Jump to content
BANGKOK 21 July 2019 07:36
Sign in to follow this  
Duangta

25 Churches Now In Khao Lak

Recommended Posts

Okay, I am not trying to convince anyone of anything, I would just ask you to apply the same logic to the following as you have just applied to the above.

Here in Liverpool UK we have local buddists who invite people to their meetings.  They go out and help the homeless, they invited people who are lonely at Christmas to come along and have a meal in the company - and, I'm sure, doing many other works...

Now let's apply the above logic...

F**king buddists getting people when they are down, keep Britain Christian, we need their religion like we need their spicy food...

Makes more sense now, doesn't it?

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.

No Christian should call themselves good! Doing something kind or good will not impress God or secure any reward. Eph 2 vv8-9 "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."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Okay, I am not trying to convince anyone of anything, I would just ask you to apply the same logic to the following as you have just applied to the above.

Here in Liverpool UK we have local buddists who invite people to their meetings.  They go out and help the homeless, they invited people who are lonely at Christmas to come along and have a meal in the company - and, I'm sure, doing many other works...

Now let's apply the above logic...

F**king buddists getting people when they are down, keep Britain Christian, we need their religion like we need their spicy food...

Makes more sense now, doesn't it?

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.

No Christian should call themselves good! Doing something kind or good will not impress God or secure any reward. Eph 2 vv8-9 "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."

:o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:D

A bit of tolerance please. I don't have time for people slagging off christianity anymore than I do the disrespecting of any other religion. Discuss if you wish but try to be respectful. :o

cv

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Okay, I am not trying to convince anyone of anything, I would just ask you to apply the same logic to the following as you have just applied to the above.

Here in Liverpool UK we have local buddists who invite people to their meetings.  They go out and help the homeless, they invited people who are lonely at Christmas to come along and have a meal in the company - and, I'm sure, doing many other works...

Now let's apply the above logic...

F**king buddists getting people when they are down, keep Britain Christian, we need their religion like we need their spicy food...

Makes more sense now, doesn't it?

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.

No Christian should call themselves good! Doing something kind or good will not impress God or secure any reward. Eph 2 vv8-9 "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."

In that case, faith itself is the "good work". The point remains, does one have faith or seek grace because one is worthy of grace or because one fears losing eternal life in the kingdom of heaven? It seems to me that fear may be the prime factor.

The principle teaching instrument for spreading the gospel - the Bible - carries fear as a main theme. If you look up every instance of "kingdom of heaven" in the Bible, for example (easy to do online), almost all mentions promote a message along the lines of 'Repent or you won't make the Kingdom!' or else 'Only the righteous get to enter!' Mostly threats.

There is one long, very obscure passage about the KOH:

"Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a net, that was cast into the sea, and gathered of every kind: Which, when it was full, they drew to shore, and sat down, and gathered the good into vessels, but cast the bad away." Matthew 13

"Cast the bad away." The moral equivalent of violence.

Modern foundationalists try to minimize all the 'repent or else' kind of stuff but most mentions of the kingdom of heaven in the Bible are of that nature.

It's similar to the way many modern western Buddhists try to ignore the mysticism contained in the Tipitika, and the problem of defining the mind. The Tipitaka has several weak areas, which many Buddhist scholars readily admit. Yet it's not sinful to point that out, because one of the most famous discourses of the Buddha encourages skepticism of all scriptures, basically saying 'Don't believe anything because I (Buddha) say it, or because your parents or teachers say it. Test it and if it doesn't work in this lifetime, discard it.'

These are some differences between Buddhist and Christian missionary approaches. To point them out doesn't mean one is anti-Christian, just anti-violence. The notion that if one doesn't cleave to God's way, one will be 'cast out' or perish (as the missionary signs are prone to remind us here in Thailand) are common to all three Abrahamic monotheisms, i.e., Christianity, Judaism and Islam, and it's where these religions confront other religions that we have seen a great deal of sectarian violence both historically and at present.

Naturally I support the Khao Lak Thais' right to choose their own religion, I just hope it's for practical reasons (continued material assistance) rather than out of fear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A bit of tolerance please. I don't have time for people slagging off christianity anymore than I do the disrespecting of any other religion. Discuss if you wish but try to be respectful. :o

cv

cdnvic - my point is that it's an elitist point of view, who says the lad praying to a rock isn't any more right than the christian? I think its wrong to believe its my way or your damned. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:D

A bit of tolerance please. I don't have time for people slagging off christianity anymore than I do the disrespecting of any other religion. Discuss if you wish but try to be respectful. :o

cv

cdnvic - my point is that it's an elitist point of view, who says the lad praying to a rock isn't any more right than the christian? I think its wrong to believe its my way or your damned. :D

None of us know for sure. You are perfectly within your rights not to follow a religion, or believe its teachings, but it's not anymore right for you to assume that you are correct and deride their beliefs.

cv

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The notion that if one doesn't cleave to God's way, one will be 'cast out' or perish (as the missionary signs are prone to remind us here in Thailand) are common to all three Abrahamic monotheisms, i.e., Christianity, Judaism and Islam, and it's where these religions confront other religions that we have seen a great deal of sectarian violence both historically and at present.

Naturally I support the Khao Lak Thais' right to choose their own religion, I just hope it's for practical reasons (continued material assistance) rather than out of fear.

Surely if they're 'real' Christians they'd be doing their 'good works' regardless of how people respond to what they're doing...?

From the point of view of the Christians involved, they should be offering support to those in need - whoever they are, and whether or not they 'respond' by becoming Christian themselves. (I should say that although my understanding of the Christian message is that it is overwhelmingly a positive one, that is irrelevant here).

From the point of view of the Thais, I would hope they value their freewill choice of who to worship and how, more than to 'sell' their worship to the highest bidder (or, as you say, to 'give in' out of fear). They're surely welcome to take of anyone's charity with no strings attached.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The notion that if one doesn't cleave to God's way, one will be 'cast out' or perish (as the missionary signs are prone to remind us here in Thailand) are common to all three Abrahamic monotheisms, i.e., Christianity, Judaism and Islam, and it's where these religions confront other religions that we have seen a great deal of sectarian violence both historically and at present.

Naturally I support the Khao Lak Thais' right to choose their own religion, I just hope it's for practical reasons (continued material assistance) rather than out of fear.

Surely if they're 'real' Christians they'd be doing their 'good works' regardless of how people respond to what they're doing...?

From the point of view of the Christians involved, they should be offering support to those in need - whoever they are, and whether or not they 'respond' by becoming Christian themselves. (I should say that although my understanding of the Christian message is that it is overwhelmingly a positive one, that is irrelevant here).

From the point of view of the Thais, I would hope they value their freewill choice of who to worship and how, more than to 'sell' their worship to the highest bidder (or, as you say, to 'give in' out of fear). They're surely welcome to take of anyone's charity with no strings attached.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest endure
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.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Okay, I am not trying to convince anyone of anything, I would just ask you to apply the same logic to the following as you have just applied to the above.

Here in Liverpool UK we have local buddists who invite people to their meetings.  They go out and help the homeless, they invited people who are lonely at Christmas to come along and have a meal in the company - and, I'm sure, doing many other works...

Now let's apply the above logic...

F**king buddists getting people when they are down, keep Britain Christian, we need their religion like we need their spicy food...

Makes more sense now, doesn't it?

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.

No Christian should call themselves good! Doing something kind or good will not impress God or secure any reward. Eph 2 vv8-9 "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, 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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Okay, I am not trying to convince anyone of anything, I would just ask you to apply the same logic to the following as you have just applied to the above.

Here in Liverpool UK we have local buddists who invite people to their meetings.  They go out and help the homeless, they invited people who are lonely at Christmas to come along and have a meal in the company - and, I'm sure, doing many other works...

Now let's apply the above logic...

F**king buddists getting people when they are down, keep Britain Christian, we need their religion like we need their spicy food...

Makes more sense now, doesn't it?

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.

No Christian should call themselves good! Doing something kind or good will not impress God or secure any reward. Eph 2 vv8-9 "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."

In that case, faith itself is the "good work". The point remains, does one have faith or seek grace because one is worthy of grace or because one fears losing eternal life in the kingdom of heaven? It seems to me that fear may be the prime factor.

The principle teaching instrument for spreading the gospel - the Bible - carries fear as a main theme. If you look up every instance of "kingdom of heaven" in the Bible, for example (easy to do online), almost all mentions promote a message along the lines of 'Repent or you won't make the Kingdom!' or else 'Only the righteous get to enter!' Mostly threats.

There is one long, very obscure passage about the KOH:

"Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a net, that was cast into the sea, and gathered of every kind: Which, when it was full, they drew to shore, and sat down, and gathered the good into vessels, but cast the bad away." Matthew 13

"Cast the bad away." The moral equivalent of violence.

Modern foundationalists try to minimize all the 'repent or else' kind of stuff but most mentions of the kingdom of heaven in the Bible are of that nature.

It's similar to the way many modern western Buddhists try to ignore the mysticism contained in the Tipitika, and the problem of defining the mind. The Tipitaka has several weak areas, which many Buddhist scholars readily admit. Yet it's not sinful to point that out, because one of the most famous discourses of the Buddha encourages skepticism of all scriptures, basically saying 'Don't believe anything because I (Buddha) say it, or because your parents or teachers say it. Test it and if it doesn't work in this lifetime, discard it.'

These are some differences between Buddhist and Christian missionary approaches. To point them out doesn't mean one is anti-Christian, just anti-violence. The notion that if one doesn't cleave to God's way, one will be 'cast out' or perish (as the missionary signs are prone to remind us here in Thailand) are common to all three Abrahamic monotheisms, i.e., Christianity, Judaism and Islam, and it's where these religions confront other religions that we have seen a great deal of sectarian violence both historically and at present.

Naturally I support the Khao Lak Thais' right to choose their own religion, I just hope it's for practical reasons (continued material assistance) rather than out of fear.

Nice post! :o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
These are some differences between Buddhist and Christian missionary approaches. To point them out doesn't mean one is anti-Christian, just anti-violence. The notion that if one doesn't cleave to God's way, one will be 'cast out' or perish (as the missionary signs are prone to remind us here in Thailand) are common to all three Abrahamic monotheisms, i.e., Christianity, Judaism and Islam, and it's where these religions confront other religions that we have seen a great deal of sectarian violence both historically and at present.

Naturally I support the Khao Lak Thais' right to choose their own religion, I just hope it's for practical reasons (continued material assistance) rather than out of fear.

yeah, I agree with thaibebop - nice and thoughtfull post, sabaijai - thanks !

Re "faith" - in modern world most of even those people who do regular spiritual practice mostly understand it as merely belief, which is actyually only preliminary stage of developing one's relations with God (ultimate spiritual goal). and you have touched upon this matter nicely. actually real faith is same as seeking grace - one's sincere confidence in it's availability at least; as well as - dependence on it as main factor. true - in real spiritual relations, fear has no place but rather spontaneous attraction towards those spiritual relations, based upon realised personal knowledge.

however different people have different level of consiousness - and according to it as well as such main factors as time, place and circumstances, some particular kind of religion is introduced (in other terms - given by some bona fide spiritual represantative). and since majority are on lowest levels of consiousness - fear of God is usually the main factor. it is natural - how to convince materialist in better way?

gradually (with evolution of consiousness or can be said spirit) it may change...

Islam has usually more of God-fearing persuasions....

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

The term is applied particularly to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, as well as Zoroastrianism. Some eastern religions, notably Vaishava, Saiva, Sikhism, and some Hindu sects, tend to promote the omnipotence of one particular god within the pantheon, and thus display some monotheistic characteristics.

and last thing about sectarianism - well, even within each particular religion,even and especially in those 3 you've mentioned, there are plenty of sects, and a lot of vilonce - in fact so much that one might only wonder, why would people of SAME religion kill each other. like sunnis <-> shiits in Islam or Catholics <-> Protestants (who knows how many others ! I recall reading somewhere that as much as 250 different sects in Christianity); I don't recall sectarian violence in Buddhism, but I know for sure at least 2 sects : Theravada and Mahayana ....

CHRISTIAN SUB-MENU

Except perhaps for a few years between the execution of Yeshua of Nazareth (circa 30 CE) and the start of Paul's ministry (circa 36 CE), the Christian religion has never been unified....

There are on the order of 1,200 Christian organizations in North America ....

:o

Christianity FAQ - Index of Groups and Demoninations

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

so, sectarianism and sectarian violence not necessarily depends entirely ONLY on difference in religeous views (well, strictly that is called religious violence) - but rather on narrow-mindedness and strong belief that "OUR GROUP IS THE BEST". like my g/f doesn't even consider Catholics as true Christians - and never wnat even waste time talking about lesser groups as Mormons or baptists etc - unless with contempt. therefore I think sectarianism is actually more like - hooliganism among football fans - like in that movie Green Street. I mean - those guys also have their beliefs and strong devotion and feelings, and "practice" - and surely huge confidence that THEIR club is THE BEST - so, kick some sh1t out of rivals ! :D

no, realy - I've enjoyed your post ! there are many other interesting point worthy commenting on and deeper discussion. like KOH : actually in some spiritual traditions on highly advanced levels practitioners don't even seek "heavens" - because it is considered still part of this material realm; their ultimate goal is rather beyoun that - in spiritual realm. but then I guess that is woudl be too methaphisical to discuss here :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 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 Augustine, Thomas of Aquinas, Teilhard de Chardin, Blaise Pascal, etc would justify belief.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Do those Buddhists actually try and convert anyone to Buddhism?

They didn't set up missions abroad to get access to better TV :o

That is not really my experience cv. Almost all temples I have visited that are set up by Thais, vietnamese, cambodians, Loations, ..... really only serve their own communities. They make no effort to learn English to the level that they can give Dhamma talks. Thus I do not think they really set up temples to make converts or spread the Dhamma - only to serve their own communities, and for the presitige of haveing a branch temple in the West.

Some Burmese and Sri Lankan temples can be excepted from this generalisation.

The Dhamma propogation that occurs in the west is almost invariably led by Westerners.

The group Seugha mentioned are the FWBO which is a Western organisiation.

You will not find much prosletisation of Buddhism n the West. And certainly none of the aggressive form that the people here seem to infer is happening in the south of Thailand.

Some Christian organisations are very aggressive in their attmepts to convert. The Catholic church in the UK has a foundation that raises money purposefully for the convertion of Thailand into a Catholic country. It is not, however, representitive of all Catholics. Nor is it representitive of the Vatican II statement that other religions are a valid path to God.

Have to admit the Christians are better at spreading their message than Buddhists. Maybe this is what rankles ?

In New Zealand I visited the local Thai temple (where not a single monk was interested in talking in English about Dhamma, or any subject really) There was a very, very nice and genuine local parson (or vicar/Father I am not sure) who came to the temple 3 times a week to learn about Buddhism and Thai language - because he was going to Thailand to be a Missionary. Got to hand it to him .....

Interestingly, though some forms of Christianity are more aggressive (or pro-active if we look at it in a positive light) in spreading their message, Buddhism seems to be holding its own, and even spreading in the West. Maybe Buddhsits have to rely on the value of the message itself, rather than the means of delivery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

I don't remember what I posted before, but I know you're right. I can add the even the fundamentalists need someone to claify the scripture which means some "philospher" or leader is doing this. Maybe I should go back and find what I posted, I think I had point? :o:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...