Science is the Devil!

[Samwise]

I hadn't had a good laugh yet today.  Thanks, Bruce.   :-D

[Strazos]

Bleh, you kids were busy today...a little late for me to jump in, but...

Christian missionaries tend to cannablize every foreign culture they come into contact. Case in point: early missionaries to the Germanic peoples. They would explain how their customs were "wrong" and why they should become Christian. (I can't find my Medieval notebook, so I will probably give the wrong name...) Pope Gregory (??) also had a policy of letting converts keep some of their "less offensive" practices. See: Christmas.

[Samwise]

As we've already covered, this behavior isn't unique to Christians.  Again, look at the Soviets around 1920 or so.  Or if that's too recent, look at the early Roman empire (before Christianity took over).  The Romans were particularly famous for cannabilizing every culture they came in contact with - they originally stole their religious beliefs from the Greeks and then tried to impose them on everyone else, including the Jews and the early Christians.  (The Christians just happened to be the ones to turn the tables and convert Rome instead of being converted themselves.)

[Belce]

Most of the discussion concerning the theory of evolution tends to be done without understanding what theory means in this discussion.  Its just a theory of gravity, relaitivity, atoms, electricity, and evolution.  In science theory is not just someone's musings on the subject and a few good points. 

[stray]

Buddhism has always been evangelistic too. In fact, it's probably the best comparison to Christianity's "brand" of evangelism, as it is only religious in nature, and converting to those belief systems do not require dropping one's cultural idenitity or subscribing to different political ideals.

Someone mentioned earlier how Christian preaching destroys "cultural identity" -- but that is simply not the case. The reason for it's success is that it allows people to retain the right to "be themselves". From the very beginning of Christian history, this always been so: The first Christians were Jews preaching to the Greek and Roman world. Yet they didn't require non-Jews to start resembling behaving like themselves. It was only a matter of theology.

1 Cor 9:20-23: "And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law. To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. And this I do for the gospel's sake, that I might be partaker thereof with you."

More examples: The Irish who followed St. Patrick were still allowed to be "Irish" and "Celtic". Central and South America, Africa, Russian, Chinese -- All forms of Christianity hold their distinct personalities.

A good illustration would come from the Chinese Bible, which translates John 1:1 as this: "In the beginning was the Tao, and Tao was with God, and the Tao was God".

And like I said, the success of Buddhism lies in the same thinking: The Buddhist monks who traveled east (originating from India) would find an angle to appeal to each land they settled in. This is the very reason why Zen, Mahayana, Shinto, and Theraveda, etc., forms of Buddhism are distinct from each other. They are all forms of the previous cultural beliefs applied to the Buddhist philosophy.

"Preaching" does not destroy anything. Not in these two cases at least. In fact, these two religions bend over backwards to adapt to their environments.

[Samwise]

A good illustration would come from the Chinese Bible, which translates John 1:1 as this: "In the beginning was the Tao, and Tao was with God, and the Tao was God".

Doesn't "the Tao" itself just translate to "the Way", which is how that passage is translated in English anyway (if I'm thinking of the right passage)?  I always imagine the Tao as being a less personal version of God (or God as being a version of the Tao you can talk to, take your pick).

[stray]

A good illustration would come from the Chinese Bible, which translates John 1:1 as this: "In the beginning was the Tao, and Tao was with God, and the Tao was God".

Doesn't "the Tao" itself just translate to "the Way", which is how that passage is translated in English anyway (if I'm thinking of the right passage)?  I always imagine the Tao as being a less personal version of God (or God as being a version of the Tao you can talk to, take your pick).

Literally speaking, yeah, but it also means more than that. The Chinese translation is more close (in the philosophical sense) to the meaning of "logos" than the "Word" is in the English versions.

On a sidenote: The word "logos" is a translation in itself, from the 1st century rabbinical personification of the "Torah" (To the Jews, the Torah wasn't just the first 5 books of the Bible. It was the all powerful force that proceeds from the mouth of God). The Christians saw Jesus as the human incarnation of this force. And in order for John to communicate this idea to Greeks and Romans, he used to the word "logos" in order for it to make sense to them, as it was the closest equivalent.

Whoever translated that verse into Chinese got it spot on, I think. It's a word in their language that has similar philosophical connotations, and would have profound meaning when a Bible states that Jesus is the physical embodiment of it.

[HaemishM]

As I understand it, Tao as used in Buddhist teachings and the Chinese language is "the Way" literally, but with assloads of more spiritual connontations. Things like "the proper path to enlightenment," the "right-thinking way" I think was another translation I've heard, etc. It's a great word to encapsulate the whole "pathway to God/divinity/oneness with the universe/enlightenment" thing.

The best purpose for making something question their beliefs, or think about their beliefs, is to attempt to inculcate tolerance. Or, in more coarse terms, to get them to not be such a raging asshole when discussing their beliefs with others.

Also, whether because of its roots in Christianity, or something else entirely, I've found the main focus of American/Caucasian/Western Europeon culture has always been the assimiliation of other cultures. The Romans were the first and best at it, but America is slowly edging up on its accomplishments in that regard. We overpower and incorporate other disparate cultures into our own, letting them keep just enough to be comfortable, but making them essentially American at heart.