The Church in China

Fanny Cradock

The men raped him so it is perfectly accurate to say that they where homosexual rapists. I don't believe that anyone has criticised homosexuals on this thread. Seriously, get over yourself and your feigned indignation.

postcynical

TR: Prioritising spreading of one's beliefs (whatever they may be, atheist, Christian, Muslim who cares) over the consequential human suffering
that will manifest as a result of spreading these believes is also despicable.

Me: I suppose you guys think gays should stay in the closet too, for fear of being bullied?

Tim Robbins wrote: »

No, I don't think gays should stay in the closet and I haven't a clue how you draw such ridiculous comparisons.

Glad to hear it. I see PDN's already made the point, but I'll clarify why I drew the ridiculous comparison. Your posts suggested that it would be bad to speak up if it might cause you or others to get a beating. This applied to the persecuted Christians in China. However, you probably wouldn't apply this same argument to gays in a homophobic society, to black people in 1950s racist American society, to women in a chauvinistic society, to evangelists in a secular society...:pac:

The comparison was to point out a certain disingenuousess on your part, you were applying selective reasoning. There was no need to equivocate your horror at the treatment of Chinese Christians.

Tim Robbins

postcynical wrote: »

Glad to hear it. I see PDN's already made the point, but I'll clarify why I drew the ridiculous comparison. Your posts suggested that it would be bad to speak up if it might cause you or others to get a beating. This applied to the persecuted Christians in China.

No my point was that if someone considers spreading their belief system more important than than the increase of someone getting a beating as a result of spreading that belief system then they are a word beginning with a S for which I received an infraction on.

I then gave possible counter arguments such as Augsutine's Just war - i.e. in some cases you have to take action which causes bad consequences because in summary, it is the better course of action and utilitarianism i.e. you could argue that it's better that one person get a beating rather than 100 get a beating which I was hoping would open up some intelligent philosophical debate.

I was hoping for some coherent, intelligent discussion on the matter.

However, in my opinion my point was taken the wrong way, misunderstood and misinterpretated several times despite me clarifying it.

However, you probably wouldn't apply this same argument to gays in a homophobic society, to black people in 1950s racist American society, to women in a chauvinistic society, to evangelists in a secular society...:pac:

You can't apply the same argument to those contexts so it's therefore you who is being disingenious.

Being gay isn't a dogma. Being black isn't a dogma. Being gay isn't a choice. Being black isn't a choice.

It's much more rational to argue the case in hand rather than jump into different arguments.

Seaneh

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I was hoping for some coherent, intelligent discussion on the matter.

However, in my opinion my point was taken the wrong way, misunderstood and misinterpretated several times despite me clarifying it.

No you're not, you are trying to bait people into an arguement which you have no real desire to win in the hope of winding people up, this is called trolling and it's all you've done in this thread.

Tim Robbins

Seaneh wrote: »

No you're not, you are trying to bait people into an arguement which you have no real desire to win in the hope of winding people up, this is called trolling and it's all you've done in this thread.

I've got better things to do with my time than troll. If you can't rebutt or discuss a philosophical topic don't bother. But don't accuse me of being a troll.

You didn't even want to debate or discuss the topic you just went off on a tangent with your so called facts about the number of Christians in Europe.

What had that got to with the anything?

Fanny Cradock

Tim Robbins wrote: »

No my point was that if someone considers spreading their belief system more important than than the increase of someone getting a beating as a result of spreading that belief system then they are a word beginning with a S for which I received an infraction on.

And the point has been made that people, irrespective of their religious beliefs, though sometimes inextricably linked to them, do make sacrifices in order to spread their beliefs or stay true to them. It has been highlighted that we all would now celebrate the results of those sacrifices and applaud the bravery and determination of those involved.

For example, MLK Jr's. mission was to spread a belief in equality and front a cause that he was well aware could possibly end in his death. He was also acutely aware that any civil rights protests he organised would put the protesters in the firing line. Is he the then a sociopath? (BTW, I suggest you find out what a sociopath is before subjecting others to your psychoanalysis.)

Really, your little quote above is just your own brand of inconsistent snobbery. You label those Christians trying to practice and spread (not force) their faith as "fanatical and extreme", yet you don't apply the same standards to all. So, on one hand, someone like MLK Jr. is to be applauded, and, on the other, these crazy Christians are to be condemned and accused of suffering from behavioural disorders.

You spectacularly miss the point by attacking the victims of the abuse and don't say a word against the perpetrators of the violence. And you say you have done some volunteer work for a human rights charity. Dear Lord!

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I was hoping for some coherent, intelligent discussion on the matter.

No, you were hoping that people would agree with you. Then I suspect any coddling drivel typed would have appeared to you as coherent and intelligent.

Fanny Cradock

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I've got better things to do with my time than troll.

It's not a philosophical topic, Tim. It's a desperately unfortunate aspect of some people's life.

Tim Robbins

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

It's not a philosophical topic, Tim. It's a desperately unfortunate aspect of some people's life.

It's very much a philosophical question, in the same way a Augustine's a Just War is.

When is it ok to do something that could cause someone (either directly or indirectly) more harm?

1. When they give you consent to do so?
2. When not doing the action would cause them greater harm?
3. When your beliefs tell you so?
4. etc.

Fanny Cradock

Tim Robbins wrote: »

It's very much a philosophical question, in the same way a Augustine's a Just War is.

When is it ok to do something that could cause someone (either directly or indirectly) more harm?

1. When they give you consent to do so?
2. When not doing the action would cause them greater harm?
3. When your beliefs tell you so?
4. etc.

I just knew that you were going to reduce this into a 4 step process. I refuse to entertain your tiresome reductionism.

Tim Robbins

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

And the point has been made that people, irrespective of their religious beliefs, though sometimes inextricably linked to them, do make sacrifices in order to spread their beliefs or stay true to them. It has been highlighted that we all would now celebrate the results of those sacrifices and applaud the bravery and determination of those involved.

For example, MLK Jr's. mission was to spread a belief in equality and front a cause that he was well aware could possibly end in his death. He was also acutely aware that any civil rights protests he organised would put the protesters in the firing line. Is he the then a sociopath? (BTW, I suggest you find out what a sociopath is before subjecting others to your psychoanalysis.)

I hope you are not trying to bait me into using the S word so I can receive another infraction?

I don't know why posters keep bringing in things that have nothing to do with specific context that I framed in which I used the S word.

Gays, colour of skin, Martin Luther King, what next? you bring something in and then say how about that Tim, so is he a sociopath to.

Why don't you take the specific context I put it in and debate that rather than come up with one of your own that doesn't fit the context.

You label those Christians trying to practice and spread (not force) their faith as "fanatical and extreme", yet you don't apply the same standards to all.

Why are you deliberately misunderstanding me?
You know several times I have referred to Christians that were specifically intent on spreading their belief irrespective if those beliefs cause inhumane consequences to other people. There is a massive[\b] difference between that and Christians who wouldn't spread the faith under such circumstances.

It is extremly disingenious and lazy of you to not bother differentiating and argue as if I hadn't bother going into any specifics.

If you want to debate at least read my posts properly.

You spectacularly miss the point by attacking the victims of the abuse and don't say a word against the perpetrators of the violence. And you say you have done some volunteer work for a human rights charity. Dear Lord!

Post 80:
"Religious intolerance, discrimination, prejudice of any kind is despicable."

Is that not clear enough?

No, you were hoping that people would agree with you. Then I suspect any coddling drivel typed would have appeared to you as coherent and intelligent.

Is that a personal attack and a clear violation of the charter?

Tim Robbins

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I just knew that you were going to reduce this into a 4 step process. I refuse to entertain your tiresome reductionism.

That's wasn't a four step process. It was a list of possible reasons when it could be:
"ok to do something that could cause someone (either directly or indirectly) more harm?"

If you don't want to tackle that question, I don't know why you even bothered trying to debate it.

JimiTime

Tim Robbins wrote:

Prioritising spreading of one's beliefs (whatever they may be, atheist, Christian, Muslim who cares) over the consequential human suffering that will manifest as a result of spreading these believes is also despicable.

Ok Tim. Above is the point you made. This is a thread about the suffering of Christians in China, so one can reasonably assume that you are equating the christian ministry in China as being despicable, for those who are giving the Christian message are 'endangering' the folk who 'freely' accept it. You seem to be aportioning blame to those who are spreading the Christian message. Quite rightly, most here have not entertained this 'Philisophical discussion', as no blame falls on anyone in this scenario but the brutal authorities. You seem to be trying to discuss something that doesn't warrant discussion.

Tim Robbins

JimiTime wrote: »

Ok Tim. Above is the point you made. This is a thread about the suffering of Christians in China, so one can reasonably assume that you are equating the christian ministry in China as being despicable, for those who are giving the Christian message are 'endangering' the folk who 'freely' accept it.

No way. Absolutely no way. I have no evidence that the entire Christian ministry is "endangering" people it ministers to. I also have no evidence that every Christian ministy is aware that the are further "endangering" people.

Your rehashing of my argument is thus a very very blunt generalisation.

You seem to be aportioning blame to those who are spreading the Christian message. Quite rightly, most here have not entertained this 'Philisophical discussion', as no blame falls on anyone in this scenario but the brutal authorities. You seem to be trying to discuss something that doesn't warrant discussion.

I am at a loss why not one Christian poster (whatever their denomination) here can understand my point. I have no problem with someone understanding it and just not agreeing with it.

But I am at a loss why not even one of you can understand it.

This is very simple moral philosophy. Nothing complicated.

JimiTime

Tim Robbins wrote: »

No way. Absolutely no way. I have no evidence that the entire Christian ministry is "endangering" people it ministers to. I also have no evidence that every Christian ministy is aware that the are further "endangering" people.

Your rehashing of my argument is thus a very very blunt generalisation.

Its certainly not. This is a thread about Christians in China. That is the context. Every Christian in China I'm sure knows the possible suffering that they may face, and in turn those who accept the message they bring. Your position seems to argue that there is a portion of blame on those who spread the message in China, for they know that those who accept it may face suffering.

I am at a loss why not one Christian poster (whatever their denomination) here can understand my point. I have no problem with someone understanding it and just not agreeing with it.

But I am at a loss why not even one of you can understand it.

This is very simple moral philosophy. Nothing complicated.

Maybe we've all missed it, or maybe you have presented it poorly?

What is wrong with how I took your point. I'll clarify once again what I think your point is.

You are saying, that spreading the message of Christ in a place such as China, where believing such a thing can have very negative consaquences for believers, can be classed as a despicable act?

You try to set up this position of priorities as in, 'Whats the priority, 'spreading your faith', or 'relieving human suffering'. You don't understand why no-one would drink from that particular chalice no?

Fanny Cradock

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I hope you are not trying to bait me into using the S word so I can receive another infraction?

Drop the paranoia.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I don't know why posters keep bringing in things that have nothing to do with specific context that I framed in which I used the S word.

You are confusing yourself, Tim. We are all remaining within the context your accusations. (See below).

Tim Robbins wrote: »

You should not to do anything which increases the probability of them getting a beating. Otherwise you are a sociopath. Anyone, who does anything that increase the probability of someone else getting a beating is a sociopath.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

No my point was that if someone considers spreading their belief system more important than than the increase of someone getting a beating as a result of spreading that belief system then they are a word beginning with a S for which I received an infraction on.

We have simply asked you to justify your claims against some real life examples where people knowingly putting themselves and others in danger for a greater cause. I fail to see the difference in principal between what MLK Jr. demanded of himself and askedhis of supporters and what the crippled Chinese man demanded of himself and asked of his daughter.

What we really have here is that you scurrilously and incorrectly plaster Christians with the term sociopath (please look up the definition) because you think that Christianity is not worthy of the fight. It really all boils down to your personal bias on what is and is not worthy of the good fight.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Gays, colour of skin, Martin Luther King, what next? you bring something in and then say how about that Tim, so is he a sociopath to.

Well, I'm happy to receive an answer on any one of those without adding to the list of unanswered questions.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Why are you deliberately misunderstanding me?
You know several times I have referred to Christians that were specifically intent on spreading their belief irrespective if those beliefs cause inhumane consequences to other people. There is a massive[\b] difference between that and Christians who wouldn't spread the faith under such circumstances.

Do you suppose that the ordinary Chinese citizen living in China is less aware of the dangers of practising in the underground Christian church than you are? It's not about forcing Christian beliefs on anyone. People either become a Christian of their own volition - presumably under no illusions as to how the authorities view such matters - or the don't become a Christian.

Do you not understand why people are objecting to your posts? It's fairly simple, Tim. You have been asked why these Christians are wrong and someone like MLK jr. was right? After all, both examples bear more than a passing resemblance to each other.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Post 80:
"Religious intolerance, discrimination, prejudice of any kind is despicable."

Is that not clear enough?

That's it? You can muster a line or two about intolerance being despicable, but you let the posts fly about how wrong Christians are when they attempt to share their beliefs in a hostile environment if it means that people will get hurt.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Is that a personal attack and a clear violation of the charter?

No, it's not. And I would suggest that you don't accuse me of such things unless you can substantiate them.

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I am at a loss why not one Christian poster (whatever their denomination) here can understand my point. I have no problem with someone understanding it and just not agreeing with it.

But I am at a loss why not even one of you can understand it.

An old Apalachian proverb:
"If you smell poop everywhere you go, then better to check your own britches first before you go accusing others."

JimiTime

PDN wrote: »

An old Apalachian proverb:
"If you smell poop everywhere you go, then better to check your own britches first before you go accusing others."

LOL. Never heard that one before. registered to memory:)

Tim Robbins

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

What we really have here is that you scurrilously and incorrectly plaster Christians with the term sociopath (please look up the definition) because you think that Christianity is not worthy of the fight. It really all boils down to your personal bias on what is and is not worthy of the good fight.

It's clear you are not bothering reading my posts.

Here's post 80 for you:

Prioritising spreading of one's beliefs (whatever they may be, atheist, Christian, Muslim who cares) over the consequential human suffering that will manifest as a result of spreading these believes is also despicable.

Do you not understand why people are objecting to your posts? It's fairly simple, Tim. You have been asked why these Christians are wrong and someone like MLK jr. was right? After all, both examples bear more than a passing resemblance to each other.

Here's the maxim:

I said anybody who considers spreading their belief system more important than than knowingly increasing risk they are causing other humans by spreading that belief system is a S unless they have some sort of intelligent reasoned rebuttal such as utiltarianism or something like Augustine's Just war.
I have yet to hear one from any of you.

To deal with your point Chinese people V MLK.
Firstly the Chinese case, it could be case that:
1. The people spreading their belief system aren't increasing the risk as the victims are just f*cked anyway.
2. The people spreading their belief system are actually decreasing the risk of the victims
3. The people spreading their belief system are actually increasing the risk of the victims, needlessly.
4. Something else

Now I hope you won't fling this out as more "tiring reductionism" as I'd really wonder what sort of rational discourse you expect. But anyway, I don't know the full facts, so I don't know which one it is, perhaps that could have been simply clarified.

Let's assume for the sake of argument it is 3 and then proceed to your question what's the difference between that and King.

King used a range of techniques boycotting, engaging media etc. To me this is not putting people in danger. Are the people spreading their belief systems in China willing to investigate any other technique or just laugh at suggestions such as boycotting?

Secondly, and more importantly he was advocating equal human rights for all, so if even if he did put people in danger you could counter that he was acting in utilitarian principles as he was hoping for a greater benefit to all.

Thirdly, he was advocating a belief in human rights not just a belief in Jesus.
These people in China (again I assuming for the purpose of argument they are category C) are only arguing a belief in Jesus.

No, it's not. And I would suggest that you don't accuse me of such things unless you can substantiate them.

Well you said that drivel would appear to me as intelligent. That's insulting.

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote: »

An old Apalachian proverb:
"If you smell poop everywhere you go, then better to check your own britches first before you go accusing others."

Ted Haggard:
“Covert action should not be confused with missionary work.”
Henry Kissinger.

JimiTime

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Thirdly, he was advocating a belief in human rights not just a belief in Jesus.
These people in China (again I assuming for the purpose of argument they are category C) are only arguing a belief in Jesus.

And? Are you implying that this makes their behaviour despicable? Spreading a message they know will endanger them and those who in turn accept it? You think they should bare some blame then when the authorities mame and kill? Is that your point? A point I've confirmed I got from the satart btw.

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote: »

King used a range of techniques boycotting, engaging media etc. To me this is not putting people in danger.

What? King had schoolkids protesting on the streets so they were bitten by police dogs and battered by police batons. He appealed for white liberals to assist in voter registration drives and some of them were killed as a result (ever see Mississippi Burning?). Overcoming injustice is costly!

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote: »

What? King had schoolkids protesting on the streets so they were bitten by police dogs and battered by police batons. He appealed for white liberals to assist in voter registration drives and some of them were killed as a result (ever see Mississippi Burning?). Overcoming injustice is costly!

Well I bow to your superior knowledge on this one.
He used a range of techniques some of which put people in danger.

Tim Robbins

JimiTime wrote: »

And? Are you implying that this makes their behaviour despicable? Spreading a message they know will endanger them and those who in turn accept it? You think they should bare some blame then when the authorities mame and kill? Is that your point? A point I've confirmed I got from the satart btw.

Yes. Unless it can be reasonably counter argued. I have yet to hear a good rebuttal.

Fanny Cradock

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Here's the maxim:

I said anybody who considers spreading their belief system more important than than knowingly increasing risk they are causing other humans by spreading that belief system is a S unless they have some sort of intelligent reasoned rebuttal such as utiltarianism or something like Augustine's Just war.
I have yet to hear one from any of you.

Why do I have to offer a maximum? You are the one making wild claims, not me. Have you spoken to any one of these people to hear if they can offer an explanation as to why they fight oppression?

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Now I hope you won't fling this out as more "tiring reductionism" as I'd really wonder what sort of rational discourse you expect. But anyway, I don't know the full facts, so I don't know which one it is, perhaps that could have been simply clarified.

I don't expect rational discourse from people who smash spines with sledge hammers. Talking about reason and philosophy with regards to a Government who really isn't interested in such things seems utterly worthless.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Let's assume for the sake of argument it is 3 and then proceed to your question what's the difference between that and King.

King used a range of techniques boycotting, engaging media etc. To me this is not putting people in danger. Are the people spreading their belief systems in China willing to investigate any other technique or just laugh at suggestions such as boycotting?

As has been pointed out, King organised events knowing that people would be placed in danger, albeit willingly placing themselves in danger. Just look at the Birmingham campaign.

I really don't know why you are mentioning rationality. I'm sure that it felt perfectly rational to the good ol' boys to crack a few black skulls if it meant keeping them in check. Likewise, I'm sure it it appears perfectly rational to those oppressing Christians to do so.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Secondly, and more importantly he was advocating equal human rights for all, so if even if he did put people in danger you could counter that he was acting in utilitarian principles as he was hoping for a greater benefit to all.

All! I'm sure that there was many a racist that would disagree with you.

Anyway, am I to believe that only causes launched in favour of the masses are worthy? Is there a percentage of the population that must be represented before a cause gets the thumbs-up?

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Thirdly, he was advocating a belief in human rights not just a belief in Jesus.
These people in China (again I assuming for the purpose of argument they are category C) are only arguing a belief in Jesus.

It rather backs-up my suspicion that the real objection behind all your posts centres on nothing more than you not liking the cause. Given your admitted ignorance on the situation, why do you assume that these Christians don't have motives other than "arguing a belief in Jesus"? What if they are also fighting for greater freedom for all?

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Well you said that drivel would appear to me as intelligent. That's insulting.

No, I did not say that. I stated that you were only interested in opinions that coddled your own irrespective of how well formulated they appeared.

Fanny Cradock

Tim Robbins wrote: »

He used a range of techniques some of which put people in danger.

Yes, that is the point! You criticise Chinese Christians, but are strangely silent when it comes to other human rights campaigners that used similar tactics.

Chinese Christians are willingly doing the same as people like King and Gandhi. Do you understand that sometimes people feel they have no option other than putting their bodies on the line?

JimiTime

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Yes. Unless it can be reasonably counter argued. I have yet to hear a good rebuttal.

Two points so, which I've already made, but summarise here.

1) You wont hear a rebuttal you find reasonable unless you put yourself in the mind of the christian. As I've said, its not not about propagating our faith. Rather its about giving freely a gift. To give this gift, or accept this gift in certain places means that you will be killed or mamed. Its been happening since its inception. Christ himself, most of the apostles. Lots of disciples. You don't believe in God, or in his promised kingdom, so you see no sense in propagating something you see as a lie. Its only your worldview though. Of course as an atheist you think its just mental. Dispicable is a step too far though. That signifies a bad intention on the part of the christian, but even then, the person who hears the message 'freely' accepts or rejects it.

2) Whatever stance you take, you cannot aportion 'any' blame to christians in China. Their 'crime' is that they believe in God, and the authorities are maming and killing them. Trying to say that they are somehow to blame in all of this is quite a distorted and disturbing view IMO.

IMO, your point is biased. Based merely on your atheistic worldview, and lack of understanding of what a christian feels. I understand why you would think its crazy, because you are not a believer, but going one further and calling our ministry dispicable in certain areas, like China, is out of line IMO.

Tim Robbins

JimiTime wrote: »

IMO, your point is biased. Based merely on your atheistic worldview, and lack of understanding of what a christian feels. I understand why you would think its crazy, because you are not a believer, but going one further and calling our ministry dispicable in certain areas, like China, is out of line IMO.

Did you not read my post yesterday 23:45.

You are talking as if you didn't.

Tim Robbins

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Yes, that is the point! You criticise Chinese Christians, but are strangely silent when it comes to other human rights campaigners that used similar tactics.

I didn't actually crisise the Chinese Christians. I critised Christians (or Atheists, or Muslims, or any belief system) who are more intent on spreading their belief system than the inhumane consequences as result of spreading that belief system.

If one of them said hey Tim "I care more about spreading my belief system than the inhumane consequences that result from spreading my belief system" I'd have good evidence.

I admitted that I don't know if the Chinese Christians even fell into this category as I don't have enough evidence to make that accusation.

Again I question if you are reading my posts as you are making your point as if you didn't even read my posts.

Chinese Christians are willingly doing the same as people like King and Gandhi. Do you understand that sometimes people feel they have no option other than putting their bodies on the line?

Yes I understand that. But you it's not dealing with the particulars of this discourse.

I came up with a maxim. Which I have stated several times.
In my view this maxim presents the following disjunction:

1. The maxim is flawed. IF so why?
2. The maxim is sound but has exceptions such as which can be presenting with intelligent coherent reasoning e.g.
- something similar to Augustine's Just War
- utilitarianism.

That's seems a sound disjunction to me. Now by all means rebutt the maxim for the case of MLK, the Chinese Christians, whoever you want using some intelligent reasoning or else clearly show me why the maxim is flawed?

JimiTime

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Did you not read my post yesterday 23:45.

You are talking as if you didn't.

Yes I did read it. My points still stand. I actually asked you to clarify your stance in case I wasn't getting your point. Here's how it read:

Me: Are you implying that this makes their behaviour despicable? Spreading a message they know will endanger them and those who in turn accept it? You think they should bare some blame then when the authorities mame and kill? Is that your point? A point I've confirmed I got from the start btw.

You: Yes. Unless it can be reasonably counter argued. I have yet to hear a good rebuttal.

So dealing with this stance I have been very concise and sought clarity. Clarity you gave above. I dealt with it concisely in my response. I don't know what you are getting at now. What point have I missed? You are taking back what you said above is it?

Tim Robbins

JimiTime wrote: »

Yes I did read it..

I'm actually confused now.

Can you post where you think we disagree and we take it from there?