<!--QuoteBegin-SwamyG+Apr 25 2007, 06:31 AM-->QUOTE(SwamyG @ Apr 25 2007, 06:31 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Husky: Do you think cultural aspects, in addition, to the religious aspects are reasons for acts of vandalism and forms of violence?
(1) Why don't these acts occur so often in the West?
(2) Has the West, atleast the liberals, moved away from the violence? I recognize the Bible thumpers in the southern belt of USA can get wierd, why do we see so many agnostics or athiests in the Western countries?
The very recent convert have always shown the tendency to be more radical than the older converts.[right][snapback]67816[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->(1) Firstly, the West has long had a christian character (Europe) and even America has since its 'discovery' been owned by a predominantly christian population. What Buddhist pagodas are there to destroy, the west is not some heathen Asian nation in need of conversion? What heathen peoples are left in Europe and US (in sufficient numbers) to murder out? The wholesale massacres there were accomplished long ago. All the important temples in Europe had been destroyed and converted into churches in the early centuries of christoterrorism itself.
Immigrant Buddhist, Hindu and other population into western nations is small (compared to say islamics), the number of temples that have now been built in the west are small and are protected by secular governments. Even the Hindoo is accorded some respect, but the 'journalists' will still fling all the mud they can amass our way when they can find nothing else to do.
(2) You have said it yourself: the liberals are the ones who have moved away from the violence. The more liberal they are (meaning less christian, showing less adherence to biblical injunctions and commands) the less violent they are.
Extent of adherence to christoislamism is directly proportional to a follower's tendency to violence. Same as holds for communism, fascism and other criminal ideologies of hate (example racism). This is a characteristic unique to such ideologies.
The 'liberal christians' in the west - those I knew in primary and high school for instance - were all atheists or agnostics or new agey 'heretic' 'christians'... (christian only because they did not know there were other labels open to them). So yeah, they are totally non-violent and very good people.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The very recent convert have always shown the tendency to be more radical than the older converts.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->The difference is in how much on-fire-for-christ they are: the very recent convert shows more interest, because he has 'found' his new gawd. The recent convert would be more dear to his imaginary jeebus for obeying jehovah's will so well. As that Korean deacon admiringly remarked: the Korean lay christian vandals showed more faith than he did because they obediently destroyed the temples and Buddha statues.
Also, it depends on whether the host country's character is christian or not. In Ancient Free Rome, christos hated that theirs was not a christian nation and set about demolishing it when they finally got into power. Same happens today in unconverted countries, as also occurred in the times between these two different ages.
The necessity to show their radical side is most often keenly felt when they are living among those who have 'other Gods before them'. If the nation is christian, they don't usually have to go around tormenting their neighbours (unless some 'heresy' breaks out, of course). In that case, some among them decide to honour their jeebus and become missionaries to ship themselves off to where people do have 'other Gods before them'. It's to prevent people in remote countries from offending jehovallah by their continued heathen existence.
You must remember, the liberal christian only exists because Ze Most Holy Inquisition has been put on hold. For no other reason.
I think Hindus ought to save their apologetics for worthwhile religions and not for those that seek nothing better than to destroy us and others who are not christian. Why defend something that seeks our destruction? <!--emo&:blink:--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/blink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='blink.gif' /><!--endemo--> Why do we keep trying to find an imaginary ray of hope or good in something that has none (except where exhibited in those who'd be considered heretics though they still call themselves christian).
Christianity has no such consideration for us, we are nothing but blisters in the sight of their gawd. Why give it any respect? Defending an evil ideology makes one complicit in its continued existence. We cannot control others' actions, but we can our own. Others may fawn over it as they see fit, but anyone who has an ounce of respect for the native Americans, the Ancient Greeks and Romans and other Europeans, the Africans or S Koreans and other Asians, including our own ancestors and victims of today, will know not to waste one's efforts on the indefensible.
<b>ADDED:</b> I wish Hindus would spend half as much effort on trying to get to know truly worthwhile religions as they have been spending on trying to form a good opinion on christoislamism. What in the world is the attraction in christoislamism that Hindus choose to (continue to) appease and even compliment it?
Post 55:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Peodophile priests, lesbian nuns, immaculate conceptions with virgins...deride and defeat.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->You mean paedophile nuns who prey on deaf children. Shudder, shudder, shudder.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Nuns have been abusing deaf children:
Attorney: 1 in 4 nuns abused deaf kids - The Enterprise (Boston), May 12, 2004
Deaf plaintiffs speak loudly: Nuns raped us, tortured us - Boston Herald, May 12, 2004<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--> ( http://freetruth.50webs.org/Overview4.htm )
(1) Why don't these acts occur so often in the West?
(2) Has the West, atleast the liberals, moved away from the violence? I recognize the Bible thumpers in the southern belt of USA can get wierd, why do we see so many agnostics or athiests in the Western countries?
The very recent convert have always shown the tendency to be more radical than the older converts.[right][snapback]67816[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->(1) Firstly, the West has long had a christian character (Europe) and even America has since its 'discovery' been owned by a predominantly christian population. What Buddhist pagodas are there to destroy, the west is not some heathen Asian nation in need of conversion? What heathen peoples are left in Europe and US (in sufficient numbers) to murder out? The wholesale massacres there were accomplished long ago. All the important temples in Europe had been destroyed and converted into churches in the early centuries of christoterrorism itself.
Immigrant Buddhist, Hindu and other population into western nations is small (compared to say islamics), the number of temples that have now been built in the west are small and are protected by secular governments. Even the Hindoo is accorded some respect, but the 'journalists' will still fling all the mud they can amass our way when they can find nothing else to do.
(2) You have said it yourself: the liberals are the ones who have moved away from the violence. The more liberal they are (meaning less christian, showing less adherence to biblical injunctions and commands) the less violent they are.
Extent of adherence to christoislamism is directly proportional to a follower's tendency to violence. Same as holds for communism, fascism and other criminal ideologies of hate (example racism). This is a characteristic unique to such ideologies.
The 'liberal christians' in the west - those I knew in primary and high school for instance - were all atheists or agnostics or new agey 'heretic' 'christians'... (christian only because they did not know there were other labels open to them). So yeah, they are totally non-violent and very good people.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The very recent convert have always shown the tendency to be more radical than the older converts.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->The difference is in how much on-fire-for-christ they are: the very recent convert shows more interest, because he has 'found' his new gawd. The recent convert would be more dear to his imaginary jeebus for obeying jehovah's will so well. As that Korean deacon admiringly remarked: the Korean lay christian vandals showed more faith than he did because they obediently destroyed the temples and Buddha statues.
Also, it depends on whether the host country's character is christian or not. In Ancient Free Rome, christos hated that theirs was not a christian nation and set about demolishing it when they finally got into power. Same happens today in unconverted countries, as also occurred in the times between these two different ages.
The necessity to show their radical side is most often keenly felt when they are living among those who have 'other Gods before them'. If the nation is christian, they don't usually have to go around tormenting their neighbours (unless some 'heresy' breaks out, of course). In that case, some among them decide to honour their jeebus and become missionaries to ship themselves off to where people do have 'other Gods before them'. It's to prevent people in remote countries from offending jehovallah by their continued heathen existence.
You must remember, the liberal christian only exists because Ze Most Holy Inquisition has been put on hold. For no other reason.
I think Hindus ought to save their apologetics for worthwhile religions and not for those that seek nothing better than to destroy us and others who are not christian. Why defend something that seeks our destruction? <!--emo&:blink:--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/blink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='blink.gif' /><!--endemo--> Why do we keep trying to find an imaginary ray of hope or good in something that has none (except where exhibited in those who'd be considered heretics though they still call themselves christian).
Christianity has no such consideration for us, we are nothing but blisters in the sight of their gawd. Why give it any respect? Defending an evil ideology makes one complicit in its continued existence. We cannot control others' actions, but we can our own. Others may fawn over it as they see fit, but anyone who has an ounce of respect for the native Americans, the Ancient Greeks and Romans and other Europeans, the Africans or S Koreans and other Asians, including our own ancestors and victims of today, will know not to waste one's efforts on the indefensible.
<b>ADDED:</b> I wish Hindus would spend half as much effort on trying to get to know truly worthwhile religions as they have been spending on trying to form a good opinion on christoislamism. What in the world is the attraction in christoislamism that Hindus choose to (continue to) appease and even compliment it?
Post 55:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Peodophile priests, lesbian nuns, immaculate conceptions with virgins...deride and defeat.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->You mean paedophile nuns who prey on deaf children. Shudder, shudder, shudder.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Nuns have been abusing deaf children:
Attorney: 1 in 4 nuns abused deaf kids - The Enterprise (Boston), May 12, 2004
Deaf plaintiffs speak loudly: Nuns raped us, tortured us - Boston Herald, May 12, 2004<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--> ( http://freetruth.50webs.org/Overview4.htm )