Christianity

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Lily
 
Reply Sat 16 May, 2009 07:18 am
@avatar6v7,
avatar6v7 wrote:

The church sponsored intellectual and scintific progress, and resisted many of the hideous philosophies that have led to many of the worst regimes and evils the world has ever seen.


Even though the church brought a lot discoveries to the scientific world, it's easier today when you don't have to worry about being burned at the stake. And it might be because I'm a teenager, but I rather have the possibility to do what's wrong then not have a choice at all. What if christianity isn't the truth? haven't we a right to find the truth ourselves? I really don't like forcing people to belive in something.
 
avatar6v7
 
Reply Sat 16 May, 2009 07:30 am
@Lily,
The church didn't burn people at the stake because they were some orwellian nightmare, but because it existed in an incredibly violant and turbulent period of history. These days in our relatavist, liberal and secular western society, having a controversial idea would do very little- people would just go 'it's your opinion'. But in the middle ages one dangerous idea could bring about wars, destroy societies and bring down rulers. And if you are thinking that we are talking about ideas like democracy, sexual freedom or equality, think again. Take the cathar hersesy- it caused a civil war, and not because it was about freedom to practice a religous view, but because it was the attempt of powerful nobles to reject the power of the King and Pope over them. This freedom usually meant the ability to do what they liked to the peasants and their fellow nobles, and caused yet more war, suffering and tyranny. The treatment of heretics may have been cruel and brutal, but the church was the only thing standing between mediaval society and bloody anarchy- an anarchy within which none of the freedom of ideas and beliefs that you desire would have been possible.
 
Lily
 
Reply Sat 16 May, 2009 07:39 am
@Eudaimon,
Well, it's your opinion. Smile You make a good point. Nothing bad that doesn't bring anything good. But nowadays, we have a working system that allow opinions. I think, that even though it has its flaws, it's kinda nice.
 
Bones-O
 
Reply Sat 16 May, 2009 07:48 am
@avatar6v7,
avatar6v7 wrote:
The treatment of heretics may have been cruel and brutal, but the church was the only thing standing between mediaval society and bloody anarchy- an anarchy within which none of the freedom of ideas and beliefs that you desire would have been possible.

Can you provide an example of the absence of bloody tyranny leading to bloody anarchy to justify this?
 
avatar6v7
 
Reply Sat 16 May, 2009 07:57 am
@Bones-O,
The overthrow of the Tsars in 1917. Followed by the horrendous bloodshed of the Russian Civil War, followed by 70 years of hellish suffering under a communist tyranny.
 
Dave Allen
 
Reply Sat 16 May, 2009 08:40 am
@Eudaimon,
Are you talking about how Pope Pius rolled over and played ball for the spanish and italian fascists, and remained broadly uncritical of the nazis?

Or the way the russian orthodox church bouyed up oppression first under the tsars (serfdom was hardly objectively better than communism), but came round to bolshevism when that seemed inelucatble?
 
avatar6v7
 
Reply Sat 16 May, 2009 08:46 am
@Dave Allen,
Pius's role in failing to speak out against (and there is absoloutely zero evidence for co-operation) the facists is disputed, as evidence is emerging that he secretly saved thousands of jews. As for the bolsheviks the Russian Orthodox church hardly supported them, they were in fact persecuted and driven underground, and resisted collectivisation (unsucessfully in the end). While it is true that the Russion Orthodox Church supported the government and the Red Army in WWII, so did the rest of the Allies.
 
Dave Allen
 
Reply Sat 16 May, 2009 09:03 am
@Eudaimon,
You claimed the church "Stood up" to these things.

Now you say it was persecuted by them.

The latter may be true, but the former certainly isn't. Pius may have harboured jews, but that he did so secretly certainly elucidates the fact that he did not speak out against the nazis with any conviction.

From: Pius XI and the Rise of General Francisco Franco

Quote:
Cardinal Pacelli became pope as Pius XII. He congratulated Franco: "With great joy we address you, dearest sons of Catholic Spain, to express our paternal congratulations for the gift of peace and victory, with which God has chosen to crown the Christian heroism of your faith and charity ... As a pledge of the bountiful grace which you will receive from the Immaculate Virgin and the Apostle james, patrons of Spain ... we give to you, our dear sons of Catholic Spain, to the Head of State and his illustrious Government, to the zealous Episcopate and its self-denying clergy, to the heroic combatants and to all the faithful, our apostolic benediction."

The Holocaust, in its most general sense, began in Spain. During the Civil War people were murdered by Franco's troops simply for not being Catholic. After Franco's victory priests made lists of citizens who did not attend mass. They were rounded up for questioning and, often, execution. Hitler's concentration camps, after 1939, evolved into Spanish-style death camps that liquidated not only Communists, but the Catholic Church's ancient enemies, the Jews.


The catholic church is also largely responsible for creating the demonisation of the jews which the nazis were able to play upon in the first place. It was a bulwark against anti-semitism then as much as it is against child abuse and the spread of AIDs now - it colludes with the worst offenders.

But I imagine someone who thinks that inquisitions and the burning of heretics was fair game "given the circumstances" probably doesn't lose much sleep over raped children.
 
avatar6v7
 
Reply Sat 16 May, 2009 09:10 am
@Dave Allen,
You seem to be under the impression that I think the church infallible, as opposed to a broadly good thing. Inintial support for facism stemmed from support for it's economic policy (which was very good) and from the fact that communism was perceived as a greater evil, and a greater direct threat to the church- a view shared by plenty of non-religous people in Britian and America. As for anti-semitism, this came out of secular nationalism, the worship of humanity, or rather one race that is perceived as human. If you think that the catholic church was anti-semitic, then you are wrong. Take for instance the 11th century proclamatic by the pope, in which is was made a crime punishable by exocommunication to kill a jew.
 
Dave Allen
 
Reply Sat 16 May, 2009 09:29 am
@Eudaimon,
The Catholic Church had a long history of opposing democratic governments, particularly in Italy. Voting by Catholics was treated as a mortal sin until the end of World War I, but then in 1919 the Church organized the Italian People's Party. In elections in 1919 and 1921 it received 20% of the vote, second only to the Italian Socialist Party. However, Pius XI and the Church hierarchy had a great fear of democracy and more radical trends like anarchism, socialism, and communism. The Church favored strong leaders, dictators or monarchs, who would simply crush any political opposition, particularly if they favored allowing only one legal religion, the Catholic Church.

Quote:
If you think that the catholic church was anti-semitic, then you are wrong. Take for instance the 11th century proclamatic by the pope, in which is was made a crime punishable by exocommunication to kill a jew.

Opposing murder does not make you pro-semitic. Until last century, for example, it was a common policy of italian catholics to covertly baptise jewish children, and then remove them to religious foster homes because it was illegal for a jewish couple to raise a christian child.

Such children were little more than bonded slaves to the church, and were often unwillingly robbed of their puberty to make for castratii.

This is pro-semitic? No? But it's 'broadly good', right? We'd have been worse off without this institutional abuse?
 
avatar6v7
 
Reply Sat 16 May, 2009 09:59 am
@Dave Allen,
Dave Allen wrote:
The Catholic Church had a long history of opposing democratic governments, particularly in Italy. Voting by Catholics was treated as a mortal sin until the end of World War I, but then in 1919 the Church organized the Italian People's Party. In elections in 1919 and 1921 it received 20% of the vote, second only to the Italian Socialist Party. However, Pius XI and the Church hierarchy had a great fear of democracy and more radical trends like anarchism, socialism, and communism. The Church favored strong leaders, dictators or monarchs, who would simply crush any political opposition, particularly if they favored allowing only one legal religion, the Catholic Church.

Italy had been created by annexing the papal states, and the government was highly anti-catholic. They stopped boycotting the imposed government after it dropped its stance- a stance ,by the way, that was against the feelings of most of the Italian peope, so a highly indemocratic one. Without the influence of the Catholic Church Italy would almolst certainly have become communist after WWII, and it was thanks to the church that it didn't, and that later socialist governments were more moderate.
Dave Allen wrote:

Opposing murder does not make you pro-semitic. Until last century, for example, it was a common policy of italian catholics to covertly baptise jewish children, and then remove them to religious foster homes because it was illegal for a jewish couple to raise a christian child.

Such children were little more than bonded slaves to the church, and were often unwillingly robbed of their puberty to make for castratii.

This is pro-semitic? No? But it's 'broadly good', right? We'd have been worse off without this institutional abuse?

But normal murderers were not excommunicated, and the fact that the worst possible punishment for a christian was reserved for those who killed them is rather suggestive is it not? Also the castration of children may have been unpleasent, and I will agree it was immoral, but it often gave them very rich carrears, and many parents hope their children would become castratii. Certainlly it is better than doing the same thing to people because of their race or disability, a thing done by secualr government everywhere, except in catholic countries.
 
Didymos Thomas
 
Reply Sat 16 May, 2009 03:38 pm
@avatar6v7,
Eudaimon wrote:
Exactly.


Alright, so as tolerance increases so does a society's ability to have democracy. As a general rule, this seems accurate.

Eudaimon wrote:
What is spiritual practice? Can there be a religion without spiritual practices?


Spiritual practice can be a variety of things: it includes communal rituals (such as group prayer), meditation, ect. I am unaware of a religion without a spiritual practice. Spiritual practice is the defining feature of a religion.

Eudaimon wrote:
But what is really new in new ideology? Or rather it's clarification of the old ideas? Let us consider the mechanism of adoption. There comes a teacher to their land and starts teaching them. But there is always certain ground for his teaching which he appeals to. So these new forms are only effects of old causes.


If the teacher comes from another place and brings alien ideas then the new ideas cannot be effects of preexisting ideas.

You ask what was new to the Chinese in Buddhist thought: karma, for one.
Eudaimon wrote:
Explain then why democracy (if it have ever been there) failed, but communism find its ground.


If democracy was never there in the first place, democracy could not have failed.

In any case, China did see a significant democratic movement. This movement was brutally oppressed by the communist government. Recall Tienanmen Square.

Eudaimon wrote:
Thou toldest me that Muslim violence is the result of their poverty and oppression. I have given thee examples of wealthy Arabs from thriving countries, what's more?


Your three examples do not cover all Muslim majority nations, much less all Muslims.


Eudaimon wrote:
In case of Crusades it was not perversion Christ's words: neither in his life, nor in his sayings there can never be found grounds for violence, it was just ignoring them. Its only part of its spirit inherited from Judaism that was authoritarian.


There is no sense arguing with you if you refuse to acknowledge the historical record. Here is a fact: the Catholic Church perverted the teachings of Jesus Christ in order to compel Christians to go on crusade.

Eudaimon wrote:
Islam, on the contrary from its very beginning, implied violent propagation of religion:


What is your point? I have already said that Islam calls for violence in some cases.

jeeprs wrote:
Somewhat reluctantly, I need to challenge this statement. If you look into the origins of Islam, it was most certainly not peaceful. It was a martial religion, a 'fighting creed', right from the get-go. Read your history.


Yes, let us read our history, shall we?

Muhammad brought Islam to the people of Arabia who were, at the time, involved in constant violence so destructive that the entire civilization was at risk. The people of Arabia pre-Islam were still working under animistic notions that called for a great deal of violence between clans - by the time of Muhammad this ancient creed had become self destructive due to the growing population of Arabia, especially in emerging urban centers like Mecca and Medina.

Muhammad, with his religion of Islam, ended that self destructive violence among Arab peoples by uniting them. Yes, force was used to unite the Arabs. However, the use of force does not make Islam a "martial religion" nor a "fighting creed" - along with understanding the history of Islam you might do well to investigate the teachings of Islam. If you take the time to do so you will find a religion of peace. Heck, you can find lectures from Muslim teacher on YouTube who explain Islam's peaceful nature. This is not some esoteric understanding.

Islam teaches that peace should always be pursued first when confronted with a problem. Muhammad was facing the problem of a self destructively violent society. Read your history: Muhammad first tried peace. His followers were persecuted by some clans in Mecca (clans working under the old ways) which forced him and his followers escape to Medina. In Medina, Muhammad rose peacefully to political prominence as his religion attracted new followers. However, clans in Mecca continued to persecute Muslims. As the conflict escalated, Muhammad finally resorted to armed conflict - but only after peace was tried, and tried, and tried again.

Yeah, giving the history a read is definitely a good idea. You might think of it like this: the Allied powers in WW2 used violent means to put down Nazi Germany. Violence was the only apparent alternative to annihilation, and the use of violence against Nazi Germany was far more appealing than allowing Nazi Germany to pursue it's own campaign of unimaginable violence. Muhammad's wars were not so different: sure, they were violent, but considering the alternative, the ancient animism of Arabia, Muhammad's wars resulted in more peace than would have existed in that place had Muhammad done nothing.
 
jeeprs
 
Reply Sat 16 May, 2009 05:13 pm
@Eudaimon,
(I apologize for my flippancy in earlier comments.)

"The myth that warfare is only justified in Islam under the condition of self-defense is disproved by the account of the Battle of Badr, in which Muhammad sent his men out to raid caravans, then deliberately provoked a battle with the Meccan army sent out to defend them. The case for aggressive warfare is also supported by the fate of the three Jewish tribes of Medina, who were cleansed because they had rejected Muhammad's claims of prophethood (and because the Muslims wanted their possessions).

In many cases, Muhammad waged war for the purpose of revenge, such as the attack on the Lihyan, in which the people were clearly not prepared for war and saved themselves only by fleeing into the hills (Ibn Ishaq 718). Muhammad also attacked the people of Taif as soon as he had the opportunity to avenge their rejection of him (Ibn Ishaq 280 & 872).

Also disproving the myth that Muhammad only fought in self-defense is the account of his first attack on the Christians. There was no compelling reason for him to send an army to Muta (in Syria, where they met with disaster at the hands of the Byzantines). Had this been a matter of self-defense, then the enemy would surely have followed the routed army back to Arabia, but this was not the case (Ibn Ishaq 791).

Near the end of his life, the prophet of Islam directed military campaigns for the mere purpose of spreading Islamic rule. He knew that some cities would resist and others would not. He left instructions to his people for dealing with each case:

The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: If you come to a township (which has surrendered without a formal war) and stay therein, you have a share (that will be in the form of an award) in (the properties obtained from) it. If a township disobeys Allah and His Messenger (and actually fights against the Muslims) one-fifth of the booty seized therefrom is for Allah and His Apostle and the rest is for you. (Sahih Muslim 4346)
As can be seen, those who were not at war with the Muslims are to be subjugated anyway, and their property seized. The only distinguishing factor is the extent of Muslim entitlement following the victory."

There is more detail on thereligionofpeace.com/Muhammad/myths-mu-self-defense.htm. Indeed this is from an anti-islamic polemical site however the material seems well supported. If it is all just propaganda, then I am happy to stand corrected.

I don't want to get involved in denigration of other cultures. But even in a limited reading about Islam it is clear there are many passages in the Islamic holy text which justify the violent death and oppression of unbelievers (infidels or kafirs) and that these behaviours have been abundantly illustrated over millenia. While true that the vast majority of Muslim believers may be good and peaceful citizens, to this day, somewhere in the world, innocent people are killed every day by the small but active minority of Islamic radicals; in fact a majority of the victims are other Muslims. I don't see how pretending this is not true, or saying it has nothing to do with their religious culture, actually helps any of us.

So while it is a lovely image to think that all the various cultures and faiths can live peacefully together and respect each other, it is really only possible by virtue of the creation of the secular state which indeed many Islamic fundmentalists are professedly and loudly hell-bent on destroying in a return to the kind of pre-modern theocracies you see in Iran and Saudi Arabia. Certainly we should extol the positive cultural contributions and unique virtues of Islam, of which there are many, but in exchange for an acknowledgement of the fundamental importance of pluralism and secular democracy. And my bet is it will be a long, long time before you see such an acknowledgement coming out of Tehran or Riyadh.
 
Didymos Thomas
 
Reply Sat 16 May, 2009 06:06 pm
@jeeprs,
jeeprs wrote:
(I apologize for my flippancy in earlier comments.)


No problem, friend.

jeeprs wrote:
"The myth that warfare is only justified in Islam under the condition of self-defense is disproved by the account of the Battle of Badr, in which Muhammad sent his men out to raid caravans, then deliberately provoked a battle with the Meccan army sent out to defend them. The case for aggressive warfare is also supported by the fate of the three Jewish tribes of Medina, who were cleansed because they had rejected Muhammad's claims of prophethood (and because the Muslims wanted their possessions).


Let us put this into context. The pagan Meccans had confiscated the property of Muslims in Mecca and were still involved in the violent repression of Islam. Badr was in direct response to the treatment of Muslims - an engagement made in order to quell the violence against Muslims.

As for the Jewish tribes, let us not forget that Muhammad was a chief of one of the three prominent tribes in Medina. Muhammad established an Islamic state in Medina as his influence grew - this growing power alarmed other Jewish leaders. Both parties provoked the violence.

Either way, what's the point? Is Christianity a religion of violence because the teachings of Christ have been used to sanction war? No. That the history of Islam contains darker moments is not evidence that the religion itself is such a way. I am not here to argue that Mohammad was perfect; even from a religious perspective, prophets have flaws. The manifestation of character flaws and/or poor decisions of the Prophet does not change the teaching of the religion.

jeeprs wrote:
In many cases, Muhammad waged war for the purpose of revenge, such as the attack on the Lihyan, in which the people were clearly not prepared for war and saved themselves only by fleeing into the hills (Ibn Ishaq 718). Muhammad also attacked the people of Taif as soon as he had the opportunity to avenge their rejection of him (Ibn Ishaq 280 & 872).


Yes, Muhammad moved against the Lihyan. Do we call this revenge, or do we understand the move in the context of Arabia at the time? The Lihyan murdered a group of Muslims, and so Muhammad set out when the opportunity arose to address their transgression. Muhammad was busy trying to unify Arabia and convert the Arabs from blood-fued fueled pagan traditions to Islam. This move from self destructive violence to Islam required some violence. Again, the comparision to the Allied powers of the Second World War comes to mind.

And didn't the people of Taif agree to convert to Islam, having repelled Muhammad's assault years earlier?

jeeprs wrote:
Also disproving the myth that Muhammad only fought in self-defense is the account of his first attack on the Christians. There was no compelling reason for him to send an army to Muta (in Syria, where they met with disaster at the hands of the Byzantines). Had this been a matter of self-defense, then the enemy would surely have followed the routed army back to Arabia, but this was not the case (Ibn Ishaq 791).


Whether or not the Byzantines and Arabs would have pursued Muhammad's army... I do not know.

But as for sending the army against those Arabs in the first place: again, Muhammad was uniting Arabia, converting them from an outmoded paganism to Islam.

jeeprs wrote:
Near the end of his life, the prophet of Islam directed military campaigns for the mere purpose of spreading Islamic rule.


There's your propoganda. "for the mere purpose"? It would be hard to imagine an author giving a more negative slant on the history against Islam. Whether or not the campaigns were right or wrong is irrelevant: Muhammad was clearly concerned with ending the Arabian paganism that was literally destroying that culture.

jeeprs wrote:
There is more detail on thereligionofpeace.com/Muhammad/myths-mu-self-defense.htm. Indeed this is from an anti-islamic polemical site however the material seems well supported. If it is all just propaganda, then I am happy to stand corrected.


If the source is admitedly anti-Islamic, the source is useless when trying to have an honest discussion about the history of Islam. At best such a source is useful as an example of the way in which history can be manipulated in order to support any desired conclusion.

jeeprs wrote:
I don't want to get involved in denigration of other cultures. But even in a limited reading about Islam it is clear there are many passages in the Islamic holy text which justify the violent death and oppression of unbelievers (infidels or kafirs) and that these behaviours have been abundantly illustrated over millenia.


I am guessing that you are not an Imam. Neither am I. The Koran is not an easy book to understand: it purposefully contradicts itself. Yes, there are passages which condone violence and oppression - and later passages which clarify these teachings, moderate them, and even contradict those teachings. My advice: go ask an Imam about these things, or a well educated Muslim. You can find videos online, lectures given by moderate Imams which address the misconceptions of Islam as a violent, aggressive faith tradition.

jeeprs wrote:
While true that the vast majority of Muslim believers may be good and peaceful citizens, to this day, somewhere in the world, innocent people are killed every day by the small but active minority of Islamic radicals; in fact a majority of the victims are other Muslims. I don't see how pretending this is not true, or saying it has nothing to do with their religious culture, actually helps any of us.


No one said that these events do not happen. No one said that these events are not related to the religious culture. Instead, the argument is that these events are prescribed by Islam in the same way that the Crusades were prescribed by Christianity - through the perversion of the teaching.

jeeprs wrote:
So while it is a lovely image to think that all the various cultures and faiths can live peacefully together and respect each other, it is really only possible by virtue of the creation of the secular state


I suggest reading up on the history of Islamic rule, especially in Egypt. Again, there are dark periods, but there were also times when the various cultures and faiths did live peacefully together and respect each other - Christians and Jews held vital political offices, ect. But there was not a secular state.

A secular state is not necessary for harmonious living. A religious state can accomplish the same end so long as that religious state respects other faith traditions and does not discriminate based on faith. A secular state might be more condusive to such harmony, but to say that a secular state is necessary for such harmony is well beyond demonstration.

As for the radicals of Saudi Arabia and Iran, they are beside the point. Pointing to the most extreme examples within a tradition does not allow for a generalization about the tradition as a whole.
 
Bonaventurian
 
Reply Sat 16 May, 2009 06:31 pm
@Didymos Thomas,
Didymos Thomas wrote:
Where do we get the idea that Eastern societies are more authoritarian than western? Have we already managed to forget Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Russia, Mussolini's Italy, ect?


No. It's just that we're looking presently and ahead to Mao-ist China, North Korea, etc.
 
Didymos Thomas
 
Reply Sat 16 May, 2009 06:57 pm
@Bonaventurian,
Bonaventurian wrote:
No. It's just that we're looking presently and ahead to Mao-ist China, North Korea, etc.


You might be, which is fine, but that was not the issue being discussed. The claim advanced was that eastern societies are inherently more authoritarian than western societies. That claim is false.
 
Bonaventurian
 
Reply Sat 16 May, 2009 07:19 pm
@Eudaimon,
From what I could tell from the OP and the first few posts, the idea was whether or not (Christian) Western nations are more "authoritarian" intrinsically than Eastern (Confuscian, Buddhist, etc.) nations.

The answer is no. Human nature is common to all men. There's no reason why Japanese society need have a more authoritarian government than the British.

If the question is a religious one, then the answer is obviously "yes." Christianity centers on the immeasureable worth of the individual. Do you doubt it? Then I tell you that the infinite God became a finite man, and that infinite God handed Himself over as a ransom for us finite men as individuals. Did He not address in the singular the Good Thief?

And didn't even King David have to account for that one commoner whom he had killed, and whose wife he stole?

On the other hand...*cough*Shinto.*cough*
 
avatar6v7
 
Reply Sun 17 May, 2009 12:59 pm
@Bonaventurian,
The picture is a bit more complex than west non-authoratarian and east authoratarian. What is true that most religions before and other than Christianity hold duty and obediance to be more important than love- not that in most religions love isn't considered significant, or even vital, but that morality is primarily founded on these concepts. Christianity holds that these things are vital, but are seen as secondary to the central precept of love. This is true in the other two major monotheistic religons, it is true in most eastern faiths as well- even in Buddhism, a philosophy centred on the self, it is focused on self dicipline, and there is usually plenty of exterior dicipline to reinforce this. However there is plenty of authoratianism in western society, and in Christianity- however the focus on somthing other than duty as the primary moral precept has allowed for non-authorotarian socities and concepts to emmerge. However even this cannot always be taken as a good thing- for instance in Japan, though human rights are upheld and democracy observed, a society of dicipline and respect means that nobody litters, and that health is excellent. Compare that to nations like my own, the UK, where obesity and social disharmony reigns. It is true that there is a definate divide between western and eastern understandings of authority, and I personally hold the Christian doctrine to be the better one, but let us not make disparaging and innacurate remarks.
 
Sympathypains
 
Reply Sun 17 May, 2009 01:37 pm
@Eudaimon,
Lets not forget that Tibet was a serf system prior to the Maoists taking over.

Essentially, people were owned by the Lamas and many starved and lived off Yak butter tea, while huge stores of foods were sacrificed and the Lamas lived in palaces.

Friendly Fuedalism - The Tibet Myth

Ideologies and reality are rarely equal in society.
 
Didymos Thomas
 
Reply Sun 17 May, 2009 06:35 pm
@Sympathypains,
Bonaventurian wrote:

If the question is a religious one, then the answer is obviously "yes." Christianity centers on the immeasureable worth of the individual. Do you doubt it? Then I tell you that the infinite God became a finite man, and that infinite God handed Himself over as a ransom for us finite men as individuals. Did He not address in the singular the Good Thief?


Because Buddhism so devalues the worth of the individual :rolleyes:.

Bonaventurian wrote:
On the other hand...*cough*Shinto.*cough*


You honestly want to suggest that a decentralized faith tradition is somehow more authoritarian than a faith tradition like Christianity which typically involves hierarchical power structures?

Sympathypains wrote:
Lets not forget that Tibet was a serf system prior to the Maoists taking over.

Essentially, people were owned by the Lamas and many starved and lived off Yak butter tea, while huge stores of foods were sacrificed and the Lamas lived in palaces.

Friendly Fuedalism - The Tibet Myth

Ideologies and reality are rarely equal in society.


No sir.

This sort of revisionist history is based on misinformation and half truths. Yes, Lama run Tibet did see its fair share of abusive leaders. The Sixth Dalai Lama for example refused his role as monk while taking his political role for the purpose of ruling Tibet. There was abuse. But show me a single nation in the history of the world which has not experienced abusive leadership. Also recall that very few Lamas have actually ruled Tibet; authority has generally been held by Chinese appointed regents. Tibet was not independent of China until the turn of the century.

Revisionist history like the bit you link to relies on a few examples of bad apples to make stunningly false generalizations.

An example of revisionism and the twisting of history is evident in the claim of sacrifice: Tibetan Buddhism does not make sacrifices, the indigenous Bon tradition of Tibet makes animal sacrifices. It was not the Lamas but the populace who retained Bon rites who were intent on sacrifice.

Tibet did have a system similar to serfdom, however Chinese descriptions thereof have been horribly exaggerated for the sake of inventing a justification for the Communist invasion of that mountain domain. In Tibet, a significant portion of the population were monks and nuns, not peasants. If you want any indication of the living conditions of Tibetans consider the reverence ethnic Tibetans feel for their exiled Dalai Lama as compared to their opinion of the Chinese government which has maintains a genocidal campaign of violence and torture in Tibet since their invasion in the 50's.
 
 

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 12/13/2024 at 10:42:00