Speakeasy forum

General discussion

I guess, in some parts of the world, proselytizing

by Steven Haninger / August 6, 2010 8:22 PM PDT
Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: I guess, in some parts of the world, proselytizing
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: I guess, in some parts of the world, proselytizing
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
American help should become qualified
by James Denison / August 6, 2010 10:09 PM PDT

We'll help you against invaders if you want to become Christians, otherwise welcome your fellow religionist and all the "blessings" they bring to you.

Collapse -
Yeah, I'm sure Jewish Americans would go for that...
by EdHannigan / August 6, 2010 10:25 PM PDT

come on!

Collapse -
that would be fine, but...
by James Denison / August 7, 2010 2:57 AM PDT

...considering what seems the prevailing Muslim mindset against Jews, less than against Christians, I'd think the latter would be more acceptable to those willing to change. I'd be happy if they picked any other peaceful religion that doesn't follow such a person as that horrible Mohammed. If he was alive and in America today, he'd be locked away in some maximum security facility, if not already suffered the death penalty.

Collapse -
by Roger NC / August 6, 2010 11:38 PM PDT

And while not as horrific as the Taliban justifying murder because of religion, it sounds just as intolerant.

Collapse -
I would have to think that, as these missionaries
by Steven Haninger / August 6, 2010 11:46 PM PDT

were trying to convert Afghans, the solid Afghan Muslims were trying to convert Christians to Islam. I suppose that would be perfectly legal if not required in that country. I don't see why, in either case, that side of missionary work should be considered a threat. I don't know if Muslims engage in active missionary work but they'd certainly not find murder to be a hazard when visiting Christians.

Collapse -
Thanks for the illustration of christian bigotry....
by C1ay / August 8, 2010 8:37 AM PDT

Not to say that all Christians are bigoted but you've certainly illustrated your position very well. Thank you.

Collapse -
Always has been Steve, we've just forgotten.
by Ziks511 / August 7, 2010 3:21 AM PDT

China, Africa, Indonesia, New Zealand, Canada in the 17th Century (look up Pere Brebeuf, sorry about the absence of accents), the US at the same time.

Of course from their perspective, Islamic extremists see us as the ones causing the problems. They just want to proselytize and stamp out the existing religion wherever they choose.


Collapse -
The Taliban don't really care if the Americans
by Diana Forum moderator / August 7, 2010 1:07 PM PDT

were proselytizing; they just want to control the lives of everyone around them and destroy those that toe the party line.

I often wondered about Muslims that are so unsure of their own religion that they are terrified of the possibility of someone else giving Muslims another way.


Collapse -
Agree and noted that (sort of) within this thread
by Steven Haninger / August 7, 2010 9:30 PM PDT

One who holds a belief should expect to be challenged and tested. Those who can be persuaded to change, are not that strong in faith. Those who are not moved can find themselves to be strengthened. One who expresses a faith based on fear of reprisal is no more than a slave to the master. That's how early Christian "conversions" were too often done and that was surely a ***** in the armor of the faith.

Collapse -
Hmmm...we all know the phrase
by Steven Haninger / August 8, 2010 12:03 AM PDT

so why is c-h-i-n-k banned? I wasn't referring to an Asian people. Happy

Collapse -
That's true of all religious extremists....
by C1ay / August 8, 2010 8:38 AM PDT

they just want power and control at any cost Sad

Collapse -
I have to wonder
by MarkFlax Forum moderator / August 7, 2010 10:10 PM PDT

what Missionaries are doing in places like Afghanistan. OK these were stated as a medical mission, but despite claims they were not proselytizing, I can't help but wonder.

Tom Little was known to the Taliban and had been expelled from the country in 2001, the article says.

Afghanistan is a fiercely Muslim nation, and even without the Taliban they are going to be openly hostile to any attempts by the Christian religion to drag them away from Islam.

I think this was a tragedy waiting to happen.


Collapse -
Oh, then that must make it OK
by James Denison / August 7, 2010 10:13 PM PDT
In reply to: I have to wonder

Only one side can speak of their beliefs?

Collapse -
I think you may have missed my point
by MarkFlax Forum moderator / August 7, 2010 10:17 PM PDT

Preaching Christianity in Afghanistan is likely to cause such reactions. As it just has.

Sorry you didn't understand that point.

Collapse -
And just to add..
by MarkFlax Forum moderator / August 7, 2010 10:33 PM PDT

I don't mean to start an argument here.

In an ideal world of course people should be free to talk about their beliefs. Sadly though, this world is not ideal yet, and I feel we have to be pragmatic. Islam is a relatively young religion and hasn't yet accepted the secular/non-secular differentiation that other religions have. To Muslims Islam is the only government and the only religion, and they do not accept any other form of identity. Whether they will do in some distant future only time will tell.

But to expect Christian Missionaries to be able to roam through Muslim nations without reprisal is a fundamental error I feel.

I don't make any comment on the 'rights or wrongs' of it. I'm saying that this tragedy was going to happen.


Collapse -
that gets back to my point
by James Denison / August 8, 2010 2:51 AM PDT
In reply to: And just to add..

Qualified help. You want it, you gotta make concessions. No concessions, no help. The major concession should be freedom of religion, and make that the first and preeminent freedom. The second is anyone who attacks it, interferes with it within the bounds of peacefulness, pay a penalty. When it comes to Islam though, I don't see it so much a religion as a threatening world political movement hiding behind the facade of being a religion.

Collapse -
I didn't really
by MarkFlax Forum moderator / August 8, 2010 4:58 AM PDT

understand your first post to be truthful. I blame my slow mind.

But above you said, "You want it, you gotta make concessions". Who wants what? I doubt that many Afghans want to become Christians.

Collapse -
what is the root of the problem?
by James Denison / August 8, 2010 5:18 AM PDT
In reply to: I didn't really

Their belief system. Are the Taliban an aberration? Are the Saudi Arabians and their form of justice and forbidding of conversion an aberration? When you look at what all these terrorist activities, female enslavements, suppression of rights, etc., they all come back to one main theme. Islam.

Collapse -
Yes, yes and yes.
by MarkFlax Forum moderator / August 8, 2010 8:24 AM PDT

But what does that have to do with the discussion?

Collapse -
(NT) you can lead a horse to water...
by James Denison / August 8, 2010 9:47 AM PDT
In reply to: Yes, yes and yes.
Collapse -
The Islam is some 600 years younger ...
by Kees Bakker / August 9, 2010 5:43 AM PDT

than Christianity. Christians routinely burned witches 600 years ago. Moslims, as far as I know, don't now. So maybe their progress to civilisation (assuming you agree that burning witches can be called uncivilised or even an aberration) is more or less comparable with ours.

Talking about suppression of rights (we just had the gay parade in Amsterdam this weekend, that's why think about it), how about the right for gay marriage? Muslims and Christians are on a par with that, I'd say.

Yes, it all comes back to one main theme: religion.


Collapse -
I don't remember
by James Denison / August 9, 2010 6:25 AM PDT

Christ, his disciples, nor a single apostle burning any witches. I do remember reading of Mohammed and his men murdering, raping, and even Mohammed taking a girl child to defile. The foundation of Islam is corrupt, from it's inception.

Collapse -
Got any links
by C1ay / August 9, 2010 9:07 AM PDT
In reply to: I don't remember

According to this one there's a bit of disagreement over the origin of Islam. What makes your memory any more authoritative? Kind of hasty to just declare it corrupt without supporting your claim isn't it?

Collapse -
they want to have it both ways
by James Denison / August 9, 2010 11:56 AM PDT
In reply to: Got any links

Obviously, that's foolish.

Collapse -
Do you then deny
by MarkFlax Forum moderator / August 9, 2010 8:33 PM PDT
In reply to: I don't remember

the early history of Christianity?

"Newborn girls, like Eve, ?were considered as full of dangerous pollution?and were therefore more often killed, exposed, abandoned, malnourished, raped, and neglected than boys.... As Christian girls grew up, they were constantly told of their worthlessness and sinful lustfulness. Women, said Tertullian... Teaching girls in schools was not allowed, Aelred said (1170).... Better that you should beat a child within an inch of its life than that they would be cast into the Lake of Fire for all eternity".

All in the name of God. It all seems quite horrific to me, and all this was happening after the time of Mohammed.

I'm glad to see that Christianity at least has moved on, even though it has taken centuries. Let's hope Islam moves on as well.


Collapse -
societal practices
by James Denison / August 9, 2010 8:54 PM PDT
In reply to: Do you then deny

that were NOT in agreement with Christian teachings, and the same things practiced by those NOT Christians, are what you want to make some errant point with? I suppose the Christians are to blame for the unbalance in boy-girl population in China? China's one child policy which lead to abortions of female babies is Christian's fault?

St. Paul said that women had to cover their heads in church because otherwise ?lice-like demons would leap like sparks from female hair and poison the church.?

ROFLMBO!!!!! What made you even consider pulling up this piece of drivel as if it was something worthy of even reading?! Anyway, Paul never said that. Paul did address the question of a custom among the Jews requiring women wear a head covering, finally ending his argument quite cogently by saying Christians had no such "custom". Having hair is not a "custom", but covering it would be.

Considering the author's misquote of Paul, I discount all his other quotes too without confirmation by someone else. I find this author to be a deliberate liar.

You will not discover most of these horrible aspects about Christian misogyny from the hundreds of books written on medieval Christianity, since most of the authors are both male and believing Christians, and idealize Christianity regularly.

Probably because in the main they didn't happen. Also because most of what's written was done as lying slanders against Christians by others who weren't. This author probably also believes the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" was an accepted Jewish book.

The author seems to have personal issues, starts with a conclusion, finds tidbits here and there to try and support her particular prejudice. She puts "things in quotes" with absolutely no reference to what's being quoted. This is a very poor disertation and I am surprised you'd even reference it yourself.

Her "infanticide" concepts also are lacking since throughout history Christians have been foremost in taking in orphans, even as early as Rome itself. Very unlikely to take in orphans while killing one's own children. The author has a hate inside that is consuming her soul and will go the way of all such who do the same.

Collapse -
by MarkFlax Forum moderator / August 9, 2010 9:14 PM PDT
In reply to: societal practices

You deny the Inquisition and other practices in the early history of Christianity?

You never did religious history at school/college?

My bad, I thought US education was better than that.


Collapse -
Is he gay?
by James Denison / August 9, 2010 9:37 PM PDT
In reply to: societal practices

He mentions 3 children, but they could be adopted. I can find no record of him being married. He also is a supporter of gay "rights". He was left some money which he's used to basically create his own psuedo-scientific group, that is looked askance at by other psychologist, ignored completely by many. His works sound like the vile spew from the gay groups, Betty Bowers, or LandoverBaptist. He seems like a person very disturbed in how he views the world.


Lloyd deMause and others have argued that psychohistory is a field of scientific inquiry with its own peculiar methods, objectives and theories and that it is separate from history and anthropology. Some historians, social scientists and anthropologists have, however, argued that their disciplines already describe psychological motivation and that Psychohistory is not, therefore, a separate subject.

Others have dismissed deMause's theories and motives arguing that the emphasis given by Psychohistory to speculation on the psychological motivations of people in history make it a completely undisciplined field of study.

Collapse -
Mark, all gays are pedophiles
by James Denison / August 9, 2010 9:50 PM PDT
In reply to: societal practices

That is your approach. The assumption that some gays are pedophiles mean they all are. Just because you can find some hypocrisy and corruptions among those who call themselves Christian, you then want to paint all Christians with that? I didn't realize you suffered from such bigotry. Now I know.

Collapse -
RE:Just because you can find some hypocrisy and corruptions
by JP Bill / August 9, 2010 10:09 PM PDT
In reply to: societal practices

Just because you can find some hypocrisy and corruptions among those who call themselves Christian, you then want to paint all Christians with that? I didn't realize you suffered from such bigotry. Now I know.

Just because you can find some hypocrisy and corruptions among those who call themselves Muslim, you then want to paint all Muslims with that? I didn't realize you suffered from such bigotry. Now I know.

Popular Forums

Computer Newbies 10,686 discussions
Computer Help 54,365 discussions
Laptops 21,181 discussions
Networking & Wireless 16,313 discussions
Phones 17,137 discussions
Security 31,287 discussions
TVs & Home Theaters 22,101 discussions
Windows 7 8,164 discussions
Windows 10 2,657 discussions


Your favorite shows are back!

Don’t miss your dramas, sitcoms and reality shows. Find out when and where they’re airing!