Excuses for Persecution?

[thomas t]

... says the sea lion in his call-out thread.

this comparison is rude, I think. Your cartoon contains humans and a sea lion, you're depicting me to be the sea lion, as opposed to the humans.

 

[ppp]

Because he's threatening to commit violence on you, presumably. That's not the same as someone telling you they believe someone else will torture you, regardless of the rest of your proposition.

Do what I say, or else I will torture you is not different from, Do what I say or else my organization, or my boss will torture you. It's all instilling fear and threatening consequences from a thinking agent in order to compel behavior.

Religious proselytizing is a demand for the devotion of time, work and money. Threats are part of the hard sell

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

this comparison is rude, I think. Your cartoon contains humans and a sea lion, you're depicting me to be the sea lion, as opposed to the humans.

If you haven't heard about sea-lioning before, then here you go:

https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/sea-lioning

And if you don't want to be compared to a sea lion, then stop sea-lioning.

In any case, you now know why I don't believe you when you say that you're interested in good discussion.

 

[thomas t]

And if you don't want to be compared to a sea lion, then stop sea-lioning.

actually, in your opinion I am sea-lioning. That doesn't make it less rude to compare me to an animal when, at the same time, the other people involved were compared to humans.
Even if I am guilty of that sea-lioning... I don't want my person to ba called a sea lion. This is getting personal.

And no, I am not sea-lioning in the sense of " an Internet slang term referring to intrusive attempts at engaging an unwilling debate opponent by feigning civility. [...]"
I didn't intrude anyone... neither did I feign anything.

Providing decent sourcing for positive claims should be taken for granted. Even without being requested to do so.

This is all off-topic - can you please come back to the topic of this thread? Thank you.

Edited for clarity

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

actually, in your opinion I am sea-lioning. That doesn't make it less rude to compare me to an animal when, at the same time, the other people involved were compared to humans.
Even if I am guilty of that sea-lioning... I don't want my person to get reduced to that activity in comparison. A sea-lion is just a sea-lion, nothing more than just that.

And no, I am not sea-lioning in the sense of " an Internet slang term referring to intrusive attempts at engaging an unwilling debate opponent by feigning civility. [...]"
I didn't intrude anyone... neither did I feign anything.

Providing decent sourcing for positive claims should be taken for granted. Even without being requested to do so.

This is all off-topic - can you please come back to the topic of this thread? Thank you.

Edited for clarity

You want to go back to the topic? Sure:

If the concern is religious persecution generally, why focus specifically on persecution against Christians by non-Christians? Why ignore persecution persecution against non-Christians religious groups, or persecution inflicted by Christian (whether against other Christians or non-Christians)?

 

[thomas t]

If the concern is religious persecution generally, why focus specifically on persecution against Christians by non-Christians? Why ignore persecution persecution against non-Christians religious groups, or persecution inflicted by Christian (whether against other Christians or non-Christians)?

Look I ran into two statements that, as I saw it, were aiming to excuse persecution. And at that occasion, this happened to be the persecution of Christians.
I wanted to discuss these two statements and many people did so and provided some valuable comments indeed.

However, nobody is obliged to discuss solely the persecution of Christians ... and the excuses thereof. Everybody is welcome to post any potential excuses for persecution inflicted on participants of other religions, as well.
This would enrich the debate, I am convinced.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Do what I say, or else I will torture you is not different from, Do what I say or else my organization, or my boss will torture you. It's all instilling fear and threatening consequences from a thinking agent in order to compel behavior.

Religious proselytizing is a demand for the devotion of time, work and money. Threats are part of the hard sell

You're entitled to your opinion, but legally those aren't the same at all. Assuming you are suggesting that they should be, I disagree.

 

[ppp]

You're entitled to your opinion, but legally those aren't the same at all.

Legality is not the standard of what ought to be.

Assuming you are suggesting that they should be, I disagree.

I know. And I don't think they treated the same either; if only for the impracticality of implementation. But religions that market should be treated like any other multi-level marketing strategy. Open books. Vigilance by watch dog groups.

 

[Vinayaka]

This would enrich the debate, I am convinced.

Here you go then. Christian terrorism - Wikipedia

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Legality is not the standard of what ought to be.

I wasn't suggesting it was. What I meant was that there are differences in the scenarios. I personally don't think proselyting should be seen terribly different to blasphemy. I'd allow both, since I think preventing them causes more harm than good.
I am in favour of some restrictions around freedom of speech, but I'd be pretty permissive. Direct calls to violence would (roughly) be where it changes from freedom of speech to assault in my mind.
I don't see a religious person suggesting that their God hates <whomever> as a direct call to violence, even as much as I hate that sort of religious view, and see it as cheap and self-centered.

I know. And I don't think they treated the same either; if only for the impracticality of implementation. But religions that market should be treated like any other multi-level marketing strategy. Open books. Vigilance by watch dog groups.

We won't agree on this, but honestly, I understand why you say that, and we probably agree on the majority of things in this realm of discussion, it's just around the edges we differ. Not to say the differences are unimportant, but there it is.
Here (Australia) I am still more worried about getting churches (amongst others) to be held to the same secular laws as other bodies without worrying about specific laws against proselyting.

 

[ppp]

I wasn't suggesting it was. What I meant was that there are differences in the scenarios. I personally don't think proselyting should be seen terribly different to blasphemy. I'd allow both, since I think preventing them causes more harm than good.

Anti blasphemy laws are a form of religious proselytizing. Such laws are an attempt to coerce compliance from non-adherents to religious dogma.

I am in favour of some restrictions around freedom of speech, but I'd be pretty permissive. Direct calls to violence would (roughly) be where it changes from freedom of speech to assault in my mind.

As I am. And as I said, I would treat religious proselytizing just as I would any multi-level marketing scheme. And we allow those.

I don't see a religious person suggesting that their God hates <whomever> as a direct call to violence, even as much as I hate that sort of religious view, and see it as cheap and self-centered.

No more so than groups who call people who call themselves the master race, that they should be be the ruling class, and claim that all others are some variation of sub-humans who need to be brought into line. No less either.
The Christian blood libels against the Jews started (in earnest) in the 12th century. When did it stop? Oh wait, it hasn't.

We won't agree on this, but honestly, I understand why you say that, and we probably agree on the majority of things in this realm of discussion, it's just around the edges we differ. Not to say the differences are unimportant, but there it is.

Because MLM is the pattern that proselytizers use. Obviously, the currency is not money, but prestige and social influence within the given sect for bringing in soldiers for Christ. Except, of course for the tithing. That is currency is money.

And why open their books? Transparency. Just as with any other not-profit organization.

Here (Australia) I am still more worried about getting churches (amongst others) to be held to the same secular laws as other bodies without worrying about specific laws against proselyting.

I don't think that I have suggested anything that we do not currently apply to our secular non-profits.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Anti blasphemy laws are a form of religious proselytizing. Such laws are an attempt to coerce compliance from non-adherents to religious dogma.


As I am. And as I said, I would treat religious proselytizing just as I would any multi-level marketing scheme. And we allow those.

No more so than groups who call people who call themselves the master race, that they should be be the ruling class, and claim that all others are some variation of sub-humans who need to be brought into line. No less either.
The Christian blood libels against the Jews started (in earnest) in the 12th century. When did it stop? Oh wait, it hasn't.

Because MLM is the pattern that proselytizers use. Obviously, the currency is not money, but prestige and social influence within the given sect for bringing in soldiers for Christ. Except, of course for the tithing. That is currency is money.

And why open their books? Transparency. Just as with any other not-profit organization.


I don't think that I have suggested anything that we do not currently apply to our secular non-profits.

I'm a little confused what you see the end point of this discussion as, I have to admit.

 

[thomas t]

If a sales person threatens me or my children with torture or annihilation, should I not buy his product, he will be imprisoned. Shall we start locking up Christians and Muslims whose patter includes one of the assorted versions of Hell?

A sales person who cannot demonstrate his product, or provide evidence of value is guilty of fraud. Again, civil or criminal offence.

to me, this comes across as saying Christians commit fraud or anything similar to it.
I disagree.
Fraud is intentional deception says wikipedia here. There is no evidence for Christians having committed intentional deception when proselytizing that I know of.

No more so than groups who call people who call themselves the master race, that they should be be the ruling class, and claim that all others are some variation of sub-humans who need to be brought into line. No less either.

but Christians don't do this. They don't see themselves as superior. Oh yes they do sometimes... but they sin in doing so. Bible does not give them the right to think of themselves as superior.
They don't have a reason to do so.
Yet they sometimes think they are the best. But it's sin and usually, if people heed the biblical advice on that, they won't do so.

 

[Vinayaka]

to me, this comes across as saying Christians commit fraud or anything similar to it.
I disagree.
Fraud is intentional deception says wikipedia here. There is no evidence for Christians having committed intentional deception when proselytizing that I know of.
but Christians don't do this. They don't see themselves as superior. Oh yes they do sometimes... but they sin in doing so. Bible does not give them the right to think of themselves as superior.
They don't have a reason to do so.
Yet they sometimes think they are the best. But it's sin and usually, if people heed the biblical advice on that, they won't do so.

Here's an example of what I see as intentional deception. It's called Samaritan's Purse and run by Franklin Graham. You've probably heard of it. The deception happens on this end of the process, in the Americas. Kids (that's another issue ... exploiting children for the dirty work) fill shoe boxes full of small tools, candy, school needs, etc. to send to impoverished children on the other planet. It's presented as a charity, like UNICEF, and the kids get all excited. They aren't told that their box will be opened en route, and a bible tract added to the top of it. Even Graham himself admitted that that was the intention of the program ... to distribute Christian literature. So it gets people who aren't Christian, maybe atheist, etc. to participate, all under false premises. at a financial cost. The financial part is like getting donations under false pretenses.

There are literally hundreds of examples of deception. Of course if you're in denial about that from the outset, it will be difficult for you to see.

 

[ppp]

I'm a little confused what you see the end point of this discussion as, I have to admit.

In what way?

 

[ppp]

A sales person who cannot demonstrate his product, or provide evidence of value is guilty of fraud. Again, civil or criminal offence.

to me, this comes across as saying Christians commit fraud or anything similar to it.
I disagree.
Fraud is intentional deception says wikipedia here. There is no evidence for Christians having committed intentional deception when proselytizing that I know of.

You catch at the word, but not the substance. Interesting.

but Christians don't do this. They don't see themselves as superior. Oh yes they do sometimes... but they sin in doing so. Bible does not give them the right to think of themselves as superior.
They don't have a reason to do so.

What is my value outside of the context of your god?

 

[thomas t]

Even if I might not get the substance of what you write... this:

What is my value outside of the context of your god?

is a question and nothing that comes even close to proving that someone from within the ranks of Christianity committed fraud in terms of intentional deception..

 

[ppp]

is a question and nothing that comes even close to proving that someone from within the ranks of Christianity committed fraud in terms of intentional deception..

Trace back through our discussion and you will see that there were two different paragraphs. One talking about deception. The other talking about value. You are confusing my response on the subject of value, for being a response to the other.

 

[thomas t]

Trace back through our discussion and you will see that there were two different paragraphs.

none of which provided the proof needed for such an accusation (fraud).
No deception involved here.

 

[thomas t]

Here's an example of what I see as intentional deception. It's called Samaritan's Purse and run by Franklin Graham. You've probably heard of it. The deception happens on this end of the process, in the Americas. Kids (that's another issue ... exploiting children for the dirty work) fill shoe boxes full of small tools, candy, school needs, etc. to send to impoverished children on the other planet. It's presented as a charity, like UNICEF, and the kids get all excited. They aren't told that their box will be opened en route, and a bible tract added to the top of it. Even Graham himself admitted that that was the intention of the program ... to distribute Christian literature. So it gets people who aren't Christian, maybe atheist, etc. to participate, all under false premises. at a financial cost. The financial part is like getting donations under false pretenses.

There are literally hundreds of examples of deception. Of course if you're in denial about that from the outset, it will be difficult for you to see.

I permit myself to not believe you here.
It seems to me, they are outspoken about their intent to share the gospel, quoting from their homepage About Us:
Samaritan’s Purse is a nondenominational evangelical Christian organization providing spiritual and physical aid to hurting people around the world. Since 1970, Samaritan’s Purse has helped meet needs of people who are victims of war, poverty, natural disasters, disease, and famine with the purpose of sharing God’s love through His Son, Jesus Christ. The organization serves the Church worldwide to promote the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ.

So right from the start they seem to be admitting to do both: aid + the spiritual .