Asian-Americans dominate Christian groups at elite universities [Archive]

Heyyu

Oct 6th, 2007, 01:33 AM

http://blog.oup.com/2007/09/faith_school/

"Times have changed. The Reverend Peter Gomes, Minister of Harvard’s Memorial Church, says, 'There are probably more evangelicals [on Harvard’s campus today] than at any time since the seventeenth century.'

In part, this can be attributed to the growing number of Asian-American students. On many Ivy League campuses, they have come to dominate evangelical groups. At Yale, 90 percent of the Campus Crusade for Christ members are Asian American; in the 1980s, the same chapter was 100 percent white. In fact, the growing presence of Asian-Americans on elite campuses may be the single largest demographic factor in evangelicalism’s ascent at places like Yale and Harvard."

You know what, I'm not surprised. Asians have always copied the white ways and hey, I guess if you get into that most WASPish of elite universities (the Ivy League), why not try to act like it too.

In fact, I remember at my university (went to U of Illinois), there were large Asian christian groups and one die-hard believer even spent 1 hour talking to me to try and convert me. Although U of Illinois is mostly white so there were also white christians as well as Asian christians. Not all of them were nutcases... but the ones that were fanatical took it to another level.

And to be honest, Asians in general tend to be conservative. Especially given our traditional social upbringing, so it's no wonder Christianity would appeal to the more conservative Asians. In fact, people talk about the Asian female/Asian male divide or whatever, but the greatest divide I see in the future is between the Asian Conservatives vs. Asian Liberals. Ironic since many Asians live in the more "liberal" blue-states like West Coast (California, Washington) & East Coast (New York, Washington DC, etc.).

So the liberal ones amongst us have to rebel really hard... moreso than the typical white liberal guy who wears emo make-up and plays his guitar.

awong

Oct 6th, 2007, 02:22 AM

i'm just glad the ones I know arent so bad, just as long as they dont join the bible distrubtion people that I've seen at school.

if I see an asian doing this I will start laughing very hard and taking more pictures to post online
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1165/898172727_d7050242c2.jpg
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1343/898172701_283c08e6d0.jpg
gotta love the optical zoom on my phone :lol:

little mixed girl

Oct 6th, 2007, 01:21 PM

^
o.m.g... i swear that "trust jesus" guy gets around.
i know he was in my town a year or so ago.

i give you a cookie "trust jesus" guy, you totally get around...and that's hot.

Chook

Oct 8th, 2007, 05:50 PM

As a christian, I find myself embarrassed by the hypocritical and self-righteous rantings of some of the more prominent members of the Church. The problem with much Christian evangelism is that it focuses on trying to "get sinners into heaven" and ignores (perhaps even contributes to) social injustices.The only people that Jesus condemned were the self-righteous religious hypocrites -he despised them. In many ways Jesus sought to rid the world of the relgious dogmas that contributed to social injustices.
In reality, Jesus was far from the "sweet, meek" character we have been taught to follow. He was a rebellious agitator angered by the manner in which religious teaching separated people from one another - that's why they killed him. Jesus taught that ALL people are the same in the eyes of God and this was and still is a very threatening message because it challenges the deepest prejudices of many individuals. This is a pertinent and empowering message for any minority that experiences discrimination - even Asians. People should believe what they want, but I don't think it wise to dismiss something because it's incorrectly described as "too white".

kimtae

Oct 8th, 2007, 10:40 PM

Chook

Oct 9th, 2007, 03:45 AM

"....take your colonized ass down the road".

"Unity in Diversity, Confidence.Compassion.Consciousness". This is the supposed mission of this site - you have exhibited none of these qualities. Your response to my post was concise but ignorant. YOU EVIDENTLY DON'T WALK YOUR TALK. Your apparent "militancy" is laughable. I've noticed a tendancy amongst "Asian "activists" and "advocates" to reject everything white and adopt everything non-white (especially black ideas), but let me assure you - YOU'RE STLL COPYING AND IMITATING something that isn't yours. If the aim of this site is to "unite" Asian conciousness then you are failing miserably. I'M NOT IMPRESSED WITH YOU. How does it unite anybody to off-handedly reject people or ideas especially when you seem incapable of producing an argument against it.
If you have arguments against my beliefs then please argue them. If you think that I'm colonized then why don't you share the ways in which this is the case? Isn't this site designed to spread the "de-colonized" Asian consciousness? If you believe that you have a better way then please tell. UNLIKE YOU - MY MIND IS NOT SO COLONIZED THAT I'M CLOSED TO NEW IDEAS.
I hope you have it in you to respond to this post - hopefully with a little more couth and a lot less ignorance.

Vetrean

Oct 9th, 2007, 07:02 PM

Didn't know couth was a noun. :x

I'm wondering the same thing as Chook is, myself.

nskripchun

Oct 9th, 2007, 11:37 PM

Chook, don't mind kimtae's brusque manner... I think he was just being funny. He's actually a really good guy.

As for your observation that too many Christians are caught in a vicious cycle of hypocrisy and self-righteousness, especially in regards to "evangelism"... I'm inclined to agree. It's particularly prevalent in the modern American church, especially in fundamentalist denominations...

Synthetic

Oct 9th, 2007, 11:55 PM

there's absolutely nothing wrong with believing in christianity.

to write something off because it's a "white man's religion" is like saying it's okay for white men to write off "asian men" things. and THAT is hypocrisy.

it's always been my belief that atheists don't base their beliefs off their own experiences. their arguments are always in REPONSE to something else...it's in response to forceful christian propaganda...it's in response to the pushy evangelist...it's in response to their private school upbringing...it's never about JUST god...it's about what christians represent and who atheists don't wanna be, and i think that's just as narrow minded as the forceful and pushy christians.

i know i grew up in a private catholic high school and to be honest, the people who were the most pushy were the atheists. the christians were more or less like "okay, you believe in that, and that's fine. i'm secure in my religious views."...it was always the non-believers that seemed like they had to prove their point.

...and i know this because i was a long time atheist myself.

it just seems incredibly backwards and fucked up to criticize a group of people on a board that promotes fighting against criticism.

Chook

Oct 10th, 2007, 04:24 AM

I think that my post was trying to explore the idea that one can be both Christian and a proud Asian, and that the one can indeed be a source of strength and inspiration for the other. I would argue that Christianity presents a stronger argument for achieving personal emancipation than that offered by many Asian Advocate groups. This is just an observation. Perhaps so many young Asians are turning to intolerant Christianity because the Asian-American movement, in it's many forms, has not presented a potent enough model for a more productive approach that challenges the structures that denigrate Asian cultures and people? It's difficult to discern exactly what any Asian advocacy groups hold up as a vision for our community.

Scowl

Oct 10th, 2007, 04:52 AM

It's difficult to discern exactly what any Asian advocacy groups hold up as a vision for our community.

I have a vision of marshmallow clouds and glorious candycane biplanes leaving contrails of cotton candy up in the night sky...

Chook

Oct 10th, 2007, 05:34 AM

Sounds like a Pink Floyd number, circa 1967-68.

kimtae

Oct 11th, 2007, 03:16 AM

Chook

Oct 11th, 2007, 04:20 AM

Kimtae

" You got the wrong idea of who I am......"

What you've displayed so far is someone who is prone to outbursts of vitriolic ignorance and regurgitates other people's slogans. My post invites you to share your wisdom with me on how to "de-colonize" the mind of the Asian community. If you have ideas on this then share them, otherwise what use do your outbursts serve? If you are indeed in possession of a consciousness that is free of the tethers of western colonial inteference then please outline your path to this enlightenment for me. So far all I've heard from you is petulant midlle-school outburts.

kimtae

Oct 11th, 2007, 10:31 PM

Chook

Oct 12th, 2007, 09:42 AM

You predictability is painful, your belligerence is laughable and your attempts at aggressiveness are embarrassing. Your lack of comprehension speaks only of an inflexible mentality. We haven't been arguing religion.

Dialectic

Oct 13th, 2007, 02:07 AM

Very briefly, a lot of AAs are turning to Christianity for the same reasons anyone in today's developed world would turn to any religion: because if fills some sort of void in meaning in their lives.

(It's a bit different for developing nations and peasants and other not so well-off groups.)

Assuming that we're talking about a lot of East Asians, predominantly Chinese and Korean, I would guess that the immigrant and Asian materialistic/ pragmatist mentality only gives you so much meaning, and it has almost nothing to say on the deeper issues of life and love and giving yourself to something greater. Once you've attained a certain level of wealth and comfort, and once you start to see how fucked up the world is, you yearn for something more, something to which you can devote yourself, and something which will take away the fear.

Comparing Christianity to an AA political movement doesn't really work. A political movement is a very different thing from a religious affiliation, and doesn't have the same function.

Chook

Oct 13th, 2007, 07:45 AM

Good points. There are some areas in religion and politics that do overlap. For instance, giving yourself to something greater is a strong motivator in individuals' desire to enter the political arena. This is the question - do AA political and social movements (such as they exist) offer young Asians a sense of being involved in something greater than themselves? The desire for social justice is both a political and relgious (at least it should be) theme. Are the intolerant and ignorant rantings of fundamentalist religion sending a more powerful message to our youth than that of liberal socially conscious AA movements?

awong

Oct 13th, 2007, 10:07 AM

Synthetic

Oct 14th, 2007, 09:04 PM

but they then abandon say the tradition stuff from asia, couldnt they also do the same by following buddhist teachings, etc instead of losing it...

well, if you're searching for a greater meaning, i don't think buddhism is the way to go. it's a great philosophical religion, but it doesn't really address anything beyond what we see right now. the key point being christianity offers a supreme being that has some sort of master control over everything, and buddhism doesn't. i don't even believe siddhartha ever said he was a god. just a regular person who attained what he believed as "enlightenment."

i love the philosophy of buddhism, and it makes great sense, but it just lacks the whole "something greater" aspect. not to mention, buddhists strive for enlightenment despite it being incredibly difficult (to the point of impossible) to reach.

Heyyu

Oct 15th, 2007, 02:48 AM

I think my problerm with Christianity (and many people's problem with Christianity in general) is that in the end, you're worshipping some dude that lives up in the sky... probably an old white man with a long beard (let's be honest, if you were 12 years old right now and I said describe God to me, that's probably what you would have said).

And you have to follow these silly and hypocritical rules so that dude up in the sky will let you in his Gates of Paradise. And if you don't, well, there's always that red guy down below (and by "red guy" I don't mean a Native American). Oh yeah, and Jesus was this guy that had superpowers like in the comics. Walk on water, raise people from the dead... you name it, he could do it.

First off, I will say that I like the more positive aspects of Christianity. For example, "doing unto others what you'd like others to do unto you" and doing good deeds and etc... basically the common sense good stuff that people should do regardless if they follow Christianity or not.

But too many times throughout history Christianity has been exploited for its own political/social/economic agenda. And Christianity has been around for what, 2000 years now? And honestly, looking at that long history of its existence, I'm not impressed by what Christianity has achieved besides the 2 billion plus followers (mainly thanks to the white man, but that's besides the point).

Chook

Oct 15th, 2007, 04:03 AM

"I'm not impressed with what Christianity has accomplished...."

You are right that Chiristianity has been misrepresented and misused for entirely hypoctitical and self-serving reasons, but what philosophy/religion hasn't? The original thread started by you, claims that Asians have "always copied white ways" and being an Asian Christian is another expression of this. I don't necessarily disagree with you on these two points.

My question when I hear this type of generalized debasing of others' persepectives is; what is being offered as an alternative and equally attractive philosophy that Asians should or could adopt to prove their "Asian-ness"? Buddhism is not of East Asian origin - it developed (and was originally viewed as) as a branch of Hinduism, which was a system of religious and social practices that was brought to India by non-East Asians "Indo-Europeans" from the central Asian steppes. If we accept Buddhusm/Hinduism aren't we STILL accepting Caucasian religion? Confucianism and Taoism are social philosophies that promote harmony and spiritual tranquility within the framework of one's society. These are philosophies of Chinese origin which may be as alien to people from Malay, SE Asian or Japanese culture as is Christianity.

Religion aside, many people find purpose and meaning through political activism and involvement. Are there any AA political or social movements that are putting forward radical solutions for the advancement of Asian consciousness and dignity from which AA's can find purpose and meaning? My argument is that no such groups exist and because of this AA's get caught in the grip of intolerant, fundamentalist type Christian groups.Why? Because these groups are simply louder and appear to offer solutions. If there is a feeling that Asians are acting "too white" then shouldn't someone put forward an alternative program other than "be more Asian", "be proud", "don't trust whitey"? Proud of what? Being born?

Heyyu

Oct 15th, 2007, 05:41 AM

Religion aside, many people find purpose and meaning through political activism and involvement. Are there any AA political or social movements that are putting forward radical solutions for the advancement of Asian consciousness and dignity from which AA's can find purpose and meaning? My argument is that no such groups exist and because of this AA's get caught in the grip of intolerant, fundamentalist type Christian groups.Why? Because these groups are simply louder and appear to offer solutions. If there is a feeling that Asians are acting "too white" then shouldn't someone put forward an alternative program other than "be more Asian", "be proud", "don't trust whitey"? Proud of what? Being born?

First off, why are putting down AA movements? Granted, some of them can be downright shitty and a complete waste of time, but there's some genuine ones out there too. And if you don't have one in your area, why don't you try to get a little more involved?

Second, I believe it's possible to find purpose and meaning in one's life without turning to Christianity. Again, I said that Christianity does have some positive lessons like "treat others as you'd like to be treated"... or as I called it the common sense good stuff that people should know & follow regardless if they're Christian or not.

I think that's the key... if one can base one's life around living a decent honest life, I don't see why one needs to follow a certain doctrine of religion. Unfortunately, we live in a materialistic and judgmental world. So people tend to go with whatever mainstream society says so they're not looked as an outcast. The need to fit in.

And I also think there's a fear of the unknown and that's the appeal of Christianity: people have a fear of their own mortality and it's comforting to know there's a guy up there in the sky that will take care of you in the afterlife. In other words, Christianity serves as a safety net of sorts.

And no offense to you, but I think Christianity tends to draw insecure people that aren't sure about their lives. So the people looking for some "higher purpose" or whatever usually have some insecurity of their own. And they fill that insecurity with Christianity.

Then again, I can't say what to believe or what not to believe. Everyone has their opinions and viewpoints in life.

Chook

Oct 15th, 2007, 07:04 AM

Heyyu

I'm not putting down Asian movements. All I've tried to say is that they don't appear as loud or dynamic with how they deliver their message as some Christian groups seem to be. This is why I think that you find many AA's in college that are attracted to Christianity. That doesn't mean that I'm saying that AA movements are less worthwhile or useful. On the contrary, I have a deep sense of pride when I see Asians stand up for themselves no matter what their perspectives might be.

You are very insightful when you say that Christianity can draws insecure people, but this is true of any philosophy, religious or secular. I can't agree that most people looking for a higher purpose are "usually" insecure. That's a gross generalization that diminishes all of the men and women throughout history that have struggled against immense oppostion to bring change to an unjust world in the pursuit of a higher purpose. People pursue many endeavours to overcome insecurity - buy fast cars, expensive clothes and electronics. In fact I would argue that insecurity is the motivating force behind many if not most people's actions.

I approach religion from a perspective of enquiry. As with all things, to blindly follow someone else's dogma is the pursuit of ignorance. If you re-read my first post in this thread you may see partly where I come from with my beliefs - and I'm not trying to convert you, believe what you want to. Your original post implied that to be Christian is to be a white man's slave. I strongly disagree with this and know that Christianity is not simply a safety net against hell. I don't believe this at all. It's original purpose was to serve as a focus for people who wanted social justice for ALL people, not to obnoxiously force people's souls into heaven.

Scowl

Oct 15th, 2007, 10:16 AM

well, if you're searching for a greater meaning, i don't think buddhism is the way to go. it's a great philosophical religion, but it doesn't really address anything beyond what we see right now. the key point being christianity offers a supreme being that has some sort of master control over everything, and buddhism doesn't. i don't even believe siddhartha ever said he was a god. just a regular person who attained what he believed as "enlightenment."

i love the philosophy of buddhism, and it makes great sense, but it just lacks the whole "something greater" aspect. not to mention, buddhists strive for enlightenment despite it being incredibly difficult (to the point of impossible) to reach.

I'll have to disagree with you there. Buddhism addresses every aspect of existence. You have to actively search for the answers, though; none are just given to you.

Also, that "something greater" is humanity, life, existence. It just isn't condensed and personified into a single figure, and I question the need for such a device. We don't need a god to save us because we can do it ourselves. In the end, though, it doesn't really matter what religion does what; people have their own paths to follow and they'll find what works for them.

jaehwan

Oct 16th, 2007, 12:54 AM

it's always been my belief that atheists don't base their beliefs off their own experiences. their arguments are always in REPONSE to something else...it's in response to forceful christian propaganda...it's in response to the pushy evangelist...it's in response to their private school upbringing...it's never about JUST god...it's about what christians represent and who atheists don't wanna be, and i think that's just as narrow minded as the forceful and pushy christians.

Well, much of that defensive thinking on the part of atheists may be due in no small part to the fact that Christians have raped, pillaged, and assaulted the rest of humanity for virtually all Christian history. Fundamentalists used Christianity as justification to commit horrible acts of genocide against cultures like the Inca. Brilliant thinkers like Galileo, Coppernicus, and Darwin fought hard against close minded Christian fundies who rejected science in favor of their Biblical superstitions. Even today, a certain President of the United States claimed that God told him to invade Iraq.

That being said, if you've followed the newspapers, these days the discussion is almost all about God. If you haven't checked it out yet, read Richard Dawkins's recent book "The God Delusion." It's an excellent book, and though it doesn't prove the non-existence of the Christian God, it shows that he is unlikely to exist.

i know i grew up in a private catholic high school and to be honest, the people who were the most pushy were the atheists. the christians were more or less like "okay, you believe in that, and that's fine. i'm secure in my religious views."...it was always the non-believers that seemed like they had to prove their point.

Um, okay, could it possibly have something to do with the fact that you were at a "private catholic high school?" This sounds a lot like the argument coming from white guys in country clubs--"Hey, I'm secure in myself, so why are these damn minorities always complaining?"

I hate to point out the obvious, but if you're a scientific thinker whose parents force you to attend a school where you're forced to memorize dogma, you ain't gonna be a happy camper.

Chook

Oct 16th, 2007, 03:29 AM

"...Christians have raped, pillaged......fundamentalists have used Christianity as justification......."

What civilization does NOT have violence in it's history? Didn't the Nazis use Darwinist based philosophies to justify genocide? Since the Age of Reason era, hasn't scientific progress been one of the justifications for all kinds of imperalist atrocities? Have the Hindu/Buddhist countries of SE and E Asia been a Nirvana of peacefull tranquility?

You're confusing two separate issues - the human drive to destroy and conquer, and the human drive to find peace and meaning, many leaders (Christian and non-Christian) have claimed that one can achieve the latter by pursuing the former. The problem with any ideology arises when a small select group claim to have the "truth" and proceed to exhort the masses to violence. This is true of both religious and secular philosophies. Science has it's own "prophets" - and many in our society blindly follow what science tells them under the delusion that by regurgitating scientific dogma they have become critical thinkers. Isn't this in the same vein as blindly following religious phrophets?

Science is not necessarily the enemy of religion and religion is not necessarily the enemy of critical thinking. The weaknesses in both become apparent when their adherents don't take personal responsibility for how they use the information.

jaehwan

Oct 16th, 2007, 12:53 PM

Actually, if you've read Mein Kampf, I don't think Hitler even mentions Darwin. He does mention God and Christ though. You can see more here:

http://atheism.about.com/b/a/240324.htm

Also, if there has ever been a single instance of scientific progress being "one of the justifications for all kinds of imperialist atrocities," I haven't heard of it. Have you? Hindu/Buddhist strife exists, but it's more cultural rather than religious, due to problems of people having disputes over land and resources, not disputes over who believes what. I've never heard of Hindu or Buddhist evangelism.

It's the monotheistic religions, not science, that have historically been the backbone for imperialism.

You're confusing two separate issues - the human drive to destroy and conquer, and the human drive to find peace and meaning, many leaders (Christian and non-Christian) have claimed that one can achieve the latter by pursuing the former. The problem with any ideology arises when a small select group claim to have the "truth" and proceed to exhort the masses to violence. This is true of both religious and secular philosophies. Science has it's own "prophets" - and many in our society blindly follow what science tells them under the delusion that by regurgitating scientific dogma they have become critical thinkers. Isn't this in the same vein as blindly following religious phrophets?

Science is not necessarily the enemy of religion and religion is not necessarily the enemy of critical thinking. The weaknesses in both become apparent when their adherents don't take personal responsibility for how they use the information.

Science isn't an ideology; it's a method of questioning. There is no such thing as "scientific dogma;" one of the first things they teach you in college science is that most of what you "learn" today may be disproven tomorrow, but that the scientific method stays the same. Can you imagine a church that teaches that? Probably not, because the Christian religion relies on acceptance of what the Bible says, not logical inquiry.

It's possible to be a Christian who thinks critically. Nskripchun on this board is one of them. I know of a few scientists (though not many) who are both Christian and great scientists. But it's impossible to be a fundamentalist Christian who thinks critically without being a hypocrite, especially since so many literal claims of the Bible--such as a flat earth, a universe created in seven days, a sun that moves relative to the earth--have been disproven by science.

Chook

Oct 16th, 2007, 07:42 PM

"..if there has been a single instance of 'scientific progress being one of the justifications for all kinds of imperialist atrocities' I haven't heard of it."

Scientific superiority itself gave the colonial powers (in their minds) the justification for and right to imperialist expansion. They believed that they were doing the world a favour by conquering and imparting some of their technology to it's subjugated peoples. Any atrocities committed thereafter came from this belief that they were bringing progress to the "savage". All imperialist atrocities stem from this idea.

"Hindu/Buddhist strife exists but this is more cultural.......not over who believes what....."

It's better and intellectually more appropriate to kill others because they have something you want? Don't complain the next time an Asian store owner is robbed and killed by someone who wants his hard earned money, at least he wasn't killed for what he believed in.

"It's the monotheistic religions, not science, that have historically been the backbone for imperialism"

ROTFL.
Ghengis Khan? Alexander the Great? Early-Mid Roman Empire? Inca? Maya? Persian Empire(s)? Egyptian Empire? Carthage? Chinese Empire(s)? Japanese Showa Imperialism? All well known for their monotheism?
In the last 100-150 years science has indeed been used to justify racism AND imperialism. To deny it's role in colonialists acceptance of their own superiority is plain denial.

"Science is not an ideology it's a method of questioning...no such thing as scientific dogma...."

Science IS an ideology and it is practiced THROUGH the method of questioning.
Much of science is as you say "disproved tommorow", and therefore to proclaim that one should live by scientific truths is by nature dogmatic i.e it insists on opinions or statements as though authoritative even though these opinions or statements may be "disproved tommorrow".

" .....Hitler never mentioned Darwin...."

That's irrelevant. Nazi Eugenicists borrowed heavily from Darwin's ideas of survival of the fittest and used these ideas to justify their crimes. Darwin himself wrote that "at some future period .....civilized man will exterminate and replace ......the savage races".

jaehwan

Oct 16th, 2007, 08:42 PM

Scientific superiority itself gave the colonial powers (in their minds) the justification for and right to imperialist expansion. They believed that they were doing the world a favour by conquering and imparting some of their technology to it's subjugated peoples. Any atrocities committed thereafter came from this belief that they were bringing progress to the "savage". All imperialist atrocities stem from this idea.

What are you smoking? I asked you for an example, not a fantasy. You obviously can't even give me a single example of science being used as a justification for imperialism.

As for the rest of your "argument," you're playing the old conservative religious head-burying game. It goes like this: Someone says something, and you pretend you don't understand or you jump on some crazy illogical tear. You first said "Didn't the Nazis use Darwinist based philosophies to justify genocide?", and when I pointed out that Hitler never mentioned Darwin, you say it's irrelevant. Well, if the head Nazi didn't mention Darwin, then obviously they didn't use those philosophies to justify genocide! You then bring up something that Darwin said that has nothing to do with the Nazis. (and Darwin's views weren't all that out of the mainstream back then either.)

Genghis was imperialistic, but do you consider the Inca, the Maya, the Chinese, or the Japanese Showa to be in the same league as the Crusaders? Most people don't, since they pretty much stayed in the same place.

Science IS an ideology and it is practiced THROUGH the method of questioning.
Much of science is as you say "disproved tommorow", and therefore to proclaim that one should live by scientific truths is by nature dogmatic i.e it insists on opinions or statements as though authoritative even though these opinions or statements may be "disproved tommorrow".

You're doing the head-burying thing again. Read the dictionary to learn what "ideology" means. (hint: it has something to do with doctrine, not questioning). Or go to college and study science. Science never asks anyone to accept anything unless it can withstand logical and empirical inquiry.

jaehwan

Oct 16th, 2007, 08:56 PM

It's better and intellectually more appropriate to kill others because they have something you want?

Not more appropriate, but at least it makes more sense. If a man kills another man because he wants money to go buy drugs, at least it makes sense--a person killed another person over resources. On the other hand, if he kills someone else because that someone else refuses to accept Jesus Christ as his personal savior, or that someone else refuses to bow before the holy trinity, or that someone else got an abortion in violation of the pope's decree, I'd say that's a pretty irrational murder. Especially since no one has proven the existence of this God who is supposedly angry and jealous all the time.

Don't complain the next time an Asian store owner is robbed and killed by someone who wants his hard earned money, at least he wasn't killed for what he believed in.

It's always all-or-nothing with fundamentalists, isn't it? Just like George W., either you're with us or you're against us! I am the way the truth and the life, no man comes unto the father EXCEPT through me! When will you people learn that it's not all-or-nothing?

If I hear of an Asian store owner being robbed and killed for money, I'll complain. But I'll complain even louder if I hear him killed over his religion. A poor man killing over money makes more sense than a man killing over religion.

Vetrean

Oct 16th, 2007, 09:03 PM

And you have to follow these silly and hypocritical rules so that dude up in the sky will let you in his Gates of Paradise. And if you don't, well, there's always that red guy down below (and by "red guy" I don't mean a Native American).

To be fair, the latter option isn't a punishment; the status quo is that everyone is going down there, not that everyone is somehow supposed to be up there and there are unfair restrictions placed on that. I dunno about other people, but as I've been taught, going to heaven is a privilege, not a right.

Instead of a hand pushing you down for not obeying the rules, it's a hand pulling you up for deciding to try and obey them.

It's not much of a difference, but I think it's pretty important, and I kinda get sad when people imply that people are punished by Hell for disbelief.

lycheng

Oct 17th, 2007, 12:49 AM

Science IS an ideology and it is practiced THROUGH the method of questioning.
Much of science is as you say "disproved tommorow", and therefore to proclaim that one should live by scientific truths is by nature dogmatic i.e it insists on opinions or statements as though authoritative even though these opinions or statements may be "disproved tommorrow".

You sound exactly like jook in the Religious pluralism and tolerance is also dogma thread. (http://www.thefighting44s.com/forum/showthread.php?t=5121) In that thread, I say the following:

With the existence of God issue out of the way, can we get back to the subject of what Dogma means? From your writings, you seem to imply that Dogma is the same as an axiomatic truth that people accept as fact without the need for evidence. Knowledge that is self-evident. You even made an analogy with fundamental first principals of physics, if I recall, saying that even in physics you must have canonical truths.

First, I’d like to clarify your physics analogy because I know something about physics since I studied it in college and grad school. While certainly first principles in physics exist, and for all practical purposes, are viewed by professors and students in a canonical manor (taken as an accepted principle), it is NOT something to be accepted as fact without the need for evidence.

Physics, as a branch of science is built upon making statements about the world that can be experimentally falsified. Take Newton’s third law for example.

“For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction”

By action, Newton really meant Force. This is a first principle that can be experimentally tested to be false. Wikipeida has this nice illustration of a simple test of the Third Law: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Skaters_showing_newtons_third_law.png

Can you design an experiment to a Christian First Principle such that it might lead to a false result? If you can, then Christianity would be a science. Otherwise, one can conclude that Christianity is outside of science.

The fact that Christianity, or any other spiritual knowledge is outside of science is totally okay with me. As I said in my first post, spirituality deals with things and concepts outside our material world, while science deals with things inside the material world.

If you define a dogmatic belief system as a belief system with authoritative statements, then yes, science is dogmatic.

But that is clearly NOT the end of the story. If, after reading my Newton's Third Law example, you come to the conclusion that science is dogmatic because it makes authoritative statements, then you've completely missed the point.

The point is that science, as a system of belief, relies on the ability to test claims. If the claim passes various tests, then the claim is granted a form of provisional acceptance, until other tests either entirely disproves the claim, or modifies the claim.

Because religious claims cannot be tested (falsified to be exact), it’s really hard to compare the two. This is not to say that religion doesn't influence science or that science doesn't influence religion. Both are human endeavors after all. What it does say is that both of these belief systems have limitations.

It's only a problem for individuals who see either science or religion as having no limitations.

Chook

Oct 17th, 2007, 06:18 PM

"what are you smokng? I asked for an example not a fantasy."

"you're playing the old conservative religious head-burying game."

"....It's always all or nothing with fundamentalists..."

Irony? A dope smoking conservative religious fundamentalist? Make up your mind.
How has it been possible for you to label me a fundamentalist based on my arguments that all human endeavours have (regardless of their intent) had their abusers? How is it fundamentalist to suggest that science has been used to justify imperial atrocities? If these arguments lead you to the conclusion of religious conservatism then you are exhibiting a very low threshold of objectivity. If I had accused ALL science and it's proponents of misdeeds ALL of the time then your accusations would be justified - I haven't done this nor do I adhere to this mindset. Or do you simply use derogatory labelling for those who refuse to blindly accept your inflexible world view?

Which part of my "fantasy" do you refuse to grasp? It's a matter of historical record that the claims of white superiority made by racial "scientists" legitimized claims of imperial entitlement that lead to imperialist atrocities. In other words scientific "truths" of the time gave birth to an ideology of imperial entitlement. If you don't know this then who has their head buried in the sand? The atrocities speak for themselves.

"As for the rest of your argument......you pretend to not understand.....then jump on some illogical tear."

LOL. Here's my response;

"Ghengis was imperialistic but do you consider the Inca, the Maya, the Chinese or the Japanese Showa to be worse than the Crusaders? Most people don't since they pretty much stayed in the same place."

Where is the logic in THIS illogical tear? THEY STAYED IN THE SAME PLACE? That makes it better? Since Europe lies next to the Middle East the distance between some European nations that took part in the crusades and Palestine may actually have been shorter than the distance between the borders of lets say China's empire. SO according to your "logical" argument the Crusaders did technically "stay in the same place" and so the Crusades were no worse than the examples given. Addtionally, I'm impressed that you are so acquainted with "most people" that you are able to quote their undeniable agreement with your views.

"..when I point out that Hitler never mentioned Darwin you say it's irrelevent.......Well if the head Nazi didn't mention those philosophies then obviously they didn't use those philosophies.....You then bring up something that Darwin said that has nothing to do with the Nazis (and Darwin's views weren't all that out of the mainstream back then either)."

Another illogical presumption? If you presume that Hitler was the originator of the ideas that he outlined in Mein Kampf then your logic is sound. Unfortunately, this is not the case. His skill was in taking pieces of other people's theories and melding them into the philosophy of NAzism. Nazi ideas had their origins in 19th century race theories which basically dehumanized non - Europeans. Darwin was one of those with such ideas. Hitler's not mentioning Darwin IS irrelevent because the theoretical SOURCES of his ideas were available to his followers and were adopted by them. Unlike you, they knew that he wasn't the source of these ideas.

jaehwan

Oct 17th, 2007, 08:19 PM

Irony? A dope smoking conservative religious fundamentalist? Make up your mind.

Hahaha. When against the ropes, use the old strawman when your opponent makes a joke. It's a really weak strawman though. After all, God knows that conservative Bible-thumping fundies never use drugs, cheat on their wives, steal money from people, or solicit gay sex from male prostitutes...
(Oops, did I just use the Lord's name in vain? What a sinner I am.)

I label you a "fundamentalist" because you rely on fundamental beliefs to support your "arguments" rather than logic or facts. Your assertion that "Scientific superiority itself gave the colonial powers (in their minds) the justification for and right to imperialist expansion" is a case in point. I asked you for an example a while ago, and you couldn't even give me a single example. You still can't.

Observe:

Hasn't scientific progress been one of the justifications for all kinds of imperalist atrocities?

Scientific superiority itself gave the colonial powers (in their minds) the justification for and right to imperialist expansion. They believed that they were doing the world a favour by conquering and imparting some of their technology to it's subjugated peoples. Any atrocities committed thereafter came from this belief that they were bringing progress to the "savage". All imperialist atrocities stem from this idea.

Now you're saying that :

It's a matter of historical record that the claims of white superiority made by racial "scientists" legitimized claims of imperial entitlement that lead to imperialist atrocities.

Okay, so when has science progress been used as a justification for anything other than the betterment of knowledge? Where does the "conquering and imparting some of their technology" take place? Where are they conquering people because of "scientific superiority?" Oh yeah, that's right, you were just doing the ol' Pat Robertson bob and weave. Usually the fundie thing to do is to look for a Biblical quote that supports your assertion. But not even the Bible says that science has been used to justify imperial atrocities. Poor guy, it looks like you're all on your own.

I could continue with this, but you'll go on to say other moronic stuff like Africa is part of the same land mass as Europe, and you'll continue to assert your unsubstatiated nonsense that Darwinism was used to justify the Holocaust. You're not interested in discussion, you're just interested in spouting off your fundie nonsense.

So I think Kimtae had the right idea when he addressed you:

"take your colonized ass on down the road."

Fossil

Oct 17th, 2007, 08:27 PM

Couple of points
Although Hitler may have not mention Darwin by name there no questioning the fact that the Nazi and fascist movement where influenced by the so call Social Darwinist of the early 20 century. Lets be glad today Social Darwinism is pretty much something nobody really claims to believe in anymore.
And as far as fundamentalist being responsible for the Crusades, killing the Inca ect.The first fundamentalist Churches did not get stated till the 16 century in Germany. And the first fundamentalist Churches like the Amish, Mennonites, Dunkards, ect where not really in to violence. The Amish might be strange ,but I have yet to hear about them starting a war.
The next Wave of fundamentalist Churches got started in the US in the early 1700 but they remained out of politics for the most part till the early 1920's considering the outside world evil and best to be avoided. It was also in the early 20's that they first started sending missionaries out of the US.
You can blame Fundamentalist Christians for things that have happen in the last 50 years but before that they are blameless unless it can be proven that they are capable of time travel.
Might add the largest Fundamentalist Church is the Southern Baptist Church, Whose most famous member was the Late Rev Martin Luther King. People tend to forget there a huge number of Fundamentalist who are minorities and these dont tend to be on the far Right. Can anyone imagine how the Civil Rights movement of the 50's and 60's would have been with out the Black Churches?

jaehwan

Oct 17th, 2007, 08:54 PM

Fossil,

Although Hitler may have not mention Darwin by name there no questioning the fact that the Nazi and fascist movement where influenced by the so call Social Darwinist of the early 20 century. Lets be glad today Social Darwinism is pretty much something nobody really claims to believe in anymore.

Everyone was "influenced" by Darwinism. Chook's (incorrect) assertion was that Darwinism was used as a justification for genocide.

As for the fundamentalist question, let me direct you to the Mirriam-Webster dictionary:
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/netdict?Fundamentalist
fundamentalism

Main Entry: fun·da·men·tal·ism
Pronunciation: \-tə-ˌli-zəm\
Function: noun
Date: 1922
1 aoften capitalized : a movement in 20th century Protestantism emphasizing the literally interpreted Bible as fundamental to Christian life and teaching b: the beliefs of this movement c: adherence to such beliefs
2: a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles <Islamic fundamentalism> <political fundamentalism>
— fun·da·men·tal·ist \-tə-list\ noun
— fundamentalist or fun·da·men·tal·is·tic \-ˌmen-tə-ˈlis-tik\ adjective

Everyone is using the second definition, not the first. That's why a lot of what I've said refers to fundamentalist religiousness, rather than fundamentalist protestantism. In my opinion, fundamentalist Islam is just as bad as fundamentalist Christianity. And of course, MLK doesn't fit under the banner of the second definition--a fundamentalist Christian would never be quoting a Hindu Gandhi.

Fossil

Oct 18th, 2007, 04:23 AM

There are several definition of fundamentalism out there. I prefer those definitions that came about before the 1970's before the term became a political football. And I prefer to restrict the term to those sects of Christianity that look to the Bible instead of Bishops , theologians, councils , etc as final authority. I do not use the term Muslim fundamentalism (I use Muslim extremist instead) as many Muslims consider the term both meaningless and insulting to use a term that originally was applied to certain sects of Christianity to define any group of Muslims.

Chook

Oct 18th, 2007, 08:25 AM

"Oops did I use the Lord's name in vain?"

"I label you a fundamentalist because you rely on fundamental beliefs to support your arguments. Your assertion that 'Scientific superiority itself gave the colonial powers (in their minds) the justification for and right to imperialist expansion' is a case in point."

I haven't heard of any fundamentalist Christian group or individual who promotes the idea that science has been used to justify imperialism or even mentions it. This is just an irrational argument whereby you juxtapose two different concepts and through derogatory labelling "prove" that they are related. From what I've seen, some fundamentalist (as you define them) ideals concern themselves with with strict (and often hypocritical) interpretations of an idea and through "authoritative bullying" seek to impose their limiting world view on others. Much like you in fact.

"Poor guy, looks like you're all on you're own."

"Kimtae had the right idea when he addressed you....'take your colonized ass on down the road' "

LOL....Some fundamentalists also employ "shaming" methods to promote their ideas whereby they imply the notion of "you're on you're own" to weaken an individuals ego to the point that they feebly submit to fundamentalist ideas. Also, much like you.

Kimtae's "ideas" were at least honest.
YOU purport yourself to be an objective thinker that looks at empirical evidence to make logical assessments of ideas. Yet by the way your demeanour has so rapidly deteriorated into derogatory labelling and presumptuous belittling it's obvious that your pseudo-intellectual affect is a thinly veiled disguise for bashing those with different opinions to yours. You see fundamentalism where it doesn't exist and claim fundamentalism at work where it isn't.

"Usually the fundie thing to do is look for a Bible quote that supports your assertion. But not even the Bible says that science has been used to justify imperial atrocity."

Of course you will find ALL of my posts replete with Bible quotes. If you don't find them then it's because I've never attempted to use the Bible in this discussion. This discussion actually has nothing to with the Bible unless you are extremely subjective in your "objective" assessments and seek to label anything that deviates from your inflexible incapacity to discern a religious argument from a non-religious one. Attacking the abuse of science is not a pro-religuious argument. WHY ARE YOU UNABLE TO UNDERSTAND THIS?

In regards to British imperial expansion in India "..the British are SUPERIOR to subject peoples in natural ability, integrity, science.....have introduced..honesty, law, justice, order, roads, posts,railways, irrigation, hospitals...."

Sir Ronald Ross
Nobel Prize winner for Medicine 1902

Science (in the New Imperial era) sought to demonstrate the backwardness of non-western life through exhibits of native village displays "illustrated the concepts of social evolution...which derived authority from the air of (superior western) scientific objectivity."

Oxford History of the British Empire

"Well into the 20th Century (physical and life sciences) retained a fundamental belief in scientific and technical progress rooted in the beneficial spread of western science"

Oxford History of the British Empire

This belief in the beneficial progress of science was not equal to an enlightened view of native peoples as fully human. As evidenced by the mountains of historical data that explores the often brutal and negligent nature of Imperialist activities, this progress of science sought to further the "superior" position of the colonial powers before it brought benefit to the subject peoples. What is apparent is that the culture and ideology of superiority of colonial leaders was heavily inlfuenced by contemporary scientific thought. So, the "benefits" of progress merely served as a cover for creating an infrastructure for colonial domination.

"Everyone was 'influenced' by Darwinism. Chook's (incorrect) assertion was that Darwinsim was used as a justification for genocide"

You are playing the "head-burying" game again.
I have also said;
" Darwin wrote that 'at some future period...civilized man will exterminate and replace....the savage races.'" This is the spirit and the fact of the lebensraum policies of the Nazis.
This is mere influence? Would the Nazis have to have said "we are committing genocide because of Darwin?" for you to acknowledge the undeniable adherence to this Darwinist idea? The fact is that the Nazis justified their crimes on the basis that they were superior to others. These ideas derived in part from thinkers and scientists one of whom was Darwin. Therefore by "logical" extension Darwin's ideas DID play a part in the justification by the Nazis of their racism.

jaehwan

Oct 18th, 2007, 11:03 AM

I haven't heard of any fundamentalist Christian group or individual who promotes the idea that science has been used to justify imperialism or even mentions it.

Hahaha...that's because most other fundies are smart enough not to make such a stupid argument.

I have also said;
" Darwin wrote that 'at some future period...civilized man will exterminate and replace....the savage races.'" This is the spirit and the fact of the lebensraum policies of the Nazis.
This is mere influence? Would the Nazis have to have said "we are committing genocide because of Darwin?" for you to acknowledge the undeniable adherence to this Darwinist idea? The fact is that the Nazis justified their crimes on the basis that they were superior to others. These ideas derived in part from thinkers and scientists one of whom was Darwin. Therefore by "logical" extension Darwin's ideas DID play a part in the justification by the Nazis of their racism.

So just because Darwin said something racist, it means that the Nazi's automatically used his words to "justify" genocide? In that case, you should also then accuse Benedict Arnold of using Judas to "justify" his behavior. Or maybe you can accuse Bush of using Ayn Rand to "justify" his incursions into Iraq. After all, Ayn Rand did support self-interest, and Bush obviously heard of her through Greenspan. Or maybe you can say that Bush is using Ayn Rand to go after Iran. Also, "Ayn Rand" sounds almost like "Iran" if you pronounce it "I ran." Lol, you're cracking me up!

Haha...sorry you wasted all your time copying and pasting those quotes, NONE of whom come from a Nazi, and therefore none of which even support your point.

Pray for guidance, son. I can no longer tolerate your colonized mind.

Chook

Oct 18th, 2007, 04:06 PM

"that's because most other fundies are smart enough to not make such a stupid argument"

You contradict yourself. First you said that fundamentalists argue that scientific superiority justified imperialism, now you are saying that most fundamentalists don't actually make these arguments. Are you getting confused? Is this an example of your scientifically inquisitive mind disproving today what it learned yesterday? Or is it another case of ad-hoc, pseudo-intellectual posturing?

"..because Darwin said something racist it means that the Nazis automatically used his words to justify genocide?....then you should also accuse Benedict Arnold of using Judas to justify his behaviour...."

If that's what you have understood me to have said then I'm not surprised that you have resorted to name-calling and derogatory labelling. The rest of your comment was so inane that I couldn't be bothered to quote it. It's obviously an attempt at sarcastic cynicism but remember that even sarcasm requires some wit - a quality you evidently lack.

"Haha..you wasted your time copying and pasting those notes. NONE come from a Nazi and therefore none of which even support your claim!!!!"

ROTFL AHV (and hypeventilating)

Are you really THAT stupid?

"Pray for guidance my son. I can no longer tolerate your colonized mind."

A CONVERT!!!! A CONVERT???? And I wasn't even trying!! I shouldn't be surprised though - judging by how easily and readily you adopt and regurgitate the ideas of others.

SO_ANGRY

Oct 19th, 2007, 06:24 PM

Actually, if you've read Mein Kampf, I don't think Hitler even mentions Darwin. He does mention God and Christ though. You can see more here:

http://atheism.about.com/b/a/240324.htm

Also, if there has ever been a single instance of scientific progress being "one of the justifications for all kinds of imperialist atrocities," I haven't heard of it. Have you? Hindu/Buddhist strife exists, but it's more cultural rather than religious, due to problems of people having disputes over land and resources, not disputes over who believes what. I've never heard of Hindu or Buddhist evangelism.

It's the monotheistic religions, not science, that have historically been the backbone for imperialism.

Science isn't an ideology; it's a method of questioning. There is no such thing as "scientific dogma;" one of the first things they teach you in college science is that most of what you "learn" today may be disproven tomorrow, but that the scientific method stays the same. Can you imagine a church that teaches that? Probably not, because the Christian religion relies on acceptance of what the Bible says, not logical inquiry.

It's possible to be a Christian who thinks critically. Nskripchun on this board is one of them. I know of a few scientists (though not many) who are both Christian and great scientists. But it's impossible to be a fundamentalist Christian who thinks critically without being a hypocrite, especially since so many literal claims of the Bible--such as a flat earth, a universe created in seven days, a sun that moves relative to the earth--have been disproven by science.

Hey, I totally agree with you, and at the same time disagree. Science itself is technically perfect for understanding the world empirically. In a logical way, you can solve problems, and understand the what can be seen. The thing is, science is executed by people, and people aren't perfect. Politics has entered it before, just look at social darwinism. Just look at that Nobel Prize winner who recently said blacks aren't smart as whites.

While the scientific method itself works, since people have to execute it, and since people have biases, people will screw it up.

It's just like the word of God if he does exist. People will interpret it to their own biases. Religion has been used an excuse for racism too.

lycheng

Oct 19th, 2007, 10:18 PM

The thing is, science is executed by people, and people aren't perfect. Politics has entered it before, just look at social darwinism. Just look at that Nobel Prize winner who recently said blacks aren't smart as whites.

In case anyone missed it, So_Angry was referring to James Watson, one of the two scientists who got the Nobel Prize for discovering DNA. According to the CNN article (http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/10/19/uk.race/index.html), he characterized Africa's situation:

"inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa" because "all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours, whereas all the testing says not really."

Watson also asserted there was no reason to believe different races separated by geography should have evolved identically, and he said that while he hoped everyone was equal, "people who have to deal with black employees find this is not true."After the uproar about his statement, he tried to backpedal away from his earlier statement.

"I cannot understand how I could have said what I am quoted as having said," Watson said during an appearance at the Royal Society in London. "I can certainly understand why people, reading those words, have reacted in the ways that they have."
"To all those who have drawn the inference from my words that Africa, as a continent, is somehow genetically inferior, I can only apologize unreservedly. That is not what I meant. More importantly from my point of view, there is no scientific basis for such a belief." Sorry Dr. Watson, I'm afraid you were inferring that Africans are genetically inferior. You exposed your true racist colors to everyone.

[ediit] Oops, Kuroyama already posted a thread about this: http://www.thefighting44s.com/forum/showthread.php?t=5523

jook

Oct 22nd, 2007, 07:48 PM

http://blog.oup.com/2007/09/faith_school/

You know what, I'm not surprised. Asians have always copied the white ways and hey, I guess if you get into that most WASPish of elite universities (the Ivy League), why not try to act like it too.

In fact, I remember at my university (went to U of Illinois), there were large Asian christian groups and one die-hard believer even spent 1 hour talking to me to try and convert me. Although U of Illinois is mostly white so there were also white christians as well as Asian christians. Not all of them were nutcases... but the ones that were fanatical took it to another level.

And to be honest, Asians in general tend to be conservative. Especially given our traditional social upbringing, so it's no wonder Christianity would appeal to the more conservative Asians. In fact, people talk about the Asian female/Asian male divide or whatever, but the greatest divide I see in the future is between the Asian Conservatives vs. Asian Liberals. Ironic since many Asians live in the more "liberal" blue-states like West Coast (California, Washington) & East Coast (New York, Washington DC, etc.).

So the liberal ones amongst us have to rebel really hard... moreso than the typical white liberal guy who wears emo make-up and plays his guitar.

So ridiculous I don't even know where to begin.

If the notion of copying white people's ways disturbs anyone, while stop at Christianity? Gonna let you in on a little secret. Liberalism is a white political philosophy. Do you live and participate in a democracy? Why? That crap was invented by white people (well, Ancient Greeks to be exact but close enough). In fact, do you read, write, or speak in English? That's a white language! I could go on...you get the point.

In fact, if you really want to work hard to avoid seeming "white", then you need to adopt Christianity. In the world today, and I mean the whole world, there are much more brown, black, and yellow people who are Christian than white people. In fact, most educated white people in the First World who identify themselves as liberal, hip, and are superficially intelligent and brightly skeptical about everything in general abhor Christianity tend to seek some brand of Eastern religions like Buddhism, New Age (which is white people's corruption of Eastern mysticism) and this is what you are copying. Agnosticism and atheism...sorry but white people pioneered that as well. Nihilism, rational skepticism, absurdism...all concocted BY WHITE PEOPLE such as Nietzsche, Jean-Paul Sartre, Albert Camus, Bertrand Russell, the list goes on.

All I ask for is a bit more consistency from the "Christianity=White" screechers.

Vetrean

Oct 22nd, 2007, 11:58 PM

blablaChristianity=Whiteblabla

Isn't that a perception, though? As in, non-whites look in and think 'hey, lol, Christianity is a white heathen religion!'

jook

Oct 23rd, 2007, 01:52 PM

Isn't that a perception, though? As in, non-whites look in and think 'hey, lol, Christianity is a white heathen religion!'

It's a retarded perception.

Ironically enough, it takes a colonized mindset to think that Christianity is a "white" religion, whatever that means in the first place. It means you ("you" in the generic sense) have been brainwashed by all the paintings, movies, and other depictions of Jesus as a standard-issue white man with long hair. Jesus (which is Greek for Yeshua, Christ = Greek for Messiah) was borne of a Semitic people (small hint: SEMITIC=NOT WHITE), in a location which was considered the crossroads of the ancient world, which linked Africa, Europe, and Asia. The historical Christ is no more a white man than Siddharta Gautama is a rolly-tolly bald Chinese man with a huge stomach.

It also betrays an ignorance of history. Christianity did not become an official religion of Europeans until about 300AD, when Flavius Valerius Aurelius Constantine declared it so in the Edict of Milan. Until then, the predecessors of what we now call "white people" were PAGANS. Christianity stopped being the official religion of Europeans around the late 1800s, when Friedrich Nietzche declared "God is dead". For about the past, oh, 400 years or so, white Europeans have been systematically deconstructing and shedding the idea of God. So this presents a strange paradox for those who reject Christianity on the basis that it is "a white religion", to which they themselves seem blind. That is, your present-day rational, humanistic skepticism about Christianity is ultimately based upon philosophical foundations which has been codified and given systematic expression by WHITE PEOPLE.

If the word "Christian" evokes in your mind a singular image of the stereotypical, bible-thumping, politically conservative white person from the midwest or the south, then you yourself are no different from the myopic, geography-challenged American who derives his worldview from FOX NEWS and CNN. There are far more Christians today in the world who are non-white. Also, the rate of non-whites becoming Christian far exceeds that of whites becoming Christians. In fact, whites are declining.

If the argument is to avoid "copying white people", then it stands to reason that one must do the opposite of what the vast majority of white people are doing nowadays. And what the vast majority of white people are doing is rejecting Christianity, not embracing it. Go to any white church, it's full of old people. I propose that the presence of Asian-American Christianity in an elite academic institution like Harvard is in itself a counter-cultural statement. You think about that one for a moment.

Finally Paul writes in Galatians 3:28 -

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

jook

Oct 23rd, 2007, 03:29 PM

So the liberal ones amongst us have to rebel really hard... moreso than the typical white liberal guy who wears emo make-up and plays his guitar.

LOL.

It takes a really confused Asian-American to ape militant Black rhetoric (reject "White" values) to bash other Asian-Americans by trying to out-do a "typical white liberal guy".

*sigh* What else is new?

DONKEY

Oct 23rd, 2007, 06:58 PM

It's a retarded perception.

Ironically enough, it takes a colonized mindset to think that Christianity is a "white" religion, whatever that means in the first place. It means you ("you" in the generic sense) have been brainwashed by all the paintings, movies, and other depictions of Jesus as a standard-issue white man with long hair. Jesus (which is Greek for Yeshua, Christ = Greek for Messiah) was borne of a Semitic people (small hint: SEMITIC=NOT WHITE), in a location which was considered the crossroads of the ancient world, which linked Africa, Europe, and Asia. The historical Christ is no more a white man than Siddharta Gautama is a rolly-tolly bald Chinese man with a huge stomach.

this would make sense if Christian services were in Aramaic. But right off the bat you see the Greek and all other european influences. you are talking about the actual, historical Yeshua ben Nazareth which is different from the GEE-ZUS that the world is familiar with today. GEE-ZUS is only loosely based on the actual person, if he actually existed. for the most part, the spread of Christianity was the work of white people who made GEE-ZUS in their own image. there are a few different approximations of this historical character such as HAY-SOOS (who is rumored to be a socialist) but they are all basically the same.

Synthetic

Oct 23rd, 2007, 07:16 PM

this would make sense if Christian services were in Aramaic. But right off the bat you see the Greek and all other european influences. you are talking about the actual, historical Yeshua ben Nazareth which is different from the GEE-ZUS that the world is familiar with today. GEE-ZUS is only loosely based on the actual person, if he actually existed. for the most part, the spread of Christianity was the work of white people who made GEE-ZUS in their own image. there are a few different approximations of this historical character such as HAY-SOOS (who is rumored to be a socialist) but they are all basically the same.

i still don't honestly know why anyone is talking about this anymore.

even if christianity were a white religion (which it isn't) that doesn't mean a damn thing. nothing.

even if the portrayal of jesus is aryan, that, too, doesn't mean a damn thing. nothing.

that's like tiger woods saying "i can't play golf because it's a white sport" or serena and venus saying "i can't play tennis, that's a white sport".

everything in america was originally white. that doesn't mean it still is or is going to remain white.

you can still be christian and believe jesus was black. hell, you can believe jesus was asian. it doesn't change the fact that simply believing in something can make people better.

Scowl

Oct 24th, 2007, 12:29 AM

i still don't honestly know why anyone is talking about this anymore.

Boards have been slow.

Fossil

Oct 24th, 2007, 06:39 AM

It kind of amuses me that some of the people who are loudest in claiming Christianity is a white religion are either Marxist or Socialist. And is there anyone who does not know what race Karl Marx was? So if you are going to reject everything white, should not that include Karl Marx?
Might add one of the oldest Christian nations is Ethiopia and Ethiopians are neither whites or Europeans.

DONKEY

Oct 24th, 2007, 04:17 PM

yeah and the christianity practiced in ethiopia is just like the christianity practiced on u.s. college campuses.

Chook

Oct 25th, 2007, 05:39 AM

yeah and the christianity practiced in ethiopia is just like the christianity practiced on u.s. college campuses.

You've been there.

jaehwan

Oct 26th, 2007, 03:13 PM

You contradict yourself. First you said that fundamentalists argue that scientific superiority justified imperialism,

Sorry, dude, nice try, but I never said that "fundamentalists argue that scientific superiority justified imperialism." Go ahead, look back over the post. I certainly never said anything like that, though I did point out that you are making that leap based on your fundamentalist beliefs and prejudice against science.

Maybe you're hearing voices in your head. Maybe God is talking to you. Good thing you're not a politician. He might tell you to invade Iraq. Good thing you're not smart enough to be a scientist. He might tell you to become the Unabomber and to attack academia. After all, them Darwinists be evil!

You, on the other hand, clearly stated:
Nazi Eugenicists borrowed heavily from Darwin's ideas of survival of the fittest and used these ideas to justify their crimes.

We are all still waiting for some proof that they "used these ideas to justify their crimes." It's funny that we've gone on for so long, and you just keep dodging. Boo!

A CONVERT!!!! A CONVERT???? And I wasn't even trying!! I shouldn't be surprised though - judging by how easily and readily you adopt and regurgitate the ideas of others.

Praise the Lawd! Another sinner redeemed! Another sinner who isn't an amputee:

http://www.whydoesgodhateamputees.com/

Continue asking for guidance, my son, for it is written "Ask and thou shall receive." Perhaps it is His Will that someday thou shalt have something intelligent to say and not have to continue grasping for straws.

Chook

Oct 26th, 2007, 05:06 PM

Sorry, dude, nice try, but I never said that "fundamentalists argue that scientific superiority justified imperialism." Go ahead, look back over the post. I certainly never said anything like that, though I did point out that you are making that leap based on your fundamentalist beliefs and prejudice against science.

Maybe you're hearing voices in your head. Maybe God is talking to you. Good thing you're not a politician. He might tell you to invade Iraq. Good thing you're not smart enough to be a scientist. He might tell you to become the Unabomber and to attack academia. After all, them Darwinists be evil!

You, on the other hand, clearly stated:

We are all still waiting for some proof that they "used these ideas to justify their crimes." It's funny that we've gone on for so long, and you just keep dodging. Boo!

Praise the Lawd! Another sinner redeemed! Another sinner who isn't an amputee:

http://www.whydoesgodhateamputees.com/

Continue asking for guidance, my son, for it is written "Ask and thou shall receive." Perhaps it is His Will that someday thou shalt have something intelligent to say and not have to continue grasping for straws.

Gollum Returns.

LOL