AFAIK (i was brought up a Catholic but didnt pay much attention in religion class) the Catholic church believes in Heaven and hel_l (along with the Orthodox churches), so to claim that churches that preach the existence of Heaven and hel_l are apostate straight away offends about 60 to 70% of Christians worldwide.

Casually referring to their beliefs as "apostate" seems pretty confrontational to me.

In addition you boast about having read the Bible many times, but you also say you have never read St. Augustine. (In the interests of full disclosure I should state that i never read a word of thim either). Since St. Augustine is regarded as an extremely significant theological thinker by both the aforementioned churches and most Anglican, (and i think Lutheran) churches, basically you are out of step with 80% of Christians worldwide.

Not that there is necessarily anything wrong with that, for all i know you could be right and they could all be wrong.

However, it does mean that (from a purely statistical point of view) thaibehop was nearly right to state that (to copy his irritating use of caps and all) CHRISTIANS AREN"T LIKE YOU. He would have been more right to state that "OVER 80% OF CHRISTIANS AREN"T LIKE YOU".

Even still i am not sure what point he was trying to make, but perhaps the above provides some clarification.

well worded post RTB... i like your logical approach!

Edited January 7, 2006 by Lilyflower

[suegha]

Suegha:

You claim to not want a "confrontational" board and yet you throw around accusations of other Christian denominations that they are "apostate" quite freely.

AFAIK (i was brought up a Catholic but didnt pay much attention in religion class) the Catholic church believes in Heaven and hel_l (along with the Orthodox churches), so to claim that churches that preach the existence of Heaven and hel_l are apostate straight away offends about 60 to 70% of Christians worldwide.

Casually referring to their beliefs as "apostate" seems pretty confrontational to me.

In addition you boast about having read the Bible many times, but you also say you have never read St. Augustine. (In the interests of full disclosure I should state that i never read a word of thim either). Since St. Augustine is regarded as an extremely significant theological thinker by both the aforementioned churches and most Anglican, (and i think Lutheran) churches, basically you are out of step with 80% of Christians worldwide.

Not that there is necessarily anything wrong with that, for all i know you could be right and they could all be wrong.

However, it does mean that (from a purely statistical point of view) thaibehop was nearly right to state that (to copy his irritating use of caps and all) CHRISTIANS AREN"T LIKE YOU. He would have been more right to state that "OVER 80% OF CHRISTIANS AREN"T LIKE YOU".

Even still i am not sure what point he was trying to make, but perhaps the above provides some clarification.

Fair comment on my use of apostate, apologies if it came across as confrontational! It was in response to thaibebops comments and it proves the saying that 'behaviour is reflective'. So apologies to any who may have been offended.

I was also brought up a Roman Catholic but did pay attention in religious class, hence my moving off to look for truth. I do wish to state though, I am not putting these opinions forward to say everyone else is wrong, we must search for the truth, it can't be given to us (especially on a forum).

I accept that from a purely statistacal stand point I am in the minority but this should not put anyone off in their pursuit of the truth.

Thank you for your comments.

[Ajarn_Jonesy]

Thaibehop, could you provide some clarification?

You said "And the whole grace thing has been thrown out a long time ago"

When exactly do you mean by "a long time ago"

Which churches exactly have thrown it out? I thought that the Catholic church (which, everyone should remember, is the most important Christian church by far, statistically speaking) never really bought in to the whole "salvation by grace alone" theory in the first place?

And, do you know, do

a) Anglicans

b)Eastern orthodox

c) Presbyterians

d)Baptists

currently beleive in Grace?

Yes, you are right I should be more clear. Many sects outside of the ones you have mentioned do not hold to the grace idea, but I was lazy because I was thinking of American Christians who are mostly of Protestant sects which do not believe in grace. They are the majority here, so that is what I was thinking of. So, very outdated for America. I have family members who are Presbyterians and they are not taught the "only through grace" thing.

I reckon OFF TOPIC... you lot want to argue religion but the OP was discussing the rise of churches in Khao Lak....

Any first hand knowledge to contibute here? That would make for an interesting discussion

And what are churches Khall?

I can't say that I agree with you on the subject of Grace TB. I certainly can't agree with you when it comes to american christians. Last time I checked Presbyterians were not a main stream movement... The problem is not that the churches don't believe in grace. the problem is that they don't teach it anymore..

I think you will agree that what we hear from most churches today is either hel_l and brimfire, or you just have to love every one ...

UNFORTUNATELY CHRISTIANS FEEL THAT THEY HAVE TO CHANGE THE MESSAGE OF THE BIBLE TO BRING MORE PEOPLE IN TO THE CHURCH..

One thing that bothers me about american christian churches is that all they seem to care about is the number of people whose names are on the books.. (AT LEAST THATS WHAT I SEE) even in my own church.

[Misplaced]

Good point lilyflower.  A christians good works are a manifestation of their faith.  They should be doing it with absolutley no strings attached, otherwise it proves itself to be false in its motivation. And the motivation is all important.  Ther should be absolutley no ulterior motive.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's why I mentioned the Salvation Army earlier on in this thread. They're a prime example of the 'no strings' approach and I admire them greatly.

This came on the news a couple of weeks ago, A California Based Salvation army were just caught taking the donation money and spending it for personal gain Not only that, but they were also caught taking donated items home.

apparently, these people pretended to help but infact took all the good thingsthat were donated to the needy. I gave to the Tsunami victims, I gave to the Hurricane Katrina, all through The salvation Army. Since this story hits the air, I will no longer give anything to this crooked organization. Am I bitter?, H-LL yeah

[suegha]

Good point lilyflower.  A christians good works are a manifestation of their faith.  They should be doing it with absolutley no strings attached, otherwise it proves itself to be false in its motivation. And the motivation is all important.  Ther should be absolutley no ulterior motive.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's why I mentioned the Salvation Army earlier on in this thread. They're a prime example of the 'no strings' approach and I admire them greatly.

This came on the news a couple of weeks ago, A California Based Salvation army were just caught taking the donation money and spending it for personal gain Not only that, but they were also caught taking donated items home.

apparently, these people pretended to help but infact took all the good thingsthat were donated to the needy. I gave to the Tsunami victims, I gave to the Hurricane Katrina, all through The salvation Army. Since this story hits the air, I will no longer give anything to this crooked organization. Am I bitter?, H-LL yeah

I think you are proving a point made many times throughout this thread. There are good and bad everywhere, but does mean that we should judge all as bad just because some are? I don't think so...

[cdnvic]

apparently, these people pretended to help but infact took all the good thingsthat were donated to the needy. I gave to the Tsunami victims, I gave to the Hurricane Katrina, all through The salvation Army. Since this story hits the air, I will no longer give anything to this crooked organization. Am I bitter?, H-LL yeah

You are writing off a whole organization over the actions of a few. Perhaps Californians can't be trusted? Or Americans?

I've seen Salvation Army volunteers caring for too many people without favour to any particular religion or other creed too many times to ever classify them as a crooked organization. You are way off the mark here.

I'm not a christian, and do not normally give money to religious organizations. The Salvation Army and The Mennonite Central Committee are the two exceptions as I have great respect for their work.

cv

[suegha]

apparently, these people pretended to help but infact took all the good thingsthat were donated to the needy. I gave to the Tsunami victims, I gave to the Hurricane Katrina, all through The salvation Army. Since this story hits the air, I will no longer give anything to this crooked organization. Am I bitter?, H-LL yeah

You are writing off a whole organization over the actions of a few. Perhaps Californians can't be trusted? Or Americans?

I've seen Salvation Army volunteers caring for too many people without favour to any particular religion or other creed too many times to ever classify them as a crooked organization. You are way off the mark here.

I'm not a christian, and do not normally give money to religious organizations. The Salvation Army and The Mennonite Central Committee are the two exceptions as I have great respect for their work.

cv

A good point perfectly made! This sort of thinking leads to mass hatred, sexism, racism and any other 'ism' you care to name. We should never judge the many by the actions of the few.

[aaaaaa]

I think it is worth mentioning another point, which is not exactly philosophical or methapisical, but nevertheless plays as an importatn, often essential factor in religious issues.

that is - orginized religion. which simply and briefly is "material" side of any and every religion.

the thing is - religion is some or other way or spiritual practice which helps an individual to get closer to god or divine or whatever the term. to achive that goal, practitioner has to have some means of practice - which include certain place of worship and congregation with fellow belivers (which is also stressed as an important factor perhaps in all religions - anybody knows any other religions which doesn't emphasize it?), in some cases and according to level of practitioner's commitment, certain dress code and other external designations, attributes, paraphernalia etc.

then of course priests or whatever they are called (leaders or instructors), all related and involved workers or functionaries - to manage and administer property, funds, even political influence.

so, all this requires money or what it can buy (land, real estate property etc.) - in fact quite good money, to be able to survive the race with "competitors".

what I'm saying is - ordinary people or belivers, might not be aware of or even think about all those things, for them their religion is only a matter of belief or faith, and individual personal relations with God - as it ultimately should be. however more or less, consiously or not, they are the "grass root" nucleas of that whole ORGANIZATION (which can also be viewed as business company trying to monopolize particular product) of their particular ORGINIZED religion.

and on those other, higher than first "grass root" level, there are practically all the things and phenomenas as in any other organization or company, or government for example. yes - there is hierarchy, corruption, struggle for power and position, money etc.

and all these things are MATERIAL, not spiritual. yes, since practitioners are still situated in material realm, not even in heaven, it is natural that material means has to be employed and used to facilitate mass practice of particular faith or religion.

and ironically, most often, if not always, that material side influences or directly dictates / decides how the scriptures must be interpreted / understood / translated/ preached; how the worship should be conducted - practically all the spiritual issues ultimately "VOTED" by bureaucrats on high levels.

and coming to original post and subject of missionaries or proselytism. and all sort of methods / means to achive that - inluding latest innovations and technics and technology. and accordingly - all the outcomes of that, especially of unfair and dirty methods.

nowdays with all the developments of highly advanced technological era it is common to associate the religion (its spiritual, philosophical, methaphisical essence) with organization with monopolizes it. that's why Marx (or Engels?) made that famous statement: "religion - opiate of the masses". it is a perfect example how two things made to be one and imposed upon person.

"Religion in any shape or form is regarded as pernicious and deliberate falsehood, spread and encouraged by rulers and clerics in their own interests, since it is easier to control over the ignorant." In this model, the development of religion is seen as analogous to the growth of a cancer: and the most "developed" religion would be no religion at all.

have anyone read Ludlum's The Road to Gandolfo ? there he entertains the idea of fictional character who has decided to kidnap Pope - to make money. since Catholic church has world's biggest congregation, if each good christian would give only 1$ for roansom of beloved pontiff - that would already be quite a good sum ! The Problem: Pope Francesco I says: "Gentle souls, why not?" although this book is considered a funniest comedy and might be hardly thought a reference for serious matter - the main point there is good and serious enough - that it is one of the best ways to make money. well, at least for me it illustrates nicely the phenomena of "orginized religion".

Catholic Christianity I think is the most developed religion. many even argue that it was partially or entirely made up - Roman emperors (particulalry Constantine I The Great - "political genius, expediently using Christianity to unify unifying and strengthening the Empire, rather than a spiritual move", although "pagan gradually converted to Christianity, using his new belief for personal ends") eventually gave up trying to supress its spreading, decided rather to legalise it and use, keeping under control, implementing many pagan symbols, rites, holidays etc.

"With the creation of the Nicene Creed, a precedent was established for subsequent general councils to create a statement of belief and canons which was intended to become orthodox for all Christians. It would serve to unify the Church and provide a clear guideline over disputed matters on what it meant to be a practicing Christian, a momentous event in the history of the Church and subsequent history of Europe...... Theologians critical of of the Constantinian shift as a critical point at which membership in the church became associated with citizenship rather than a personal decision"

so, ever since Constantine, development of an orginised religion and its use for political and state purposes has encreased very much. nowdays it is so developed that to ignore its factor in religious issues would simply be one-sided and I bet often would cause "miss the point". because often missionary activities and even philosophical disagreements within same religion are due to those organizational or political reasons rather than because of genuinely spiritual.

[sendbaht]

"&lt;deleted&gt;*king christians... Always get people when they're down.

Keep Thailand Bhuddist I say, they need our religion like they need are fast food."

AMEN brother!!!