Would you die for your religion (ie be a martyr)?

last SG · 2012-08-15T13:12:36+00:00

we see who are the siao lang here really. really siao arh i see. who?

BroInChrist SG

BM,

Please dont make a fool out of yourself when you don't understand argument fallacies. Please read up on appeal to authority fallacies first.... BIC will laugh at what you typed too.

Oi! Trying to put a wedge between me and the badz?

That's not cool man.

BadzMaro SG

BM,

Please dont make a fool out of yourself when you don't understand argument fallacies. Please read up on appeal to authority fallacies first.... BIC will laugh at what you typed too.

BM,

Of course it is always good to consider family first, not your own beliefs. Actually you are being very selfish if you consider your own beliefs first before your family members. Your family members need you, and you cannot just keep thinking about dying for your own beliefs.

BM,

You cant commune with your god? I thoughtyour bible says his sheep hears his voice and that believers should be able to hear the christian god's voice guiding them? So tell me, does your god expect you to not deny him and die for him? By right, you should be able to hear from him regarding this, according to the bible.

BM,

What bad stuff?

I am just saying dying for a belief is bad. I never said the whole religion is bad. Please get it right.

I am also against hindus dying for their religious beliefs, buddhists burning themselves for buddhism, muslims dying for islam and christians dying for christianity. Just relax...dont need to die. Love ur family first.

So tell me my learned friend, do you have legimiate authority on this subject matter at all then ?

Did I not say that u were not wrong in suggesting that family should be taken into consideration of ?

So u think all Christians all have the same innate ability to commune to God directly ? Not suprised that you hold such high regard for Christians. Because you seem to expect alot of things from Christians.

Ok. So u now say that dying for a belief... IN RELIGION.... is bad. Ok. So I accept that. And your reasoning is, it will be selfish. Thats pretty much it right ? Anything else to add ?

[imdestinyz] SG

another ggwp thread...

alize SG

Look back to the colonial days when missionaries spread throughout Asia. The sacrifices they made and many died brutally while believing what they were doing is right

Today, we reap what they have sowed. Schools. Health care. Policies....culture ...etc . Who am I to say that their death or sacrifice was wrong ? stupid ? or something not being proud off?

Yes they died, but thier memory remains far more alive than those that lived.

Do u think that is a good example ? If not.. why not ? Explain then. All I hope, is understanding. Thats all. Nothing hard or complicated about being understanding. Looking at things from an oblique point of view.

The missionaries were a tool for colonial control of Asia. It made the exploitation of the people an easier task for the colonizers.

Singapore is the exception and only because it was a strategic asset, most missionized Asian countries don't live in comfort.

No positive effect of missionaries can be claimed. Compared to non-missionized countries, the missionized ones are no better off.

BadzMaro SG

The missionaries were a tool for colonial control of Asia. It made the exploitation of the people an easier task for the colonizers.

Singapore is the exception and only because it was a strategic asset, most missionized Asian countries don't live in comfort.

No positive effect of missionaries can be claimed. Compared to non-missionized countries, the missionized ones are no better off.

Sure. If u want to argue for arguments sake, by all means go ahead. All I am saying, is that are u going to accept the good that have come out of all this, or are u just going to harp on the what if's and the bad stuff.

Saying no positive effect at all is making a bold statement. And if I were to use TCMC's "appeal to authority", we will end up comparing data. Theological, philosophical and sociological comparisons with numbers and journals and what nots/

Are u willing to go down that path ? You are pretty much saying that all the religions are tools to pacify the indiegnous people full stop.

So what kind of discussion are we going to get out of this ? Are we going to now argue about whether religoins are tools of oppresion ?

I hope u know what I am trying to say. But if you still believe that no good has come out of it. Then I accept your reasoning. Simple.

Tcmc SG

Oi! Trying to put a wedge between me and the badz?

That's not cool man.

BIC

Seriously, look at what he said about appeal to authority fallacies..Omg.

Aneslayer SG

guys... Take a look at this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

BIC oso anyhow whack one....

Tcmc SG

So tell me my learned friend, do you have legimiate authority on this subject matter at all then ?

Did I not say that u were not wrong in suggesting that family should be taken into consideration of ?

Ok. So u now say that dying for a belief... IN RELIGION.... is bad. Ok. So I accept that. And your reasoning is, it will be selfish. Thats pretty much it right ? Anything else to add ?

All religions have their beautiful scriptures.

But I just stop at encouraging religious people to die for their beliefs.

Look at the tibetian buddhists dying for their faith by burning themselves. And a few years ago, a group of korean christians went into afghanistan recklessly and in the end got hijacked and one of their pastors got killed. Senseless loss of lives.

If however, they die in the process to save other people's lives, then it's definitely noble.

That's all I AM SAYING.

BadzMaro SG

All religions have their beautiful scriptures.

But I just stop at encouraging religious people to die for their beliefs.

If however, they die in the process to save other people's lives, then it's definitely noble.

That's all I AM SAYING.

Fair enough. Again I am not saying u are wrong. This world pretty much is split into two kinds of people. The realist... and the idealist. One believes and trusts in humanity, the other is wary and suspicious.

Sometimes the consequences is not immedaite, and we are unable to see what effects it has after the ripple.

For example: Missionary Dr goes to some 3rd world country believing in his religious belief of love and kindness and helping those in need. Goes over, helps the village but got killed by some rival village people. Is his death worth it ? From different dimensions, sure from a realist point of view, he was being selfish... but on an idealist pov, he died helping because he believed in helping. How about the villagers point of view ? Mainly the people he managed to save.

Equally, a person who drove on with his family in the car will no stop to help the person on the road side because he fears for his family's safety. That is not wrong too. More importantly I believe is the consequences of an omission that will be more important.

Jacky Woo SG

I find it silly and stupid to die for something that is is unproven, unreal and unprovable.

BroInChrist SG

I find it silly and stupid to die for something that is is unproven, unreal and unprovable.

Jacky, would you die for your atheistic beliefs? Would you make the ultimate sacrifice for atheism?

Seventhmonth SG

This wicked world can only destroy our pyshical bodies.They can’t destroy our faiths and beliefs which are tested to be true.

Tcmc SG

Jacky, would you die for your atheistic beliefs? Would you make the ultimate sacrifice for atheism?

BIC

I dont know about Jacky but i certainly wont die for my atheistic views...

I would even go as far as denying my atheistic views if a religious person threatens me with death, to save my life and be with my dear ones.

Tcmc SG

Sometimes the consequences is not immedaite, and we are unable to see what effects it has after the ripple.

BM,

Why missionary Dr got killed? What was the reason for the villagers to kill him? Was it because of money or because he was spreading his religion insensitively and offending the native people?

I am not saying killing him is correct. But was he being insensitive when he spread his religion while doing "social work"?

Also, it depends on whether his family members agree with what he was doing. If they dont agree and he insists on going and got killed, then he's a bit self-centred.

BadzMaro SG

BM,

Why missionary Dr got killed? What was the reason for the villagers to kill him? Was it because of money or because he was spreading his religion insensitively and offending the native people?

I am not saying killing him is correct. But was he being insensitive when he spread his religion while doing "social work"?

Also, it depends on whether his family members agree with what he was doing. If they dont agree and he insists on going and got killed, then he's a bit self-centred.

These are just very vague, general and loose examples. There is no need to get pedantic and open up a whole lot of irrelevant considerations in this discussion.

He can just be killed while crossing the road innocently by someone who just happen to hate his skin colour. How about that ?

Anyways, i never said killing him is correct. Was he being insensitive for example to treat the sick and dying children that lack any kidn of developed medicinal and hygiene care ? Come on... really ? We going to discuss about his "insensitiviness"?Havent u thought that perhaps.. just maybe perhaps they went willingly not necessarly to spread religions right ? Why confine yourself to a very narrow and strict analogy that even you cannot accout from every conceivable dimension possible ?

Whether or not the family agree's is between him and his family. Just because they disagree does not mean they do not feel proud of what he has done. Equally a family may not feel proud for him for staying with the family when everyone else have gone to answer the call.

Whether or not being self-centered is not for us to decide.Everyone can have thier "reasons". Thier family will decide. History will decide. The far reaching consequences will decide whether close or afar, wide or narrow. Not you not me not anyone. We only know how to point fingers and say negative things.

alize SG

Are u willing to go down that path ? You are pretty much saying that all the religions are tools to pacify the indiegnous people full stop.

So what kind of discussion are we going to get out of this ? Are we going to now argue about whether religoins are tools of oppresion ?

I hope u know what I am trying to say. But if you still believe that no good has come out of it. Then I accept your reasoning. Simple.

I am not afraid to make my stand.

1. I do not imply that religion itself were made to pacify a populace, but they were certainly applied to this purpose.

2. It is certainly true that priests at home were agents of their rulers, and missionaries abroad were encouraged or sponsored by colonialists. The church has been a powerful political force for more of its history than not.

I do not deny that some missionaries were not mercenary.

3. I am not debating the merits of colonialism. It brought us into modernity if not the developed world. However, missionaries played little part in it. Commercial motive was responsible for the development of our infrastructure.

BadzMaro SG

I am not afraid to make my stand.

1. I do not imply that religion itself were made to pacify a populace, but they were certainly applied to this purpose.

I do not deny that some missionaries were not mercenary.

I know u think Uniquely Singapore is unique, but there are many other driving factors than just merely commercial.

You talk as if missionaries are all military agents devoid of any human feelings and emotions to do good, love and help those in need.

While I appreciate the good, I also acknoledge the bad. Thats all.

If you think missionaries have no positive impact whatsoever in the entire Asia continent, I respect your stand.

Servant SG

The missionaries were a tool for colonial control of Asia. It made the exploitation of the people an easier task for the colonizers.

Singapore is the exception and only because it was a strategic asset, most missionized Asian countries don't live in comfort.

No positive effect of missionaries can be claimed. Compared to non-missionized countries, the missionized ones are no better off.

How did the missionaries 'exploit' people for the colonisers?

Which non-missionised countries are 'better off' than missionised ones?

Servant SG

I am not afraid to make my stand.

1. I do not imply that religion itself were made to pacify a populace, but they were certainly applied to this purpose.

I do not deny that some missionaries were not mercenary.

Sorry, I'm a little confused here. So missionaries were 'sponsored' by the colonialists, but the benefits of colonialism cannot be attributed to the missionaries?

Tcmc SG

These are just very vague, general and loose examples. There is no need to get pedantic and open up a whole lot of irrelevant considerations in this discussion.

He can just be killed while crossing the road innocently by someone who just happen to hate his skin colour. How about that ?

I dont know man, but i hope that verse which says "if you deny me, i will deny you" isn't literal then.

Cos a christian should deny god in the face of death, to be responsible, to be able to go back to his loved ones.

I think god as being all-merciful will understand why he denied his existence there and then

« Previous Page Next Page »