The Monks Who Stole Christmas
I don’t know what this is supposed to be, but it is a marijuana leaf. Christmas decoration at Liberty Plaza.
Disclaimer: This post is in no way commentary on Soma Thero who, being dead, had nothing to do with the events after his death.
I’ve celebrated Christmas my whole life. Not that my family is Christian, but growing up in Ohio you couldn’t avoid it and it was never, to me, a very religious holiday. It was a very secular holiday in almost all aspects, more snow, candy canes, and nonsensical songs than gospel. Christmas is the largest economic stimulus for many nations and I noticed that more than Jesus birthday thing. In Sri Lanka, however, Christmas has almost disappeared (besides the godawful din on the radio). All this is due largely to one monks death, and the lesser monks who tried to capitalize on it. Or socialize. Or tyrannize. Whatever.
If you take public transit in Colombo or Sri Lanka you will see the face of 1) Lakshmi, 2) Naked Baby (not Jesus) or 3) Soma Thero. And not in that order. Judging from an informal survey of the 138, 177 and 100 bus lines, Soma Thero is insanely popular. He was probably the first television monk, an effective communicator and much beloved. He was also controversial, saying that Sinhala Buddhists need to outbreed Muslims (and getting kicked off the air), but as monks go he was not so bad. Again, this post is not a judgment on him, who I don’t know that much about. Anyways, he was in Russia to accept an honorary degree from Christian Evangelicals (who he oddly campaigned against). He had long suffered from Diabetes and died in St Petersburg of a heart attack at age 55. Some speculated that it was murder. That was investigated and looks unlikely, but you can never tell with Russians. That was December 12th.
That was sad. I can’t say I am/was a supporter, but it’s sad when anyone passes, especially someone who touched so many lives. However, what happened regarding his funeral was very strange. Buddhists don’t bury their dead immediately like Muslims, but they also don’t wait inordinate amounts of time. Soma Thero’s funeral, however, was scheduled for December 24th. Christmas Eve.
Now, the UNP was in power at the time and they were making a big push for Christmas as a commercial, economic holiday. However, Soma’s death shook that, and the delayed funeral rattled the celebrations to the core. His death was mourned like a film star, with orange all over the streets, and Christmas decorations were torn down. There was also an appeal to make the 24th a national day of morning (SARID). Note that the date was not that of his death (12th), but a tactical holiday two weeks later.
Soma Thero had preached against Christian conversions, but after his death extremists went the whole hog and tried to subdue Christmas altogether. And that year, largely succeeded. All the talk was off whether Christians killed Soma Thero, and the color was orange. There was also a backlash with monks effectively abandoning meditation and detachment to enter parliament (JHU) and the constant and largely symbolic debate over forced conversions in a land of child conscription, war, and immediate poverty.
And that, loosely, was how the monks stole Christmas. It’s never been the same, and it likely won’t be, unless someone’s willing to get their political neck lopped off. This is not to say that we should celebrate Christmas for any moral reason, but the fact is that the country did celebrate before. We follow the ‘Christian’ calendar and Chrismas is largely a time-keeping and economic function. We can cut it off, but I don’t see how the culture really gains anything from that. Besides pride. Last I checked that was a no-no in all the religions of this land.
It will take more than a motley bunch of creeps to kill Christmas for those of us who will celebrate in this country regardless. And on the economic front, I’m sure those businessmen that make a killing during this time will not let it go all that easily. Those assholes didn’t steal Christmas, they merely obstructed it momentarily. And they will surely find that for Christmas to be ‘selected out’ the natural selection process is not an overnight phenomenon. Their effort was but a micro-instant in the space-time continuum now long gone.
Get off the melodrama everyone. I am a buddihst who has celebrated xmas all his life. I live in London now and I can vouch that its much much more subdued than celebrations for xmas in Sri Lanka.
So for the writer who live in Ohio and was somehow forced to celebrate xmas, get a life!!!
This is one of many xmases I celebrate away from Sri Lanka, and how I miss a Sri Lankan xmas. And I can guarantee that all my Christian friends will vouch that I am one Buddhist who really really celebrates xmas. So STOP TALKING NONSENSE AND CREATING TROUBLE JUST BECAUSE YOU ARE JOBLESS.
PLEASE GET A LIFE…
My apologies Indi. I must have misunderstood the ‘you couldn’t avoid it part’ in your post. BUT THATS NOT THE POINT IS IT. THE POINT IS PONTIFICATING ABOUT SRI LANKA FOR NO REASON.
Eh? What kind of point is that? That’s not even a proper sentence.
eh? didnt know this was an english lesson…
I think it’s called writing, what you refer to as ‘pontificating for no reason’. Also known as freedom of expression, and citizenship. If you’re not interested or feel different please a) comment or b) don’t read but please don’t YELL.
my apologies. respect. point taken, not agreed upon.
Well Dhammika, you see, now that Indrajit is upset that his favourite street isn’t festooned with Christmas decorations that are eyesores, he tries to banshee-scream about it and find someone to blame. His favourite scapegoat is “the monks.” From the failure of the UNP to the ripe haemorrhoid bothering his pampered little kalu sudda ass – it’s all the monks’ fault.
Too much gas? It’s the monks’ fault.
Sri Lanka lost the cricket? It’s the monks’ fault.
Electricity cuts? It’s the monks’ fault.
Ranil had a bad hair day and Indi’s efforts at running the UNP blog amounted to jack shit? It’s the monks’ fault.
93% of Sri Lankans who are non-Christians don’t really celebrate Christmas? It’s the monks’ fault.
How dare all these non-Christians not celebrate Christmas! Shock! Horror! Totally abominable! No bright sparkly bulbs! I mean, who gives a shit about the war, child soldiers, bombs or refugees? It’s the bright sparkly Christmas lights and decorations and candy canes that really matter.
Sadly this is what happens when two faced sivalas like Indi are brought up in The Jesus Land of America, and then come down to live in Sri Lanka where they eyeball everything with their beady little Christian fundamentalist eyes, thump bibles and scream of fire and brimstone and evil Buddhist conspiracies. It’s time for you to get into a rehabilitation clinic and stop being such a crack-and-attention whore, Indi – it’s bad for your health.
I throw in my heart for you Sri Lankans. I always try to support through Sarvodaya. I am happy that you reject christianity and all it’s pomp. (pun intended).
By writer from Ohio I assume you mean me Dhammika. I never said I was ‘forced’ to celebrate Christmas. I did and do enjoy celebrating it. You might consider reading posts before commenting.
Good. Now Christians know how Buddhists felt when Christians were in power in the country for centuries. Buddhist monks were killed, chopped up, flogged, Buddhist temples were destroyed and Buddhists were persecuted for not converting to Christianity. You had to register yourself a Chrsitian just to get frikkin get married! Or to get an education at a colonial school.
Don’t like what’s happening Indi? Blame the Christian fanatics who went and around and still go around unethically converting Buddhists/Hindus/Muslims in Sri Lanka.
Oh, and have a big, huge, sopping cry.
An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. Do unto others what they would do unto you. Both particularly Buddhist traits, aren’t they?
Wait. They aren’t. And let’s apply maithree selectively, shall we? None for those evil Christian scum. (And in case anyone wonders, there is a clear distinction between maithree and rolling over for zealots of any religion)
Personally, if your attitude is representative of the Buddhist establishment, I feel vindicated in walking away from organized religon years ago.
ghostwriter, I hope you don’t think Buddhism is an ‘organized religion’ as -despite what people like Rez may seem to imply- it isn’t.
Oh, really? In the sense of not being organised or not being a religion? On both counts, this is arguable.
Hello Ravana. What compelled me to reply to gw’s statement was not to push the (arguable) point that Buddhism doesn’t qualify as an organised religion but rather his/her obvious despair to Rez’s comment. I should have made that clear. It’s indeed depressing to see the idol-worship, proselytism, narrow-mindedness and hatred emanating from Theravadins in Sri Lanka, but it shouldn’t drive anyone from discovering the dhamma which, in the end, is just about doing good, avoiding evil, and purifying the mind.
The same can be said of every religion.
Not at all, in fact, when looking at the Middle Eastern religions. Doing goood, avoiding evil, etc maybe byproducts, but they aren’t the core of the faiths. The core is based on relationship — man with God.
Blacker, you misunderstood my point, which admittedly is understandable, considering my brief response following on from an earlier idea. All religions are great in theory. In practice, unfortunately, they all suck at some level.
Let’s just call it a religious philosophy and leave it at that. :)
Philosphies don’t have a defined goal or purpose like salvation or Nirvana.
Hmm.. not really how I was thinking of it, Ravana. In Indian thought, philosophy, or ‘darsana’, is regarded as the vision of truth, and the goal or purpose of the philosophy is thus to discover the ultimate truth. In this respect, Buddhism is a philosophy, as it advocates this search.
(Since great emphasis is placed on the practical aspect of the dhamma, it can be more appropriately called an ‘applied philosophy’. Since it presents a path to self-transformation, like many other religions, Buddhism can also be called a ‘religious philosophy’. Ofcourse, any one label is unsatisfactory – and ultimately of little importance – to someone who goes in search of deliverance.)
Ravana: “All religions are great in theory. In practice, unfortunately, they all suck at some level.”
All philosophies, ideologies, and religions seem impractical (read “suck”) somewhere down the line. That’s where choice comes in. No one is forced to participate. If you don’t like religion, don’t follow one. No point complaining about it.
Who’s complaining?
You left organized religion? Good.
Spoken like a true sinhalese buddhist. true to its very ideology. rock on!
Yes, okay, my dear Sinhala Christian fanatic.
Nice Post! At Liberty Plaza they should have at least had the lights in the shape of a Bell or Holly instead of a Marijuana Leaf. They probably don’t know that it is a marijuana leaf.
It will take more than a couple of monks to subdue Christmas and it is a festival that is celebrated by a Christians and Non Christians alike. It has become largely commercialised these days all over the world.
The unethical conversion issue was just a cover to put pressure on the Christians in Sri Lanka by extremist forces. It was designed to draw focus away from the larger issue of the ethnic conflict.
Anyways these guys did not succeed in their endeavors to put a stop to Christmas since above all this commercialisation and after all it is the date on which the birth of Jesus Christ is celebrated (even though the date is not correct).
After all he is the True Reason for Christmas and that can never be taken away
Actually, the original reason for a festival celebration around the 25th of December was nothing to do with Jesus or Christianity. It was a pagan / secular festival that was to do with the farm communities noticing that the days were getting longer after the winter solstice. Many of the symbols and customs of Christmas (like the Christmas tree) have pagan or secular origins. The Christians kind of hijacked the festival when Christianity spread accross Europe.
Christians have been the most vicious of people to Buddhists in Sri Lanka. When they were in power they persecuted everyone who did not follow their religion; a religion that was shoved down the throats of the Sri Lankan people by force and persection. When Christians were in power, they attacked Buddhists, slandered their religion, burnt and destroyed their temples, persecuted and killed monks, and forced people to accept Christianity in return for an education or a job. They were the ones who set up schools on a religious basis and sectioned out graves on a religious basis (Christian bodies can’t be buried next to filthy dirty Buddhist ones, oh no). Christians banned Buddhism in areas they controlled, BANNED BUDDHIST CELEBRATIONS (like Vesak and Poya), prohibited the publication and distribution of Buddhist tracts, and required Buddhists to register themselves as Christians in order to get married. They treated Buddhists and Buddhism with the utmost disdain. And now, after persecuting Buddhists for centuries in the most vile of fashions, they are whining (through people like Indi) about how a religion followed by 7% of the Sri Lankan population isn’t accorded the biggest and best celebration in the country, and blaming it (surprise surprise!) on monks. Apparently according to Indi, 93% of Sri Lankans who are not Christians just MUST celebrate Christmas and shop and sing gospel songs and listen to boring ass Christian programmes on Radio, the TV and all the streets in the whole entire country must sing the glories of Jesus Christ. Halleleujah! Praise the Lord!
If that bull crap is not enough, Christian fanatics in the island abuse the poverty and destitution of non-Christians to
convert them to Christianity. They even used the tsunami as an ‘opportunity’ to buy converts for their God. Oh course, kalu suddas like Indi are in denial over it; they think Christians can only be sweet and nice and kind and can never be evil like those dirty little heathens the Buddhists/Hindus/Muslims/Insert-Non-Christian-Practioner-Here. These Soldiers Of Christ get all bitchy and whiny when others stand up to their aggressive and unethical activities and scream and cry about “persecution” when they have been the ones who have been doing that to every other religion in the country for centuries (I need not mention here how Christians have persecuted non-Christians in other parts of the world).
You see, Christians expect Buddhists to be meek and mild so they can walk all over them and spit on them as they please. But they are sadly mistaken. The Buddhists of Sri Lanka are not going to stand back and be walked over. Religious harmony was fine in this country until the Christian fanatics descended and went about their aggressive ways. Indi wants to blame it on the monks (as usual) but the blame rests squarely at the feet of Christian fundamentalists who fucked up religious harmony in this country (centuries ago) and continue to do so with impunity. If the JHU is taking the gust out of these Christian vagabonds, then kudos to them. If anyone’s neck needs lopping off, it’s that of the Christian fundamentalists and their boot -lickers like Indi.
Hey, maybe if we wait a couple of more centuries, the English radio stations in this country will play the religious songs of Buddhists, Hindus and Muslims when sacred days to them come up – you know, just to be fair? Because the only religion these radio stations seem to celebrate is Christmas. Let’s make a whole big post about that shall we, about how 93% of Sri Lankans are being discriminated against and “persecuted” and how this all the fault of Christian priests who aren’t allowing any sort of non-Christian celebration to take place on radio.
TrueSriLankan claims that “unethical conversion issue was just a cover” but even Christian priests in the newspapers have admitted that it takes place. And here is a Sri Lankan website that explores this aggressive Christian fanaticism:
http://www.geocities.com/focussrilanka
Rez – the poster boy for Sri Lankan Buddhism.
Ravana…. the poster boy for a fugly demon king.
PS Could someone let me know of any western country that celebrates Buddhism as an official holiday?
PPS Apparently according to Indi, close to two weeks (from the 12th to the 24th) is a strange amount of time even though Soma Thera’s body was autopsied in Russia, the investigations had to be completed, arrangements had to be made for its transportation, his body was flown to Sri Lanka (do you know any direct flights from Russia to Lanka?), his body was autopsied again in Sri Lanka, investigations were carried out, arrangements were made for his funeral, governmental okay was necessary for public display. Oh-my-fucking-god, 12 days for all of that….I mean, we all know that anyone who dies in suspicious circumstances in a foreign country is buried/cremated the next day, heck, within a couple of hours if its possible.
Name one Western country where Buddhism is an official religion Rez. Maybe then your argument would be more valid. You really seem to be the sort of character that spends more time talking out of your arse than actually substantiating your rants.
Really? Sri Lanka celebrates Christmas and Easter as official holidays because Christianity is an official religion in the country eh? Moron, no majority-Christian nation has an official holiday for any Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist sacred day.
No majority Christian nation has a holiday each month either, like we do with our poya days (not to mention vesak, etc). Most Christian majority countries have two Christian holidays — Good Friday & Christmas. So since we like our hols so much, what’s wrong with celebrating Christmas too?
So what if Sri Lanka celebrates Poya days? It’s a majority Buddhist country. But it celebrates the sacred says of all major religions OFFICIALLY. The fact remains that no Christian majority country officially celebrates ANY sacred days of the Buddhists, Hindus or Muslims. France has an 8% Muslim population like Sri Lanka – absolutely NOTHING for Muslims there.
I’ve no problem with Sri Lanka celebrating Poya days. But if you’re going to have 15 Buddhist holidays a year, I see no harm in having one or two from other religions. Only one Christian holy day is an official holiday to 15 or 16 Buddhist ones. Seems fair to me. You’re the one complaining about Christmas. Besides, if the latter was conducted the way it’s supposed to be (in a religious manner) I could understand your need for bigotry; but it’s just an excuse to have fun and make money. So party on.
Rez: Id ul Fitr is a public holiday in the Phillipines, a Christian majority country. In Ethiopia, also a Christian country, Id e Milad, Id ul Fitr and Id ul Azha are all public holidays.
Actually.. December 25 was the birth of Sun God Mithra, in Roman times i believe. But either way, no one remembers that tradition, and the 25 is the day chosen to celebrate Christ’s birth.
Suppression or not, my wallet is still getting lighter the closer it gets to Christmas..
You mean Saturnalia?
And Saturnalia
The Vesak celebrations are largely due to Col Olcott, as part of his revival of Buddism. Interesting, the only model availble to him, was that of the evangelical christian faith, so his revival resulted in what Obeysekere and others have termed ‘Protestant Buddhism”
On the subject of Vesak again, Olcott felt the Buddists needed a festival similar to Christmas and decided that Vesak was the suitable one. He got the colonial government to declare the day a holiday. He felt the Buddhists needed carols so he commissioned “Bakthi Gee”. On a wider note the Buddhist schools, were modeled on the Church schools, the Poya holiday on teh sabbath, the Daham Pasal on the sunday school.
Buddhism in Sri Lanka owes a great deal to Christianity, far more than most buddhists would care to accept.
For books on the subject google search for “Gananath Obeysekere”
I was hoping someone would bring this point up. Ananda College, which Olcott founded and which is a bastion of Sinhala Buddhist nationalism today, is another example of how Buddhism in Sri Lanka has borrowed and benefitted from Christian tradition. Not to mention the Buddhist version of Sunday School, “Daham Pasal”.
On unethical conversion, assuming this means conversion for financial or other inducement I have no doubt that this happens. That this also upsets the status quo is also unqustioned.
I don’t care for religious fanatics of any stripe, but fnding some means of controlling them in a pluralistic society is quite tricky. My own view is that religion must be taken out of public life and where possible marginalised. If individuals want to delude themselves with gods so be it, there is a need for the revival of the Rationalist Association of Ceylon.
Actually, I’m always pleased when I see bile spewed on the level that rez just has. It gives the mainstream Christians the perfect caricature of the rabid Buddhist that can be quoted abroad (have already posted links to this thread as much as I can to help out). The emergence of the JHU was again a great thing for Christianity in SL, because it divided and weakened Buddhism, showing up the idiots like Rez for what they are. It also undermined the whole Sanga, by tainting it with the ‘political priests’.
So far, most of his complaints have been about centuries-old persecution (and btw, Buddhists are not buried, idiot, they are cremated, like Hindus, so the only division in cemeteries should be between Muslims & Christians), and his perceived grouse against the so-called ‘unethical conversions’ (of which there’s no evidence).
But either way, persecution of the nature that he’s encouraging will only strengthen Christianity as it has all over the world. Or, to put it in it’s original context: “Semen es sanguis Christianorum”.
David,
As much as Rez is a freaking idiot, you don’t exactly come out smelling of roses. If you want proof of unethical conversions, come and meet my maid, who was promised money and free schooling for her kids if she and her family converted.
I’m with Jack point on marginalizing religion and pushing it back to the periphery of society.
Rez, your attitude is sadly the prevalent one in this country. Blame anyone but ourselves. As much as I don’t agree with unethical conversions, has there been any open debate in this country as to why this happens? If the Hindus and Buddhists stopped leaving everything at the door of Fate and Karma and actually did something in an institutionalized manner for their poor, there wouldn’t be any room for the evangelists and born again Christians to offer financial incentives to convert.
No, I’m sorry but I disagree. Regardless of the amount of assistance available to the poor, it’s never going to be enough to fulfill everyone’s wants.
(to take a random, hopefully non-offensive example)
Why do you suppose that because your maid’s kids go to some school now, they shouldn’t aspire to go to another which they perceive is better? What if the “convert to our religion” pill was sugar coated with the chance to get a foot in the door of said better school?
Somewhat ironically, surely the first step towards marginalizing religion is found in indifference? If you don’t care much about your choice of faith, then why should you not take the free schooling and whatever else some nasty unethical
missionaryconquistador is going to offer to entice you into the arms of [insert-appropriate-name-here]?Here, take this money. You’re a Christian now. Come to church on Sunday, ok?
Uh. Ok. I’m a Christian. Where’s my free bread and wine?
At the risk of sounding mocking, this is no different (and certainly no worse) than people selling out advertising space on their forehead to casinos. If that’s what they think they need to do … can I judge them?
Where the X-tians have one (of many) advantage is that there is a pre-existing large contingent of aid organizations (most based outside SL) which are overtly faith based. Compare this with, for example… Sarvodaya. Is Sarvodaya a Buddhist organization? Umm, does anyone care? I think not.
TBD, I’m not sure I need to come out smelling of anything actually.
But anyway. What I mean, when I say there is no evidence of unethical conversions, is that there is no one willing to testify that they were offered incentives. If there were, why wasn’t such evidence presented before parliament when this issue was brought up. Largely (I’m not saying there are NO instances of such conversions, but they are extremely rare) it’s a case of misunderstanding or perception. For example, a parent attempts to enrole a child in a Christian school and is told that Christian children will be given preference. The parent might then plead exenuating circumstances, but is told that if the child were Christian it would be easy. Result, the parent sees this as aan attempt to convert by making an offer. See what I mean?
Also, what everyone seems to overlook, is that most of the evangelical groups are faith-based as opposed to doctrine-based. Therefore, bribing someone to convert will NOT make that convert a true Christian, which defeats the purpose. Christianity isn’t about making up the numbers.
Finally, as Ghost Writer points out, what’s the big deal? Does Buddhism have some sort of ownership over the souls of its followers? A religion should be one of choice. So if you condemn unethical conversion, you must also condemn the condemnation. Because as history has proven, persecution and poverty only strengthens religious beliefs; it doesn’t make people convert. Christianity and all the other great religions have thrived under intense persecution. Why should Buddhism be different? What are y’all worried about? Will Buddhism die if the numbers reduce? Is Buddhism therefore about numbers?
The problem, again as Ghost Writer points out, is one of indifference. We live in a time when everyone preaches that all religions are essentially one (though they are pointedly not), so people think “who cares?” Maybe it’s time the Buddhist priests started preaching true Buddhism, and leading by example; instead of preaching hate and politics and driving around in limos. They are losing their people and relying on doctrine, one of the greatest mistakes, and one which will have more to do with destroying Buddhism in this country than any outside pressure.
That certain individuals may influence other individuals to adapt one religious belief or another has seldom been a problem. There should be open and friendly discussion and debate about religion just as there is about science. But when one religion creates an agenda of conversion and mobilizes massive resources to that end, targeting unsuspecting, poor or disorganized groups, it is no longer a free discussion. It is an ideological assault. It is a form of religious violence and intolerance.
Organized conversion efforts are quite another matter than the common dialogue and interchange between members of different religious communities in daily life, or even than organized discussions in forums or academic settings. Organized conversion activity is like a trained army invading a country from the outside. This missionary army often goes into communities where there is little organized resistance to it, or which may not even be aware of its power or its motives. It will even take advantage of communities that are tolerant and open minded about religion and use that to promote a missionary agenda that destroys this tolerance.
Such organized conversion efforts often go by the name of evangelization. The Catholic Church uses this term for its long-standing conversion efforts. Fundamentalist Protestant Christians call their movement the evangelical movement. Evangelization sounds nicer and more ennobling than conversion. But let us be clear about the matter. The Evangelist aim is to convert the entire world to the Christian faith, which naturally implies the rejection of other religions. Such evangelical movements have world conversion strategies and programs to target India and Hindus state by state, tribe by tribe, even village by village. They keep track of the numbers of converts and mark them in the win column as gains for Christ.
Organized conversion and evangelical efforts are not interested in dialogue or in learning from other religious groups. Such organizations have their mind made up that they are the true faith and they are unwilling to grant equality to any other belief. Real dialogue is only possible when there is equality and open mindedness. This cannot occur between a missionary faith and the faith that it is targeting, any more than it can happen between a hunter and his prey. If missionaries initiate dialogue it is either to promote conversion or to protect their converts. The missionary is not about to change his mind, believe that he might be wrong on something or accept any other point of view that might compromise his conversion agenda.
The missionary business remains one of the largest in the world and has enormous funding on many levels. It is like several multinational corporations with the different Catholic, Protestant and Evangelical groups involved. There are full time staffs and organizations allocating money, creating media hype, plotting strategies and seeking new ways to promote conversion. The local native religion has about as much chance against such multinational incursions as a local food seller has if McDonald’s moves into his neighborhood with a slick, well funded advertising campaign targeting his customers. Yet while many third world countries have government policies to protect local businesses, they usually don’t have any safety mechanism to protect local religions.
In fact missionary activity is like an ideological war. It is quite systematic, motivated and directed. It can even resemble a blitzkrieg using media, money, people and public shows to appeal to the masses in an emotional way. Therefore, with missionary activity we are not talking about unplanned, spontaneous or isolated events. We are talking about a religious effort towards world conquest that is quite happy to put an end to other religious-traditions that looks to establish one particular religion for all human beings, in which the diversity of human religions is discredited and forgotten.
This coming from a boy whose dad is a Christian priest and probably invovled in buying souls for his god.
MIght I suggest you get out of your little cocoon and realize that Buddhists are either BURIED or CREMATED in Sri Lanka. The only moron here is you if you think Sri Lankan Buddhists only cremate and never bury. But then again, who can blame you for living your little Christian fundamentalist world, bagging out other religions like the Bible tells you to.
Okay, pardon my ignorance. Was there some sort of mourning thing that affected christmas celebrations/business following the year that soma thera died? Or was it just that year? I mean is there something of that sort happening this time around?
wrote elsewhere but felt the need to stick in here for reasons yet unclear..
i lived here for a while (like 30yrs!?) n christmas has not gotten any less celebrated this year given present circumstances – those that arent soma hamuduruwo linked.. like the tsunami. or vak(/h)arai. if people are celebrating less at present (which mind you is of recent on the decline – at one time this country used to leave out the crackers during the april new year when horrendous attacks – of which ever kind – had just taken place), i would assume other (more current and ample) reasons.. or pull out better analysis or linkages to my claim!
i am sorry. he may very well be right. soma killed christmas (?!).
no matter, coz god and the son and even the holy ghost have all lost their blueberries at present (along with millions of others), n 45000 (beg your pardon but i am only counting vakarai n senuwara n such at present) or so people will just have to remain homeless, childless, n foodless, keep aside clotheless or sleepless or spaceless or healthless n showerless n a-long-peacefull-dump-less for a while to come.
“and do they know its chirstmas time at all”?? of course they do! its fucking december tail end isnt it?! and we’ve sorted our new year plans havent we? n the colombo shop till u drop shopping festival is on isnt it?!
my point: at least, if ur gonna draw linkages – which some use this cool word “analysis” for – then work more on context before arriving at conclusions. while ur claim may have been true for 2003 n 2004 (given the tsunami was kind enough to skip christmas), 2005 n 6 – especially the 6 have been a little different.
sorry, but as much as i loathe sinhala buddhist (or any other kind!) extremism, to me the post lacks substaintial substance! like if media was an indicator of society at all – then howcome i hear “ape jesu thuma” (our jesus christ) used in so many programmes these days by non christians – hosts who are known sinhala buddhists.
IF (which i certainly dont see if u adjust for the possible current circumstantial impact) people are celebrating chirstmas less, then i certainly wouldnt give the monks credit for it! people in sri lanka are resiliant if nothing else n we’re a hard bunch – getting increasingly so. if the present wasnt what it was, the monks would have to be in the media quite a bit to do a number on christmas!
churches were being burned before soma thero’s demise (referrence to SARID link), n conversion (note, not essentially by christians to christianity) was not symbolic. read back – the war for one had a fair bit to do with that phenomena – death.. displacement.. aid.. poverty.. orphans.. (an example that stuck in my head – though not representative – in 2002, just days after the a9 was opened, when we headed to jaffna, the ymca was already booked up. by a ginormous evengelical mission with prayer n hymn sessions as we learned later in the eve.. foreign mind you!)
I am a Hindu who is religious for all that it means to me. I do not know why people want people from other religions to convert. I do not know what is there in showing that ‘there are this many number of people in my religion’. I am unaware of any rituals in Hinduism that may be used to convert a person to my religion.
It happens to be that for some religions numbers are important as they are to some of our donors (in the name of project evaluation’). I know for a fact that showing that this many number of people converted in this year is important for the survival of some foreign funded religious institutions. The logic is not that tough. It’s similar to our NGOs where they have to ‘report’ back to their head offices for more money. Some might want to call it a form of neo-colonism. I’m not very interested in tagging issues with different ‘isms’ here.
It is true that Christian institutions in this country are economically strong and thus are capable of engaging in ‘conversions based on handouts’. I do not approve the comments by some which say that the counter to this would be where Buddhists and Hindus also start a culture of ‘conversions based on hand outs’. I understand though a call for our religious leaders to be more socially responsible. It is also a fact that people who talk the most about conversions are religious extremists like the Rahstriya Suyang Sewag (RSS) and the Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP) (both Hindutva organisations) in India and the Jathika Hela Urumaya (based on Sinhala Buddhist nationalism) in Sri Lanka. These people do it because they fear that the decrease in the number of people in their religion would decrease their chances of personal/political survival. These are people who survive on their religions. Its all about money..
BUT IS THIS THE REAL ISSUE? Will somebody who converted to Christianity for bread not do the same and convert back to Buddhism if he is given a job by a Buddhist who wants him to come back to his religion? What is the point in doing this? After all there are better things to think about for that person, than think about his religion. I don’t think faith in the long run can be bought over by money!!
With conversion I think the problematic area is where conversions take place using propaganda based on superstitions that seriously damage the welfare of those who are so converted. For example those who offer to cure people’s HIV positive status. That is seriously damaging. In a research that I did in Jaffna on people living with HIV/AIDS and the stigma and discrimination that affects them, I found out that a person with HIV positive status had been converted by an evangelical group with the promise of curing her ‘disease’. This happens a lot and these people who fall prey to such propaganda refuse to undergo any medical treatment.
A case in point which gives a different picture to the above is where Dr. B.R. Ambedkar (a Dalit rights activist and father of the Indian constitution) led a lot of Dailts to convert into Buddhism because of the discrimination meted out to Dalits in the name of the caste system supported by institutionalized Hindu structures. Similar mass conversions happen a lot in India even today.
Well the Christian teachings command that Christians should go out and convert the non-Christians, Achcharya. It’s one of the New Testament commandments. So for a Christian converting others isn’t a personal whim. As for converting to Hinduism, I believe one can’t do so, but have to be born a Hindu.
You mention that someone suggested that Buddhists should also bribe people back into the fold. I don’t think anyone said that. But if Buddhists will set up organisations to look after and educate people the way the Salvation Army and so many other Christian groups do, there’ll be less scope for people to be bribed away.
On the subject of people promising a cure for AIDS. There are certain groups, not all of them Christian (eg Seventh Day Adventists & Jehovah’s Witnesses are not Christians), that believe that prayer alone can cure disease, aand encourage believers to shun human medecine. So one of these groups are quite likely to promise converts healing to incurable diseases like AIDS & cancer. It isn’t necessarily false pretensions, but arguably mistaken belief.
For Christians preaching to the non Christian with a view to converting that person is a command. This is because Christ of the Bible made some pretty exclusive claims to being the truth and the only way to know God. This is inherent in Christianity. The methods may differ and some have been foolish and some unethical. But the imperative to preach and convert remains notwithstanding. It’s part of the faith claim. If there is a problem with conversion per se, the problem exists with the fundamental claims of the faith and not with its practice. The problem may be said to be its exclusivity, but then again the inclusivist who excludes the exclusivist is also exclusivist.
“This is because Christ of the Bible made some pretty exclusive claims to being the truth and the only way to know God. This is inherent in Christianity.”
Actually it’s inherent in all three of the major Middle Eastern religions — Christianity, Islam, and Judaism, and contrasts starkly with the more inclusive religions of the Far East.
“This is because the Christ of the Bible made some pretty exclusive claims to being the truth and the only way to know God. This is inherent in Christianity.â€
Jesus is different in each of the gospels, so there is no definitive “Christ of the Bible”, as such. Following certain passages of the Bible to follow and ignoring others indicates that even hardcore Christians use common sense or some external judgment of morality to decide what practices to follow. So, one cannot get away by saying that if you accept Christianity’s right to exist and be practiced as a religion, they you must accept that conversion is part of it.
*the second sentence of the second para should read “Choosing certain passages…” not “Following certain passages…”
ravana, let me know what passages in the bible indicate a non exclusivist philosophy in biblical thought that would demonstrate that the passages that explicitly recommend preaching and conversion are undercut and are to be ignored.
Blacker, actually all religions are exclusivist. In fact any truth claim, to be meaningful must be exclusivist. That is why even the so called inclusivist, must be exclusivist in excluding the exclusivist. If I say A is true, then it follows that nonA is not true. If I were to say nonA and A are both true at the same time, that is a pretty meaningless comment.
Ravana, Jesus may be “different”, as you put it, in each gospel, but so would anyone with four biographers. But the point is that he isn’t contradictory from gospel to gospel. The New Testament teachings are largely followed and practiced by most mainstream Christian denominations, and the only commands that have been superseded to an extent are the Old Testament ones. Even these haven’t been replaced by “common sense” so much as later New Testament commands. An example is the New Testament waiving of the Old testament laws governing the eating of certain animals.
You will find, however, that certain core beliefs and commandments still stand because they’re quite clear and unambiguous even under varied interpretations. The command to convert is one of these.
Christianity is very exclusive in the sense that there is no ambiguity when it comes to other religions. There is only ONE way, in other words. And while the Bible preaches compassion and tolerance of all mankind, there is certainly NO forgiveness outside Christianity. The famous question is asked, “Would Mahatma Ghandhi have gone to Heaven?” and the answer is no. Christianity isn’t about being pure and doing good.
“ravana, let me know what passages in the bible indicate a non exclusivist philosophy in biblical thought that would demonstrate that the passages that explicitly recommend preaching and conversion are undercut and are to be ignored. ”
I do not need to point such passages out, and neither do they have to exist, for what I said in my last comment to be true.
By asking that question, you indicate the level of importance that you place on Bible passages as prescribing the way we should behave, or what we should believe. What I’m saying is that you can’t use the Bible as a moral prescription. It is not possible to see it as such. We pick and choose which ones to follow based on a sense of morality we get from somewhere else.
I think slavery is wrong, even though the overwhelming number of passages in the Bible that deals with slavery is cool with it, and even advocates it. I believe massacring civilians in war, especially women and children, is wrong, even though the Bible says God punished Saul for sparing them. Why? Because I use some sense of morality external to the Bible. All Christians use it, no matter how much they think they use the Bible as a moral code. You can’t use the Bible as a moral code, because then you’d probably have to stone me to death for buggering Just Mal’s mum.
So, when they decide to start converting people to their idea of Christianity, fundamentalist christians are indicating that their external sense of morality has “okayed” this action. There are many Christians, and Christian leaders who do not believe in conversion. Why do some? The ones that do the whole converting thing, usually have a very dangerous idea of Christianity a la the Conservative Bible belt Republicans that kept Bush in power and sent the US into Iraq.
David,
“Jesus may be “differentâ€, as you put it, in each gospel, but so would anyone with four biographers. But the point is that he isn’t contradictory from gospel to gospel.”
Er… right. So the earliest (and probably most accurate) biographer, Mark, leaves out the fact that Jesus is God and the small matter of the virgin birth, and, in your eyes, this is not “contradictory” with the biography of John who says that Jesus is God and was present at the Creation? I see – I think we have different definitions of what contradictory means.
I think if someone was to write my life story and I didn’t have a biological dad, and was really God on Earth, I’d want it mentioned in my biography somewhere, even as a footnote. The fact that Mark doesn’t mention it speaks volumes. Basically, the newer the gospels get, the idea of Jesus as God grows, as do the number of miracles. And, the story of his birth and childhood were added on by Matthew and Luke who probably incorporated stories in the oral tradition that had become more and more miraculous and god-like with time. The earliest material (some people think that there was something called the Quelle material that preceded Mark and which he probably used as a source) probably just saw him as a super-cool human being. Did you know that Paul, who spread Christianity throughout the Roman Empire, and wrote most of the New Testament, never referred to the Virgin Birth anywhere in his writings?
These inconsistencies about who Jesus was – God or man – is what has led to the invention of a Holy Trinity to explain them away. The idea of a Holy Trinity is never mentioned anywhere in the Bible. You’d think that something as important and central to most Christians as the Trinitatarian nature of God, would be portrayed in the Bible, but it clearly isn’t. So why do so many Christians believe in it? Because of the inconsistencies.
Even if we continue to argue whether these constitute “contradictions” or not, I hope you will concede that the Bible is not exactly consistent in its most important aspect – the nature of Christ.
David also said:
“Even these haven’t been replaced by “common sense†so much as later New Testament commands.”
Yes, some of them have been superceded by the New Testament, but I prefer to see them as having been superceded by a New Testament “attitude” rather than “commands”. The New Testament attitude is one in which the importance of scripture is downplayed, and the importance of a focus on God is increased. However, there are moral issues like homosexuality, divorce and slavery, which the New Testament gets completely wrong, and which many Christians today DO use another source of morality other than the Bible for.
The Bible cannot be used as a document that prescribes morality. Nobody, not even, Christians, use it as such. They just think they do. They actually get their morality from somewhere else. Thus, to say that Christians must convert people to practice their religion is not true, as there are many many Christians do not condone converting people. Check out Bishop John Shelby Spong and Rev. Michael Dowd.
Agreed, that certain things are not mentioned in Mark, like the virgin birth. However, while the commentary doesn’t directly declare Him as God, it insinnuates it by quoting dialogue (“Again the high priest asked him, ‘Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?’ And Jesus said, ‘I am, and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.’ ” — Mark 14:61-64). The virgin birth is anyway not crucial to the Christian faith, and a lack of its mention isn’t important. As for the definition of contradictory — if Mark said that Jesus was NOT born of a virgin, that would be contradictory to the other gospels, or if he said that Jesus was NOT God. Not mentioning it could have aa variety of reasons — maybe the fact was already widely acccepted, etc. Ditto with Paul — his letters and writings were often very specific to circumstances, and the virgin birth probably was irrelevant (sort of like this discussion in relaation to the post!). As an aside, you’ll find the virgin birth to be far more important to the roman Catholic Church than to the Protestants, where in the former case the veneration of the sacred status of Mary has developed.
” hope you will concede that the Bible is not exactly consistent in its most important aspect – the nature of Christ.”
True, but then the nature of Christ is accepted as a mystery, and isn’t that what faith is about — trusting in the unkown?
Most of what you say in your third para is highly arguable, and has been argued for decades by both sides without a satisfactory conclusion, so let’s not even go there.
The Trinity — again, you are correct that there’s no mention of the WORD ‘Trinity’, but there are references to it that are quite clear (“there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.” — 1 John 5:7).
Bottom line, Ravana — the Bible is NOT some sort of moral code, so if you are arguing against it, there’s no need. Jesus’ life is the moral code.
Whether homosexuality and divorce are ‘right or wrong’ is still being argued worldwide, so for you to say the Bible got it ‘wrong’ is a bit presumptious. It’s also irrelevant. The Bible isn’t a perfect constitution — interpretation is permitted (unlike the Koran). However, there are certain commands, wgich are clear and unambiguous and have not been surpassed by cultural beliefs. The command to convert is one of these.
Saying “There are many Christians, and Christian leaders who do not believe in conversion” is like saying “many Christians do not condone homosexuality” and is neither here nor there. I can quote you “many” clergy who don’t even believe in the divinity of Christ, but that doesn’t mean it’s the norm. There are ‘many’ Buddhists (including clergy) who eat meat, etc. Does that mean the practice must be abandoned?
“Why do some [believe in conversion]?”
You’ll find this to be the overwhelming majority. “Some” don’t believe it would be more accurate.
In one of your earlier posts you’ve cited certain practices as being inconsiistent with modern morality (slavery, killling of civilians, etc), but you might note that those are all from the Old Testament, and to take them alone is an incomplete view. You’ll find that many Old Testament commands or whatever have a corresponding New Testament “part 2″ that puts it into a more modern context. It isn’t left to conscience. An example is the infamous “eye for an eye” vs “love your neighbour”/”forgive your enemies”. So most of the important Old Testament commands were either underlined, added to, or changed. The ones that were ignored (tattoos, masturbation, etc), there’s no explanation for. God only knows, as they say!
I should have known this was going to be a long debate when I got into it.
I can’t buy the suggestion that Mark didn’t mention Jesus’ divinity or virgin birth because it was a widely accepted fact. This is because it is clear that Mark is explicitly concerned about the identity of Christ. The identity of Jesus is discussed in Mark in more than one place, I think, and especially when Jesus asks Peter, “Who do you say that I am?” and Peter answers that he is the Christ and Jesus seems satisfied at this response. I think if Mark felt that Jesus was God, he would have mentioned it at least as one of the options (throughout Mark there is a feeling of uncertainty about Jesus’ identity among various people, who think he is different things). Mark seems unsure about Jesus’ identity, unlike John, who is absolutely certain that Jesus is God, probably as a result of the the growth of doctrine and faith about the divinity of Jesus as time went by.
“Christ” does not mean God. “Christ” comes from the Greek word Christos and it means “anointed one.” It is taken to mean messiah, redeemer, saviour but it does not mean God. (This was also the problem with the suggestion that Jehovah’s Witnesses cannot be called Christians if they wish to be. JWs don’t see Jesus as God, but they still think he is the Messiah, or the Christ).
“True, but then the nature of Christ is accepted as a mystery, and isn’t that what faith is about — trusting in the unkown?”
Who accepts the nature of Christ as a mystery? Evangelists certainly don’t, not in the sense we’ve been talking about anyway.
Fundamental christians think that Jesus Christ is the second person of the Trinity, which makes him divine, and that unless you talk to him, and accept him as your personal saviour, and ask him to come into your life, and forgive your sins, you will not have everlasting life. That doesn’t seem very shrouded in mystery to me. This is the standard conversion spiele the evangelicals use, and I can’t see anything uncertain sounding about that. (If you want more certainty picture him at the right hand of the Father, most probably seated).
If evangelicals aren’t sure about who Jesus was, and it’s all a mystery, surely they can’t be sure that he’s going to deliver us from damnation? Conversion is internally unethical, in that case. They aren’t sure about it, but they are telling me that I can get this eternal life thing for sure, if I believe in this dude. Unethical marketing – not cool, man. No, they sound sure, and they better be, because otherwise, conversion is unethical by a whole different standard.
David said:
“The Bible isn’t a perfect constitution — interpretation is permitted (unlike the Koran). ”
Okay, so Christians pick and choose which passages to believe and apply, in accordance with some sense of right and wrong that they get from outside the Bible. Agreed.
David also said:
“However, there are certain commands, which are clear and unambiguous and have not been surpassed by cultural beliefs. The command to convert is one of these.”
How do you arrive at this conclusion? Why do you think this command is so much more clear and unambiguous, than other commands?
I do not agree, that the command is unambiguous. I got the below from http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/paul_carlson/nt_contradictions.html
“In Matthew 28:19 Jesus tells the eleven disciples to “go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.”
1. This is obviously a later addition to the gospel, for two reasons:
a. It took the church over two hundred years of fighting (sometimes bloody) over the doctrine of the trinity before this baptismal formula came into use. Had it been in the original gospel, there would have been no fighting.
b. In Acts, when people are baptized, they are baptized just in the name of Jesus (Acts 8:16, 10:48, 19:5). Peter says explicitly that they are to “Repent, and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins” (Acts 2:38).
2. This contradicts Jesus’ earlier statement that his message was for the Jews only (Matthew 10:5-6, 15:24). The gospels, and especially Acts, have been edited to play this down, but the contradiction remains. It was the apostle Paul who, against the express wishes of Jesus, extended the gospel (Paul’s version) to the gentiles.”
Personally, I think if you read the Bible without the blinkers of blind faith on, and you study its historical evolution, it is pretty clear that there is a lot to support the view that the passages regarding the great commission were added later. “The portion of Mark 16 which records the commission is not found in two of the oldest Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus” (Wikipedia) and was probably added later on. Even to me as a layman, when reading the gospel of Mark, the change in style is evident at the end when the Great Commission is given.
Then there’s the problem of the great commission contradicting the not-so-great commission, when Jesus told them explicitly not to convert non-Jews:
“These twelve Jesus sent forth and commanded them, saying, “Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not. But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. And as ye go, preach, saying, `The Kingdom of Heaven is at hand.’” Matthew 10:5-42 (21st Century King James Version)
So, you see, there is some degree of confusion Biblically over whether to convert or not to convert non-Jews and the issue is certainly, by no means, unambiguous even if you’re looking purely at scripture as a guide.
If you’re not looking at the issue scripturally, and perhaps looking at it in terms of the number of Christians who believe in conversion…
You said:
“You’ll find this to be the overwhelming majority. “Some†don’t believe it would be more accurate.”
Disagree. I think the overwhelmingly large number of Christians do not believe in converting people; they certainly don’t obey the Great Commission. The Christians that make the most noise are the ones that get noticed the most and they are thhe fundamentalist evangelicals, unfortunately. They are not the majority, they are the minority, if you take the word Christian to mean someone who is a follower of Christ’s teachings, and one used by the evangelicals themselves.
Oh, and by the way, slavery is approved of in the New Testament. Remember, Paul’s reaction to Onesimus and Philemon? There’s tons more examples of condoning slavery in the New Testament here if you’re interested: http://www.religioustolerance.org/sla_bibl2.htm
Ahhh… what a good way to start the Christmas season!
Ravana, the first para of your post is very subjective, I’m afraid. Merely saying you don’t “buy it” is a bit unconvincing. Your theory that Mark’s failure to project Jesus as God to your satisfaction is the result of not believing so is a bit inconclusive. As I said, it can be read that he took it for granted. Both theories are equally plausible. You should also remember that the four gospels were selected out of a range of biographies or ‘gospels’, and were selected in order to focus on several aspects of Jesus’ life and teachings. It’s therefore logical that they would take different (though not contrary) viewpoints. Obviously the gospels will also reflect the personalities of their authors and what their intentions were. It is quite possible that John was a more preachy individual and therefore his gospel is more sermon than biography. Mark’s concentrates on the more human aspects of Jesus’ life, and so on. If you’re attempting to lend doubt to the theory of Jesus’ divinity, and are planning on using the gospels for it, I’m afraid you won’t get very far. The scholars who’ve come the closest to credibly forwarding this doubt have all been forced to look outside the Bible for supporting writings.
““Christ†does not mean God. “Christ†comes from the Greek word Christos and it means “anointed one.—
Certainly. That’s why I asked you if you wished to debate the dictionary or the Bible. In the context of the Bible, the Christ is the son of God. Christians believe this; JWs don’t. You can continue to split hairs, but it won’t really do anything for the argument.
“Fundamental christians think that Jesus Christ is the second person of the Trinity, which makes him divine, and that unless you talk to him, and accept him as your personal saviour, and ask him to come into your life, and forgive your sins, you will not have everlasting life. That doesn’t seem very shrouded in mystery to me.”
It’s not just fundamental Christians who think so; but what you’ve stated is the core belief of all Protestant. The ‘way’, yes. It doesn’t, however, say anything about the ‘nature’ of Jesus. You’ve stated part of the requirement for salvation, not the nature. Besides, it was you that said that the nature of Jesus was inconsistent in the Bible, not me. How does quoting the fundamentals of Christianity argue that?
“If evangelicals aren’t sure about who Jesus was”
Er… I think it’s YOU that’s unsure, not Evangelicals. Maybe you should redifine what you mean by the “nature of Jesus”. There’s no argument that ALL Christian denominations (evangelical or not) believe in the divinity of Jesus.
“Okay, so Christians pick and choose which passages to believe and apply, in accordance with some sense of right and wrong that they get from outside the Bible. Agreed.”
Disagreed, actually, and I’d prefer if you didn’t attempt to put words in my mouth or otherwise ‘interpret’ what I said, Ravana. It’s rather tiresome to have to restate things or say ‘I didn’t say that’ as we’re forced to do with Sittingnut. Interpreting the Bible isn’t ‘picking and choosing’, and the interpretation isn’t done by using outside sources. One of the prime suggested methods is prayer & meditation. I know you’re attempting to give some randomness to the interpretation process by using phrases like ‘picking and choosing’, but this is intellectually deceitful as you’re using nuances of language in order to win a debate rather than argue the subject. As I said last week, it’s not a case of picking one command over another. I explained to you how Old Testament commands are either either underlined, ignored, or contradicted in the New Testament, and that this is used as a guide in interpretation. Do I need to go into that again?
“How do you arrive at this conclusion? Why do you think this command is so much more clear and unambiguous, than other commands?”
Ravana, what you’ve quoted isn’t the widespread belief in Christianity. Jesus himself was baptized, and as I’ve shown you (and quoted), mention of the Trinity (though not by name) is there even in Mark. For every quote from a commentator (and I wouldn’t rely on the web for this) on the invalidity of the scriptures, I can give you a counter-quote. It’s pointless. Who are you gonna believe? If we’re arguing about the authenticity of the Bible, that’s a whole new ball game, and one which I doubt either of us are equipped for. However, if the argument is whether the command to convert is Biblical or not, then I think it’s quite clear — it is.
On your question about why I think this command is more “clear and unambiguous” than other commands, I’m not sure it is. It is certainly as clear and unambiguous as some commands (like “I am the way, the truth & the life”), and clearer than some. However you want to look at it, it is one of the primary commands of the New Testament, and therefore one of the core precepts of Christianity.
BTW, your quote on the converting of Gentiles isn’t quite supportive of your theory as it says Samaritans, not Gentiles. If Jesus was using the Smaritans as an example of Gentiles, he had a much more clear example near to hand — the Romans. So there really isn’t any confusion, Ravana. I doubt that Jesus expected there to be Jews at the “far corners of the earth”.
“Disagree. I think the overwhelmingly large number of Christians do not believe in converting people; they certainly don’t obey the Great Commission.”
Again your analysis is faulty, machang. The overwhelming number of Christians (and I use the term to mean those who have the religion on their birth certificates) live in countries where they are surrounded by other Christians. They see no reason to convert anybody. They are aalso largely secular and don’t use the Bible as a guide in life. Most have never even read any part of the Bible since early childhood. They don’t follow ANY part of the Bible, never mind the Great Commission. Just as the overwhelming number of Buddhists eat meat and do all the other un-Buddhist things, so do Christians, You can’t invalidate scripture by quoting the practices of its adherents. However, if you ask all Christians if they believe non-Christians should be converted if they are willing, you’ll get a ‘yes’ in answer. Take Germany, one of the most secular ‘Christian’ countries in Europe. Christians overwhelmingly contribute to the church through taxes (by choice), and a large part of these funds are then used for missionary work worldwide. So while the majority of Christians don’t stand on the street preaching, they put their weight behind their fundamental beliefs.
I know ‘fundamental’ has become a ‘gonibilla’ of late, but it needn’t be. The fundamentals of Christianity are pretty simple and tolerant. In the end, religion is about free choice. Everyone should be free to choose their religion. The law should neither coerce nor prevent.
“That’s why I asked you if you wished to debate the dictionary or the Bible. In the context of the Bible, the Christ is the son of God. Christians believe this; JWs don’t. You can continue to split hairs, but it won’t really do anything for the argument.”
This is a completely mistaken and misleading set of statements. Why would dictionary definitions of the word “Christ” not reflect the Biblical understanding of the word “Christ”? The dictionary definitions reflect the Biblical definitions. In the Bible the word Christ and the word God have two separate words and meanings. Christ means Messiah, Redeemer, Saviour, son of God in the Bible as well as the dictionary.
The JWs do believe that Jesus is the son of God. They believe that he is the First Born, that he was present at the Creation and the world was made through him. They believe in his teachings, albeit their own interpretation of them, and their own interpretation of the Bible, just as you have your own interpretation. However, they don’t believe that the son of God is the same as God.
I don’t understand why it is so hard for you to accept this. You have no grounds Biblically or “Dictionarally” to say that JWs aren’t Christians, especially as they are intent on following Christ’s teachings, and readily back up their beliefs with scripture and verse, something that fundamentalists seem to aspire to themselves. The doctrine of the trinity is something that developed later on in Chrisitanity and is not central to christ’s teachings. In fact, it is embarassingly, the concept of the Trinity (not just the word “Trinity”) is never mentioned in the Bible, except arguably for that one verse in John, you quoted, and I’ll come to that later.
As for JWs using a different Bible: sure they might prefer a different translation, just as liberals might prefer one translation and the fundamentalists another. Some Catholics Bibles are a lot more different than the JW’s translation. The Catholic Bible includes entirely new books – the Books of the Apocrypha. This is a much larger degree of difference, than mere variations in translation, excuse the pun. The use of a different translation does not make JWs any less Christian than Catholics who follow the Books of the Apocrypha, or than people who choose to believe in the Trinity based on the verse from John you quoted.
If you think Mark mentions the concept of the Trinity, please quote the verses. As far as your quote from John goes, many theologians believe that that was added to the Bible in the 8th Century. Check out:
“Probably the most notorious scripture used in times past as “proof” of a Trinity is I John 5:7. However, many theologians recognize that this scripture was added to the New Testament manuscripts probably as late as the eighth century A.D.” http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/trinity1.html has details on why they believe this.
“One of the prime suggested methods is prayer & meditation… As I said last week, it’s not a case of picking one command over another. I explained to you how Old Testament commands are either either underlined, ignored, or contradicted in the New Testament, and that this is used as a guide in interpretation. Do I need to go into that again?”
Yes, I think you better do that again, cos you’re not making yourself very clear. How is it not picking and choosing? Picking and choosing verses to follow and believe after prayer and meditation is still picking and choosing, n’est-ce pas?
“In the end, religion is about free choice. Everyone should be free to choose their religion. The law should neither coerce nor prevent.”
This is not part of the argument. We are not arguing about freedom of religion or the case for or against a law banning unethical conversion, whatever unethical conversion might mean. You said to Aacharya in your response to him, “Well the Christian teachings command that Christians should go out and convert the non-Christians, Achcharya. It’s one of the New Testament commandments. So for a Christian converting others isn’t a personal whim.”
I disagree with this view to the extent that I think that Christians choose to follow certain scriptural commandments and ignore others. Further, what is and what is not a genuine Christian teaching is debatable and there is controversy over much of what Christainity entails, as you and I have so aptly demonstrated through this debate. The commandment to convert, or rather, the Great Commission is one that some Christians choose to follow, while others ignore. These same Christians who choose to follow the commandment to convert will also choose to ignore other commandments in the Bible, such as the Lesser Commision which explicityly states that non-Jews should not be converted. Since the Bible is often inconsistent, Christians have different interpretations of the Bible, and follow what they choose to believe in. Therefore, the decision of fundamentalist evangelicals to believe in one interpretation and one verse and not others, and thereafter “to go out and convert the non-Christians” is most definitely, and demonstrably, a matter of personal choice.
Also David, I looked up 1 John 5:7 in the Revised Standard Version, and there’s nothing about the Trinity, neither word nor concept, there.
7: And the Spirit is the witness, because the Spirit is the truth.
8: There are three witnesses, the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree.
This underscores my point about different Christians having different interpretations. Turns out, this is true to the extent that they even have different versions of the Bible. The RSV is a commonly used version. How do you explain this passage being so entirely different from the the passage you quoted? You choose to believe your version, I choose to believe the Revised Standard version. It’s a matter of personal choice. You may call it a whim, if you like.
“Why would dictionary definitions of the word “Christ†not reflect the Biblical understanding of the word “Christâ€?”
Why should it? The dictionary is not a religious document. The dictionary gives historical or secularly accepted definitions of words, and phrases. I should have added that Biblically the Christ is the Son of God, part of the Trinity, and therefore God. The JW’s don’t believe Christ is God, Christians do. Are we clear now?
As for the Trinity, I haven’t just quoted John, but Matthew (28:19) too. But since you prefer dictionary definitions to Biblical ones, here’s one from the OED:
“Trinity — • noun (pl. trinities) 1 (the Trinity or the Holy Trinity) the three persons of the Christian Godhead; Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. 2 a group of three people or things.” If you feel that dictionary definitions reflect Biblical ones (as you say above), then there you go.
Here are three translations of 1 John 5:7, you can pick what you like, but they are more or less the same.
NIV: there are three that testify: the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.
KJV: For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
NLV: So we have these three witnesses — the Spirit, the water, and the blood–and all three agree.
I’ve already told you that quoting theologians is pointless, as there’ll always be counter-quotes and many disagree. So I’d prefer to quote directly from the Bible. As I said, the Trinity isn’t mentioned by name but there are plenty of references to the unity of the three (“The Father and I are one†–John 10:30).
“Picking and choosing verses to follow and believe after prayer and meditation is still picking and choosing, n’est-ce pas?”
Not really, no? If you are looking for a particular mineral amongst others, and you’re using the chemical formula of that mineral to enable you to to select it from other minerals, would you then call it “picking & choosing”? I don’t think so. One is a random process, the other is an informed and guided one.
So if you still think that Christians are whimsical in which commands they choose to follow, that is your personal view. I however, fail to see anything you’ve said upto now that backs up that view.
You’ve somehow attempted to give the idea that the Great Commission is not authentic, but it appears in your favourite gospel too, and while not mentioning the Trinity, is quite unambiguous in its command:
“And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.” — Mark 16:15[KJV]
Umm.. If Christians are people who follow Christ, therefore if Seventh Day Adventists follow Christ, they are Christians. And as for them not using modern medicine, what on earth is Lakeside Adventist Hospital doing in Kandy?
Jehovah’s witnesses follow Jehovah, and while they may not strictly classify as Christian, they still use the Bible and are Monotheists.
If you read my post, Janus, I mentioned Seventh Day Adventists & Jehovah’s Witnesses as groups that do not fall into the definition of Christian, NOT that they don’t believe in medecine ["There are certain groups, not all of them Christian (eg Seventh Day Adventists & Jehovah’s Witnesses are not Christians), that believe that prayer alone can cure disease, and encourage believers to shun human medecine."]. Maybe I wasn’t clear enough, if so, sorry. Just to make it clear, there are certain groups that advocate prayer as an alternative to medecine, and there are certain groups associated with Christianity that are not Christian really. These two categories occasionally (but not always) overlap. My mistake — SDA are Christians, but Jehovah’s Witnesses aren’t. Jews also believe in Jehovah, but are certainly not Christians — the latter believe that Jesus is God, JWs and Jews don’t.
Here, have a nice long read of this website, send the link to your priest father as well:
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/
Jehovah’s Witnesses would say that they were Christian, in the sense that they are followers of Christ. Nobody has the right to say that they aren’t, not even by the standards of fundamentalist Christians – Bible scripture.
9.38John said to him, “Teacher, we saw a man casting out demons in your name, and we forbade him, because he was not following us.” 9.39But Jesus said, “Do not forbid him; for no one who does a mighty work in my name will be able soon after to speak evil of me. 9.40For he that is not against us is for us. 9.41For truly, I say to you, whoever gives you a cup of water to drink because you bear the name of Christ, will by no means lose his reward.
- Gospel of Mark 9:38
Dude, Jehovah’s Witnesses do NOT believe in Jesus being God (the Christ). A Christian is a follower of Christ (not Yaweh, Jehovah, Allah, etc). This isn’t a matter of opinion :)
In which dictionary does the word Christ mean God?
Yeah, SDAs are Christians, but JWs are not. You can ask them Ravana. To them Christ is an archangel on the same lines as Gabriel.
And my JW friends carry cards around with them which state that, in an emergency or accident, they refuse any form of transfusion, or transplant.
Are you trying to discuss the dictionary or the Bible? Biblically, Jesus is the Christ. Followers of Jesus Christ are Christians. Those who are not are not. Can I make it clearer?
But since you ask:
“Christ /krast/ (also Jesus, Jesus Christ) noun, exclamation
noun the man that Christians believe is the son of God and on whose teachings the Christian religion is based”– Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary (http://www.oup.com/oald-bin/web_getald7index1a.pl)
he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; John 14:9
“baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost” (Matthew 28:19).
And several others..
Christ is also part of the God Head.
It would be a theological debate if we were to talk about the Trinity.
“The son of God” is not the same as saying God, David. I’ve had a JW tell me that they are Christian and I’ve also had them say they believe that Jesus is the son of God. In fact, they use the same Bible where Jesus is explicitly referred to as the son of God, only difference is, it’s with a simple s, just like in the Oxford Dictionary you quoted.
The original meaning of Christ comes from the greek word Christos and it means “Anointed One. ” It can mean Messiah, or saviour, or Redeemer, but certainly not God.
I’m arguing this point because I have had a JW tell me that he was a Christian in the sense that he is a follower of christ’s teachings, and I believe that nobody can really tell a JW who wishes to call himself a Christian that he isn’t, without using some unsubstantiable definition used by fundamentalist evangelicals.
You couldn’t be more wrong about the JW ‘bible’, Ravana. There are major fundamental differences in the text. Most JWs pretend it’s not so, and use the Christian tag because their target market are Christians — it’s easier to convince someone to change denominations than to convert to another religion.
You again use ‘fundamentalist evangelical’ as an epithet. Christianity is about believing in the fundamentals, not the trappings. I know it’s inconvenient when scripture gets in the way of what we want to do and say, but there it is — religion is essentially inconvenient. I could probably call myself an American because I believe in the US constitution, but I doubt they’ll let me into DC.
I think I’ve made myself pretty clear in the above comments, and don’t feel that I have much more to add.
…except that the Catholic Bible which includes the Books of the Apocryphha is also very different to the standard Christain Bible, to a far greater extent thatn the JW’s is. There are many translations of the BBible and different Christians prefer different translations. If you’re using this yeardstick the case for not calling some Catholics “Christians” is much greater cos they have whole new set of books, not just differences in translations of some words and phrases.
I can’t see how your second paragrapgh is relevant in anyway to the discussion, which is what inspired the previous response.
I quite agree with you about the Roman Catholic Bible, but that’s a new caan of worms I’d rather not get into!
As for my second para, I assume you’re talking about my comment on your use of the word fundamentalist? Or did you mean the comment about calling myself whatever I please?
i am sure the writer will agree with me that a jameson on rocks / good roll in the hay / superlative blow job from hot babe will also cure most ailments.
Regions where missionary activity has been successful have seen their older traditions demoted or destroyed, whether it is those of the pagan Europeans, the Native Americans, or the pre-Islamic Arabs. Hinduism would likely fall along the same wayside should lose the battle against missionary religions, just as Hinduism in Islamic Pakistan has all but disappeared.
Missionary activity and conversion, therefore, is not about freedom of religion. It is about the attempt of one religion to exterminate all others. Such an exclusive attitude cannot promote tolerance or understanding or resolve communal tensions. The missionary wants to put an end to pluralism, choice and freedom of religion. He wants one religion, his own, for everyone and will sacrifice his life to that cause.
True freedom of religion should involve freedom from conversion. The missionary is like a salesman targeting people in their homes or like an invader seeking to conquer. Such disruptive activity is not a right and it cannot promote social harmony. In fact people should have the right not to be bothered by missionaries unless they seek them out. Those of us in the West are irritated by local missionaries like the Jehovah’s Witnesses that often come soliciting at our doors. Can one imagine the distress or confusion they could cause to some poor person in Asia? Once let into the door, it is hard to get them out.
Religious freedom should not be a license for one country or one community to wage religious war against another. Even if this conversion battle is softened by charities it is still hostile in its intent and destructive in its action.
The purpose of this book is threefold. Firstly it aims to critically examine Christianity and thereby highlight the logical, philosophical and ethical problems in Christian dogma. In doing this I hope to be able to provide Buddhists with facts which they can use when Christians attempt to evangelize them. This book should make such encounters more fair, and hopefully also make it more likely that Buddhists will remain Buddhists. As it is, many Buddhists know little of their own religion and nothing about Christianity – which makes it difficult for them to answer the questions Christians ask or to rebut the claims they make.
The second aim of this book is to help any Christians who might read it to understand why some people are not, and never will be, Christians. Hopefully, this understanding will help them to develop an acceptance of and thereby genuine friendship with Buddhists, rather than relating to them only as potential converts. In order to do this, I have raised as many difficult questions as possible and not a few home truths. If it appears sometimes that I have been hard on Christianity, I hope this will not be interpreted as being motivated by malice. I was a Christian for many years and I still retain a fond regard, and even admiration, for some aspects of Christianity. For me, Jesus’ teachings were an important step in my becoming a Buddhist and I think I am a better Buddhist as a result. However when Christians claim, as many do with such insistence, that their religion alone is true, then they must be prepared to answer doubts which others might express about their religion.
The third aim of this book is to awaken in Buddhists a deeper appreciation for their own religion. In some Asian countries Buddhism is thought of an out-of-date superstition while Christianity is seen as a religion which has all the answers. As these countries become more Westernized, Christianity with its “modern” image begins to look increasingly attractive. I think this book will amply demonstrate that Buddhism is able to ask questions of Christianity which it has great difficulties in answering, and at the same time to offer explanations to life’s puzzles which make Christian explanations look rather puerile.
Some Buddhists may object to a book like this, believing that such a gentle and tolerant religion as Buddhism should refrain from criticizing other religions. This is certainly not what the Buddha himself taught. In the Mahaparinibbana Sutta he said that his disciples should be able to “Teach the Dhamma, declare it, establish it, expound it, analyse it, make it clear, and be able by means of the Dhamma to refute false teachings that have arisen. “Subjecting a point of view to careful scrutiny and criticism has an important part to play in helping to winnow truth from falsehood, so that we can be in a better position to choose between “the two and sixty contending sects. ” Criticism of another religion only becomes inappropriate when it is based on a deliberate misrepresentation of that religion, or when it descends into an exercise in ridicule and name-calling. I hope I have avoided doing this.
http://everything2.com/index.pl?node=Beyond%20Belief%3A%20Introduction
If Rez wants to talk about brutality and the viciousness of the christians towards the buddhists, perhaps he should read up on a bit of history first. and also maybe read up on theravadha buddhism, which is admittedly the most militant conception of the philosophy. and the one that happens to be practiced here.
only evil christian colonisers were brutal, eh? buddhists weren’t, eh? What about the charming manner in which our last king dispatched the ehelapola adirgar’s family. no doubt someone will come back with the usual bleating retort of ‘ah, but he wasn’t really sinhalese’. puh-leeeese!
and does rez not remember that conservation of our heritage sites like sigiriya, polonnaruwa etc was began by those nasty white missionary imperialists?
then, of course there’s the fact that yes, obviously, christians have been the most vicious of people to the sri lankans. no one else has ever colonised us, innit.
anyone who can’t admit that religion, ANY religion, and violence go hand in hand… is deluding themselves. and probably also believes that the holocaust never happened.
Dingbat, Buddhists were persecuted in Sri Lanka because of their RELIGION, by CHRISTIANS. So were MUSLIMS. So were HINDUS. Religion was the REASON why they were persecuted by Christians. They were forced to convert or they were offered jobs and an education if they would convert OUT OF THEIR RELIGION and into Christianity. Buddhists in Sri Lanka have accepted Christianity despite the fact that Christians were vicious persecutors when they were in power.
Hmm….
I’ve seen (mentally poor) buddhists who’ve been converted in to christins (I don’t beleieve that pure christians do this shit) by money & have cried from the deepest point of my heart.But I won’t cry any more on that reason.Coz I know that those fools won’t make any good for any religion. 100 bucks more & they are buddhists again. But that’s not the way to spread a religion.
Hey Indi, I think Lberty Plaza guys have tried to make a Maple leave or an Oak leave.It’s a matter of creativity/talent just forget it.
At this point, I would like to say that everyone seems to be getting carried away harping on historical wrongdoings – what on earth is the objective here? Are we to hate all Christians because of the bullying ways of the colonialists? Are we to continue hating Germans because of one megalomaniac called Hitler? Perhaps then we should also hate all Buddhists because of the shameful examples set by their clergy in Sri Lanka.
The ongoing debates here – each one trying to blame another is pointless. There is enough hatred and war in this country, do we need to let it spill onto message boards as well? Of course there is a right to free expression, but I have observed that in the views expressed here, there is also deep-rooted resentment and contempt. As a devoted Christian myself, I know that this is not what our religion stands for. The principle teachings of Christ are about love, peace and compassion for all mankind – irrespective of who they are or where they come from. Buddhism too is wonderful doctrine that is based upon those very same principles. The misfortune we face in this country though, is that the real values of Buddhism have been undermined by fanatical clergy who dabble in politics preaching war instead of tolerance. They put Lord Buddha to shame and are definitely not real Buddhists.
Yes, the events following Soma Thera’s death were horrendous and shocking to say the least. Christianity teaches tolerance and forgiveness and I believe that is why there was no backlash from the Christians of Sri Lanka. All that happened was in the past – let’s keep it that way and not forget that Christmas is not meant to be celebrated with fanfare and expensive decor but by upholding the true values for what the day stands for.
How convenient – blame the Buddhists and praise the Christians. Really, you’re full of it aren’t you? Why don’t you complain about those fanatical Christian priests out to convert non-Christians to their fanatical ideology? I guess none of them had anything to do with the breakdown of religious harmony in the country. Spreading bile about other religions and claiming that Christianity is the only way, and condemning others to an eternal hell fire is the “peaceful” Christian way I suppose?
On Aadhavan, I think the only truly inclusive people were the ancient Romans. They incorporated any local gods that they encountered (as theire empire exoanded) into their pantheon.
The only trouble the Romans had were with the Jews and the early Christians who refused to be incorporated within the wider pantheon.
I have to agree with Lala and Mala (heh heh) in the fact that this post, unlike many excellent ones, is not substantiated by any droplet of relevants. Yes, the Buddhists got all uppity about Soma Thero’s death and conspiracy theories abounded. There’s also a theory that Catholics carried out the tsunami. While a few churches were burnt I don’t think it’s fair to impute the militant ignorant insecurity of a minority of Buddhists to the larger majority. For the same reason that the JHU will never win a seat in parliament again.
Evidence being forthcoming or not, unethical conversions happen. BD has quoted one example and I know of several others. As has already been said, whether someone wants to convert for greener pastures is completely their own business, and I daresay that if the Buddhist institution provided the same perks, then the matter would not have arisen. However, given the vast coffers available to radical Christian groups in the west for this so-called ‘ministry’ it is unlikely the Buddhist institution can ever compete. If some fickle minded Buddhist converts when offered an incentive then your religion is probably better off without him. In the context it’s probably not any more heinous than changing banks because the customer service birds were nicer in the new one.
The justification that the Christian faith compels proactive conversion is one that I have trouble coming to grips with. While it is true that Jesus said there is no way to the Father except through him, I think that we should probably lead more by example than by instruction. I’m fairly certain the kind of incentive based conversion that is bring practiced is not the kind Jesus had in mind. ‘Spread the word’ he said, not ‘buy me some followers’. While the faith can be promulgated in many ways, like Ravana pointed out it is easy to take refuge in ambiguous portions of scripture to justify what the entire Bible condemns. It is similar to the Muslim warlords who think that the Quran justifies their actions. Convert through living a Christlike life. Not offering a bigger slice of the pie.
Conversion is economic. As is Christmas. Radio stations will never play Buddhist religious songs because they aren’t catchy and aren’t sung by Mariah Carey. Christmas is the sole economic driving force which unites the world and consumers in SL want a piece of it too. Don’t get it mixed up with religion Rez.
The monks may have stolen one Christmas, but I think Uncle P and Mahinda Mama have pickpocketed this one.
Sophist, while your comments on the so-called unethical conversions are correct in the sense that Jesus didn’t ask his followers to purchase converts, you must admit that the whole ‘unethical’ conversions thing is a smokescreen. The vast majority of conversions are ethical, and by choice. Since the Sanga has no moral reason to condemn this, they’re trying to make out that ALL conversions , or the maajority, are unethical. That is why the burden of proof is required to prove lack of ethics.
I think the bigger problem is that the buddhist religious hirearchy harealised that they’re losing their power over the people. Younger Buddhists are increasingly secular an d getting more ‘westernised’ by the daay in morality, dress, culture, etc. Creating an enemy of buddhism seems a quick fix solution. So far the population hasn’t fallen for it.
No the problem is aggressive Christian fundamentalism in a multi religious country like Sri Lanka.
Yeah, I thought Indi was overreacting and things had gone back to normal, but then they banned alcohol without much warning on Christmas day. What was that about?
Hallelujah brother!
Ravana,
You might have noted that when I referred to the source for the exclusivist nature of Christianity, I explicitly referred to the “Christ of the Bible”. Many people have different ideas of who Christ was, but I was referring to the Christ reflected in the Bible. You contended that there is no one Christ of the Bible. I disagree and would agree with Blacker that Christ’s life on earth was recorded by four different people in the Bible and this explains the different emphases each writer places on different features of his character and actions. There is however, no contradiction in terms of how his life and character is explained. Just different angles that cast light on different issues, although there is still a lot of repetition.
Related to this question is the issue of what does the bible really say about conversion and the Great Commission. If you want the passages I can give them to you, but all four of the gospels repeat that there is an imperative to preach and convert. Romans and Revelation also talk about the Great Commission. So I think there’s enough evidence that the Bible persuades Christian to preach and convert others.
The other question you raise is more interesting. You indicate that the Bible insufficient as a moral code. In many ways I agree and would argue that the written word is one of the at least three methods of revelation i.e-the Bible, nature and conscience. But Christian believe that just as the Bible is not a science textbook and does not answer all questions on science, it is a moral compass and guide and informs how we interpret nature and conscience. This begs the question, how do you interpret the Bible. I would say like any other piece of literature. For spiritual purposes, you are supposed to read it with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, but my point is that any piece if literature, artistic moral , legal or whatever, must be read keeping in mind the context in which it was written. This is not to undermine the written word, but to give it meaning and expression. This explains a lot of the horrible passages in the OT and this another debate. I would argue therefore, that the Bible being very explicit in its prescription to convert others of ‘all nations’, ‘even to the ends of the earth’ is not undermined or explained away with reference to either the context or seemingly contradictory content.
Sophist, this does not mean that you are to use unethical means to procure a ‘false conversion’ obviously. The reference in the Bible is to make ‘disciples’. I doubt a milk packet convert, nor his dollar mudalali convertor could be termed true ‘disciples’. And I perfectly agree that actions speak louder than words. One’s life should be an example and almost all Chrisians are to be faulted for not being a good enough example. The issue is, is ‘living’ enough? I would think not. Sometimes there is a place for preaching, for teaching, for debating and for persuading whilst all the time living the life you are supposed to live.
Aadhavan, I agree. Living is not enough. But you are preaching and being evangelical in just writing that post above. You are ‘spreading the word’. By trying not to be an argumentative, hair splitting, biased, irrational cunt (no reference to you…heh heh) in my previous post I too was aspiring to the Christian ideal, albeit more subtlely. I guess we have different comfort zones for our ministry. I took prayers once in my time at College and you did once a week.
As long as you are not justifying the need for ‘milk packet converts’, I’m prepared to concede that living is not enough in preaching the word of god in the way that it was meant to.
A note though from your own book, the Acts of the apostles and the gospels were all published in time of great tumult for the church, persecution and growth wise. The emphasis on promulgation of the word was probably aimed to prevent the still birth of the Church as we know it. Whether the same sort of zealotry is required in this day and age I don’t know. Of course it could be argued that the God of Internet and TV are hounding the Church out of existence.
Aadhavan, read my responses to David above. If you still have problems, let me know.
Ravana,
You’re probably right. This seems to have opened up a whole big debate that’s been raging for centuries probably, but I’ll try and address your points raised in your firts post. Re the comments on the problems with the Great Commission, I remember reading something on it by a chap called Gary Habermas in which he defends the authenticity and historicity of the gospels. I’ll try and look it up and reply to those comments later…
Re Mark leaving out the virgin birth, you must note that the Christological significance of the virgin birth was only developed later by Augustine and the like. In other words, at the time of writing, the virgin birth was no more significant that the other miracles associated with Jesus’ birth or the miracles he performed when he was alive. As such the ommisiion of the virgin birth in Mark’s account does not provide any substantive evidence for the claim that the virgin birth was cooked up by later writers. It is merely reflective of the significance the author placed on the event in the context of the content he was trying to convey and the intended audience that he was addressing.
Re Paul’s exclusion of the virgin birth, again you must note that paul was a ‘trouble shooter’ in the arly church and would write to churches and instruct them when there was controversy regarding a certain issue, or when he felt strongly that something needed to be expounded upon. The fact that he chose not to use the virgin birth as a tool in his problem solving or sermons is again not an indication that he did not believe it. That’s just an assumption that cannot be sustained.
The doctrine of the trinity, like the theology related to the virgin birth, was developed later. You jump to the conclusion that this was to harmonise internal inconsistencies between the Bible. Again, the fact that a theology based on scriptural revelation is developed later is no indication that the authority for that doctrine does not exist in the Bible. The Bible has multiple references to the father, the Son and the Holy Spirit mentioned separately or together. The development of that basic idea in the Bible, i.e- the existence of 3 persons within the notion of God, was developed later. You may attack the idea of the trinity and we could debate that, but to claim that the Trinity is a fallacy just because it is developed at a later time ignores that the bible is considered to be a living document to Christians, and that in dealing with any piece of literature, the doctrinal significance or the gamut of philosophical issues explored by the author, may become apparent to those others much later. This does not mean that the issue explored by the author did not exist, it’s just that it was not discovered. Many Christian thinkers are still finding and expanding on the doctrines ‘hidden’ in the Bible. Some are misplaced and some are not. This is not evidence of inherent contradiction, but rather attests to a living document the reading of which establishes a dynamic relationship between the author and the reader.
I don’t think scripture is downplayed in the NT like you claim it is. The Bible is a narrative, a story of humankind, and as such, the NT represents a shift of emphasis. The old regime with strict rules was valid, just that adherence to the 10 commandments was pretty much impossible, so the NT is heavy on grace and faith being the manner in which salvation is attained. Regarding the content of the rules, are you in agreement that the dispute you identified is limited to the NT-OT dispute. The command to convert is found in the NT and is not contradicted. The larger question of the apparent OT-NT contradiction can be resolved if you treat the Bible like any other piece of literature. I said earlier that interpretation must be sensitive to context. What this means is that interpretation of the apparent contradictions are approached by looking at the context in which the OT was written and the context i which the NT was written. The OT was given to the nations state of Israel. It necessarily was more rule based as it was more of a moral code than the NT. Many of the OT books laid down the laws and rules of a society and a nation state in formation. There were some rules that would have been included for the preservation of social order and continuity. The OT was similar in many ways to the codification of moral codes down to every single minute detail. The NT is written more as a revelation to the “new Kingdom” or the Church and thus is less rule heavy and more doctrine heavy. The decision as to which rules are to be obeyed and which ones are to be ignored is a matter of interpretation. Contextual interpretation. And yes, in many ways we do apply standards in determining whether the rule is still valid. Or whether other rules must be added to our own personal moral code. The issue is whether the command to convert is the kind of rule that must be amended or forgotten and I would think not. The exclusivity of the meassage,( at least philosophically if not in terms of the requirements for salvation), the fact that the command is repeated in the NT, the non existence of verses that contradict the passages in question and the fact that coversion to and from a religion is widely accepted in most societies as a moral right, does not provide any sort of basis for rejecting the command found in the Bible.
Sophist, i agree with almost everything you said. If I did prayers every week I was in college, I can’t have been at college for more than 3 months. That’s not a nice thing to say about a person who went to the same school for 15 and a half years.Yes, the situation the early church lived in is very different to our own. The modern challenges to Christianity are not the threats of people who want to burn your house or kill you, unless you are an aog pastor in kesbewa or saudi; nor was the threat of secularism something paul had to deal with. Methods must change. i don’t agree that the intensity must diminish, but the modus operandi must be sensitive to culture and local tradition. A lot of pastors and their methods piss me off no end, just like they piss you off. My advice to them is ‘change your methods, read and think’, not ‘stop converting.’
I think that it’s time for another Reformation. Many of the ideas in Fundamentalist and Mainstream Christianity are outdated in the sense that they are inconsistent with today’s understanding of reality through Science. I think people like Rev. Michael Dowd and Bishop John Shelby Spong have got it closer to the mark, although they would probably agree to disagree on certain things. Liberal non-theistic Christianity, for me personally, does seem like the way to go.
Janus said:
“Yeah, SDAs are Christians, but JWs are not. You can ask them Ravana.”
I took Janus’ advice and did ask two of them. they both said that they were Christian and that JWs would call themselves Christian, going so far as to say call themselves “true Christians” or “1st Century Christians” indicating that what they believe is the same as the beliefs prevalent among the followers of Jesus in the 1st Century A.D.
Aadhavan,
I think as a Christian (a follower of Christ) the challenge is to try and understand what the nature of Christ’s message was originally. It is clear that the church and the New Testament writers all tried to do this, but as was pointed out before, opinions differed widely about who Jesus was. The 3rd century Council of Nicea which put the Bible together, was an attempt at coming to some sort of consensus through debate among the early christian groups, and they selected books to be included in the Bible in keeping with the result of this debate. It is clear that this attempt of the Council of Nicea and later commentators and theologists developed the doctrine, as you say, but unfortunately this indoctrination of the teachings of Christ have taken away from the original message. This was bound to happen since doctrine was taken as absolute truth rather than opinion, and the “debatability” of who Jesus was, and what his message entailed was lost. A prime example of the Church’s interference and changing of the message is the addition of the Great Commission to the Gospel of Mark, for the sake of consistency.
You seem to have ignored my pointing out the contradiction between the great commission and the lesser commission. One says eplicitly to give the message to all nations, the other says to give it only to Jews. How do you reconcile this with your view that the command to convert all nations is unambiguous? We must understand that the church had an interest in propagating this view, as is evident by the later addition of the great commission to the gospel of Mark.
Coming back to my orginal point, Christians who choose to convert others choose to obey the great commission and not the lesser commission. They choose also to ignore that in the original gospel – Mark – Jesus did not give out the great commission to convert people. Thus, they choose to do this through a personal decision about what is right and wrong. Therefore, the argument that Christians must convert people to follow the teachings of Christ is invalid. The issue is debatable, and is a matter of personal choice. The church, however, has an interest in propagating the view that conversion is a clear and unambiguous command, purely for its own interest, and has done so for centuries. Christians who understand this will not consider conversion as an essential part of being a Christian.
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: MATTHEW 28:19
Seems unambiguous to me.
The council chose the books of the Bible taking into consideration the consistency of the writing, the probability of inspiration, and the legitimacy of the author. They didnt think up a doctrine and chose the books accordingly.
Regarding the commissions. If you read the Old Testament, you find that the initial message was to go to the Jews first. They were a nation of priests and were to be ‘special’. From them the knowledge of the God of Israel was to be spread out among other lands. But through the Jew’s numerous rejections of their own God, the message was then to go directly to the gentiles. So in a sense, the two commissions exist not at the same time, but one after the other.
The point, which you seem to have misunderstood, is that the Great Commission and the Lesser Commission contradict each other, not that the Great Commission doesn’t exist. Also, the Lesser Commission and the Great Commission are both found in the New Testament, so there is no issue of Old vs. New doctrine here.
And you are not getting my point. Maybe you should lay off the HDLP too.
The message going to the Jews came first. The Jews rejected Christ, stoned Steven. The message now goes directly to the gentiles.
…so you admit that Christians ignore the Lesser Commission? For your convenience, I’m reproducing the relevant part of it here.
“These twelve Jesus sent forth and commanded them, saying, “Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not. But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. And as ye go, preach, saying, `The Kingdom of Heaven is at hand.’†Matthew 10:5-42 (21st Century King James Version)
It is very clear in this passage that he doesn’t want not non-Jews to be preached to. In other passages, he says that all nations should be given the message. This is a clear contradiction. Christians who choose to convert prefer to follow one commission and not the other.
Your argument seems to be that it’s because the Jews rejected Jesus, so the Christians kind of decided to focus on the Gentiles instead. Again, this indicates personal choice, not command. By that token, I guess once you’ve had a few churches burnt in a country, you should say, damn – these people seem to be rejecting us – let’s concentrate on some other group.
What exactly is your point, and what is your argument? You are not making yourself very clear.
How much more clear do i have to make it. You are assuming the two ‘commissions’ exist at the same time. What i say is that the Jews were chosen as a special race (read the OT) to have YHWH’s message and be a people unto him. But when Christ came, they rejected Him and His message. Therefore the message was not to go only to the Jews and then to everyone else, but to everyone equally.
Acts 13:46: Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles.
Surely it cant get any clearer than this verse..
“What I say is that the Jews were chosen as a special race (read the OT) to have YHWH’s message and be a people unto him. But when Christ came, they rejected Him and His message. Therefore, the message was not to go only to the Jews and then to everyone else, but to everyone equally.”
You’re strengthening my argument.
If what you’re saying is true, that implies something even more damaging to mainstream Christianity. What you are saying is that Jesus’ message was originally intended for the Jews, and it is directly as a result of the Jews’ rejection of Jesus as the Christ that the Messiah-for-the-chosen-people thing didn’t work out. So, then the followers of Jesus turned to the Gentiles, because the orginal target market wasn’t buying the message. In other words, the original objective could not be realised and for the expansion of the faith, the followers had to look elsewhere – export markets. This is admirable flexibility in strategy if it you’re a corporation, but it is less admirable and hardly credible if you’re a religion, though.
And not in a space of a great many years this objective change came about, as much as you like to think so. The great commission and the contradicting lesser commission, if you accept Matthew, were given both within the space of two years. Pretty bad medium-term forecasting and planning on the part of Christ surely, if what you’re saying is true?
Also, you do realise that Paul and Barnabus never actually met Jesus? To them, as much as everyone else around at the time – even those who met Jesus – the finer doctrinal details of his message were not clear. This is evidenced by the different views of the Gospel writers, and the later debates at the Council of Nicea.
I’m talking about what Jesus’ message originally was, not what his followers developed later. In Christ’s original message, of which the orginal gospel Mark, is the best indication, there appears to be no command to convert. The great commission in chapter 16 has been added later, as most theologians agree. This later insertion of the command to convert is indicative of the church’s strong motivation to convert people for it’s own benefit, even going to the extent of altering scripture to promote this doctrine.
“This is admirable flexibility in strategy if it you’re a corporation, but it is less admirable and hardly credible if you’re a religion, though.”
it’s also downright presumptious if you have no inkling of what the strategy was. Throughout the Bible free choice is always available. Even though Adam & Eve were told not to sin, there was a contingency plan for if and when they did. And since God is omnipotent, he is aware of what the choice is going to be. So saying there was a change in strategy presumes that you are aware of the original strategy. Obviously none of us do.
“Pretty bad medium-term forecasting and planning on the part of Christ surely, if what you’re saying is true?”
Again, Ravana, you’re coming out as increasingly arrogant and pompous. This isn’t about what you’d do if you were Jesus, but rather about what actually happened. I’m sure you’d have done things differently, but that’s not the point, is it?
“In Christ’s original message, of which the orginal gospel Mark, is the best indication, there appears to be no command to convert.’
I do wish you wouldn’t make up stuff, Ravana. You’re beginning to sound like those buggers arguing about how great the LTTE is. The command to convert IS there in Mark as well as Matthew. You keep repeating “as most theologians agree”. Most don’t agree. If you think they do, please show us evidence that the overwhelming number of theologians say this. If not, please give it a rest. In other words, put up or shut up. Both Matthew & Mark give similar versions of the Great Commission.
“And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.†— Mark 16:15[KJV]
As I’ve said before, this discussion isn’t about whether the Bible is authentic or not, but whether the command to convert is Biblical or not. It is. Can we move on now?
How can it be free choice if “God” already knows what you’re going to decide? It’s only an ILLUSION of free choice.
Really! That’s interesting Ravana. I guess each JW has their own form of belief as well. Also i believe that the Bible they use is not the same as is used by the majority of protestants.
Regarding their belief in Christ, it is not the same as how other’s view Christ. They believe he is a creation of the Father, like i said, in the same lines as an archangel. These are some of their beliefs:
Christ is God’s Son and is inferior to Him
Christ was first of God’s creations
Christ died on a stake, not a cross
Christ was raised from the dead as an immortal spirit person
This was taken from their official site. I have been reading their literature for years, and their concept of Christ is different. While protestants view Christ as God, according to the texts i gave above and many others, JWs view him as a created being, and therefore while they use his teachings, its not with the same respect as one would give if one were to believe that Christ was God himself.
As they say that Christ is inferior to God, then automatically they would pray to God and not to an inferior being. Then strictly speaking, they dont really worship Christ.
But i see that they do refer to themselves sometims as Christians.
I know all this already, Janus. It doesn’t change the fact that they call themselves Christians and are justified in doing so.
Then can i call myself Buddhist while not believing in Buddha..
Don’t be ridiculous. They believe in Christ – the Anointed One – so they are Christian. Are you just thick or what?
Muslims believe that there was a Christ too. Does that make them Christian? You’d have to believe in Christ as is portrayed in the Bible, and worship him to ‘technically, be a Christian.
Dunno if i am thick.. I try to stay off fats..
JWs are followers of Christ’s teachings as depicted in the Bible. Just like other denominations, they have their own interpretation. You don’t have to worship him to be a Christian, just follow his teachings and accept him as the Christ – the anointed one, or the Messiah.
Plus, according to the gospels, Jesus clearly said that anyone even giving a cup of water to somebody in his name was for us and not against us. Thus, it is un-Biblical to say that those who call themselves followers of Christ are not followers of Christ i.e. Christians.
“You don’t have to worship him to be a Christian, just follow his teachings and accept him as the Christ – the anointed one, or the Messiah.”
JWs dont accept Christ as the Messiah! dude!
No. You are wrong. JWs DO accept Jesus as the Messiah.
The following are from the Jehovah’s Witnesses official site. You should really have a look at it.
“The word “gospel” means “good news.” Both men had the same message—that Jesus is the promised Messiah, or Christ; that he died for mankind’s sins; and that he was resurrected to heaven.”
http://www.watchtower.org/e/19981215/article_02.htm
“So all who exercise faith in Jesus can receive “the release [from sin] by ransom†and can enjoy everlasting life. (Ephesians 1:7; John 3:36) Surely we can rejoice that Jehovah God loved the world of mankind so much that he gave his Son as our Savior! (Luke 2:10-12; John 3:16)”
“By means of his miracles, Jesus demonstrated on a small scale what he will do on a grand scale during his rule as King of God’s Kingdom. His miracles serve as proof that he was sent by God and that he really was God’s Son.”
http://www.watchtower.org/e/20050422/article_04.htm
Jesus = God.
Christians = yes.
JWs = no.
Got it now, mate?
This is a subpoint, but Jehovah’s Witnesses are generally referred to as Christians. There is significant debate, however.
JW’s don’t worship Christ or Mary, Christ’s mother; Christ is revered as God’s first creation and as the master worker, a name you will see continuously in the bible, as God intended. JW’s are called Christians because Christ established the congregation whose precepts and teachings they follow hence “Christians”. Thus Christ is not worshipped, or prayed to (instead prayed through, to God—Jehovah). Quite simple actually.
Janus, as to JW’s having their own bibles, really, they don’t. They read the New World Translation, where they have replaced God’s name with ‘Jehovah’ and applied unique usage to the terms ‘Lord’ (reserved for Christ) and ‘God’ (Jehovah). You’ll also notice the Catholic bible (The Good News Bible) includes a few deuterocanonical books/ apocrypha; mainly bible stories, which rarely appear in any other bibles.
David—Just re-read the comments where you beat yourself up and double-take mercilessly.
While I’m at it, let me go apeshit all at once:
Janus:
“… And my JW friends carry cards around with them which state that, in an emergency or accident, they refuse any form of transfusion, or transplant.”
Where did you get that? I’ve got a No Blood Card in front of me right now, and am looking for the “No Transplant” sign everywhere, but dammit it appears to be a highly spun and amphetemized figment of your imagination.
yes, you are ape shit alright. The stricter JWs do not accept transfusions. Even in Lanka.
what ever said, i feel sorry for all those people who put up those amazing decorations for Chirstmas. And i remember the Odel decorations in front of the Municipal council.. they were supposed to be well lit, but on christmas eve it all looked dull.. must have been a heck of a time for Otara..
and its pretty confusing, as Indi said, as to why they wanted the 24th to be a national holiday when Soma thera passed away on a different day..
Interesting discussion, though with only a broad understanding of Christian and Buddhist philosophies (philosophy / religion… idea structures that humans guide by, whatever), I can’t refute or support the more esoteric bits. This site has some fascinating (fascinating / possibly offensive, whatever… ) commentary and analysis on the Bible, OT and NT, as well as the Qur’an and the Book of Mormon — http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/
Why oh why can’t we all get along…. (ponder… ponder…)
Check out this awesome website:
http://www.endchristmas.com/
Religious bigots like Indi get slapped in it.
I dont think he is a bigot. Quite opinionated but not a bigot.
My goodness! this discussion has even spilled out into the new year..
Oh what the heck. Let’s just all celebrate Christmas & Easter with Santa & Easter Bunny & be done with the rest. Isn’t that much more cuter & fashionable than Vesak? Oh la la
They come from the west & mostly white-skins celebrate them.
So, let us join in.
For who ever said about Christians (in Christian countries) having just two hols, that’s not the case………
It’s not just Good Friday & Christmas. There is Easter Sunday & since it’s a Sunday, invariably Monday is a holiday. Then there’s Boxing Day, and invariably other hols for the respective countries’ representative Saint.
Please don’t come back with the “but with Buddhism, there’s an invariable holiday once a monthâ€
I know that.
No western country with a Christian majority officially celebrates ANY sacred day of non-Christians. But it is apparently Sri Lanka that is discriminatory. All the Scandinavian countries not only consitutionally require the head of the state to be Christian, but they must also be Evangelical Lutheran. And the head of the state in England not only has to be Christian but belong to the Church of England. In Norway it is required by the constitution that the majority of members of parliament be Evangelical Lutheran. In the USA all currency carries the title “In God We Trust” and chilren must take the pledge of allegiance with the words “Under God”, only Bibles are available for swearing in – if you happen to use a Quran you kick up a shit storm. How strange in a land that prides itself on being a land of immigrants. The fact is people in Sri Lanka take their freedoms and rights for granted. Assholes like Indi expect Christmas to be the biggest and best celebration in Sri Lanka when only around 7% of the population follows the Christian religion. And then they complain about how the majority Buddhists are responsible for the fact that Christmas isn’t the biggest and best celebration. Sri Lanka celebrates all the major religions like few other countries do. The so-called western democracies are very exclusivist when it comes to religion, they only celebrate their Jedeo Christian heritage. Indi needs to stop being so hateful towards Buddhists. It is really ugly.
thank you for the lesson in compassion and right speech
Ever wondered, why the Christian religion has countless denominations?
Because of the inherent flaws in the teachings.
Buddhism will prevail & no one question Buddha’s teachings, except the fools who cannot comprehend the deeper teachings.
So let’s mock the followers of Buddhism or rather, who pretend to follow for their personal gain ….eg some monks……..
all buddhist fanatics… im proud to say that ive suceeded in converting five buddhists in to christianity and in still 21 years old!..i will carry on gods command to go in to the world and preach the gospel.. the good news. people are perishing..theyre bound and gagged by the devil. they will face the second death.. i ask you christians not to give up in the face of persecution but to press on to the glory that is in jesus christ our LORD… yes Jesus is LORD.
in the begining was the word and the word was with god, and the word was god. the word became flesh and dwelth among us’… this proves that jesus was indeed god incarnate..ONWARDS CHRISTIAN SOLIDIER!
:-)…parody? (I hope!)
If I were Jesus I’d make sure I have with me a big fat hydrogen bomb when I make my second coming so that I can drop that motherfucker square on top of the Vatican. There’s only one thing worse than getting crucified in front of your own mother and disciples for shit that some other motherfuckers did and that’s getting to know that two thousand years later creepy, robe-wearing, bible-wielding, lazy-headed, rich-assed pedophiles are sticking their flesh-crosses into the holy grails of preteen altar boys and girls and are using your name to perpetrate that shit.
The moment somebody starts violently preaching against sexual morality or premarital sex or homosexuality or sodomy or pedophilia or anything even remotely sexual you can bet your entire life savings that that preacher is one horny-assed pervert with a boner the size of a scepter just dying to rape the shit out of the first piece of ass he can get his hands on. Even if it’s a kid barely out of preschool. And that’s no exception for Hindus, Muslims, Christians, and Jews. But the Catholic Priests seem to be taking sodomy and pedophilia to a whole new level that even Michael Jackson’s going “These guys make me look like Mother Fucking Teresaâ€. A New York Times survey in 2003 showed that over 4,200 sexual abuse claims were made against 1,200 Catholic Priests since 1940. Now, I’m all for the idea of innocent until proven guilty but when you have 4,200 children saying you fucked them in the ass, you are pretty much guilty. (Google New York Times Survey Catholic Sex Scandal if you think I’m making this shit up). Those numbers must have shot up faster than Keith Richards with a bag of cocaine in the last four years.