<Third worlders are ignorant? Where is that definition? Of starving for that matter.>
Lack of education, nutrition, freedoms, etc etc etc...
en.wikipedia.org
Is this all a surpise?
<Are you saying one has to attain a sufficient standard of material wealth to know anything about spirituality? >
I"m saying that it's much harder to pay attention to spiritual matters when your starving, living in fear, and oppressed of course. Bring out more animal instincts... canabalism, etc. {OTOH there ARE notable examples of prison camp enlightements or realizations of course... at deaths door, but those are exceptions}
<So third worlders are ignorant starving unable to be interested in spirituality only when they convert to Christianity? >
Sure, the church hands out food.
<I suppose you're referring to Buddhism and Taoism.<
That's what I said.
<They may be older than Christianity as religious movements but we're talking about their scriptures. >
First of all the writings are thought to be much more direct, certainly than the old testement... ie. less "telephone game" interpretations. SEcond of all of course they're older than the NT which is what Christianity is supposed to be based on, althought you wouldn't know it listening to the bible thumpers on TV.
<Interesting that the scriptures of Buddhism, Christianity, and Taoism are roughly about the same age. >
ANd that JEsus went to the East for thirteen years and came back enlightened and able to do all sorts of things that Eastern mystics have been reported to do for millenia... dissapear, bi-locate, communicate non-verbally, burn paper with "Qi", move objects with their minds, etc etc.
youtube.com
<But they become ignorant and unspiritual (Chinese,INdia) when they convert to Christianity, you would say?>
Of course not... they have huge populations much of it advanced... other parts "3rd world"... besides, I doubt they're 'converting' in droves. :))
<Nonsense. Chinese and Indian dynasties had official state religions too and codified and manipulated their writings. >
Of course they did... but the 'dark ages' in Europe were much more oppressive and the "institution" of religion there much more powerful. You're assertion otherwise is ignorant:
There was NEVER anything in Taoism (considered by many a "philosophy" anywhere NEAR even BUDDHIST institutionalization... and Buddhist instituationalization was much more fractured and diverse than the Catholic Church... you really are way off base here!!!
<No, both Buddhism and Christianity teach that (check out the "first noble truth"). >
Poppycock. Christianity propogated guilt for sins for thousands of years a control mechanism... something to attain... You're lumping in of the first nobel truth as the same thing again simply means you don't even know what it's about... in Buddhism THAT IS THE SIN (shouldn't use that term)... we'll say the 'mistake'.
< I was referring to joy and happiness with no sin or guilt. Which religious tradition teaches that?>
The NT teaches that... The Catholic Church still teaches it in the gospels and the readings surrounding communion, but has institutionalized guilt in it's dogma.
DAK |
