Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : High Tolerance Plasticity -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: kodiak_bull who wrote (22306)	11/11/2004 11:10:30 AM
From: bull_derrick	Respond to of 23153

Kodiak, I have seen a lot of media prejudice against Christianity so I agree with what you wrote. Perhaps new age channeling of spirits sounds more exciting than going to church that breeds this type of prejudice but it is definitely there. The problem with Christianity as with any faith is that there is no burden of proof. If I wanted to see if you are really a lawyer, I could ask you for your diploma and other credentials. If someone says they're a Christian, especially if it's politically expedient for them to say they are, do we really know that they are? Can we judge any faith based on what someone does based on their self-identification with a faith? I believe Jesus said it best when he spoke about discernment of true believers when he said "You will know them by their fruits". I hadn't heard about the Oregon farmer with the adoption ministry but that's an excellent example of some good fruit.

To: kodiak_bull who wrote (22306)	11/11/2004 12:37:09 PM
From: Sun Tzu	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 23153

So we are debating two topics here (1) "anti-Christianity" bias of the "liberal" culture. and (2) self-righteous extremism versus good natured faith and perseverance, right? (1) On Anti-Christian bias By and large most people have a hard time living in a world made up of abstract ideas than concrete realities. So it is not so much that Christianity is being rejected as it is some Christians who are being rejected. It just makes it easier for the opinion to be formulated as "anti-Christian". This is as true for Christianity as it is for all other belief systems. It is unlikely that farmers who sympathized or joined various Communistic uprisings had an understanding of Marx or Engel. Equally, the most ardent opponents of Communism rarely despised the social values and the philosophy of Communism; they hated what the soviet union was doing to its citizens. It is the concrete here-and-now real world outcomes that counts, not the philosophical values. In America, and in the West in general, "Christianity" has a lot of very bad baggage with it. While Christianity as a doctrine of love and compassion for one's fellow man is a calling that all of us should answer, many of the most predominant Christians have done the opposite and have been next to pure evil. So the question is, what use is a religion that cannot even prevent its dedicated followers from most heinous acts? In contrast, in the West, Buddhism is golden. I have never found an American Buddhist who was not a gentle kind soul (not to mention often well read and well educated). Put religious issues aside, would you prefer to be surrounded by a 100 devout Christians or a 100 Buddhists? The opposite is true in the far East. Korean and Chinese Christians I have met are very nice people. Likewise, I do not find the pure far east Buddhism as practiced to be particularly noble. The educated "liberal" people in the far east do not find Buddhism such wonderful religion. It carries with it too much baggage for them (not to mention the recent Buddhist monk scandals). Again, it is the real world results that counts. The "anti-Christian" bias you see is the rejection of the people who represent Christianity and what they stand for. (2) On Extremism My favorite all time movie trilogy is Godfather. In it you see Michael Corleone transform from a good natured law abiding patriotic idealist into a cold blooded crime boss who even kills his own brother. Near the end of the last episode Michael has a "dialogue" with dead corpse of Don Thomasino, "Why was I so feared and you so loved? I was no less honorable. I wanted to do good. What betrayed me? My mind? My heart?" It is a very good question worth investigation. By all accounts, Michael was the most noble of all characters in the movie, a reluctant ruler who was passed on the reigns of a kingdom he did not wish to have. But his idealist nature was his downfall. He played the game by the rules and this made him inflexible and inhumane. In contrast his father balanced his ideology with humanity. You can see this even in the opening scene where he strokes a cat. The difference between a "persevering hero" and a "cold blooded monster" is less often the ideology than humanity. Only those who somehow manage to keep a balance between conflicting demands and stay human can claim faith and perseverance. The rest are killing machines. Sun Tzu