This is a continuation of a branch discussion that started over in SAMA on the very interesting Femininity and Compatibility thread. Please read the quoted portions for context before turning this into another atheist vs. Christianity thread. We have plenty of those already.
Apologies in advance if the quote formatting is a mess. I did my best to include as much of the pertinent original discussion as I could.
I find the east vs. west comparison interesting as masculine versus feminine. Western society is very self focused and the individual is of prime importance. We are socialized to consider our own good before that of the group. That may be due to the fact that as a society in North America, we are very young. It’s only been several hundred years since we’ve been colonized. Colonization is typically done by the big swinging dicks. I wouldn’t say that it’s still strong in our DNA but the ‘idea’ of it is still strong in our group thinking. We haven’t shaken the conquerors dust off our collective psychic boots. Whether we realise it or not, North American society and media, romanticizes masculine traits because of our very recent history. How often do we see the more feminine traits that are seen in the east lionized in our own media?[/quote]
This is exactly how I think about the differences between the East and the West! Everything has an evolutionary reason that can be found just by turning the pages of a history book. The East has used written examinations to separate who’s going to be in a higher social standing from the lower for thousands of years. When it came time to explore and colonize, they sent out a large team of scientists to set up trade relations around the world, but then abandoned the idea and decided that the world didn’t have anything to offer them as they were too advanced. Lol. I was recently reading a book on Tea Making, of all things, and it pointed out that the West has always been very interested in the various tyoes of warriors from the east (male strength in terms of this thread), but loses interest as soon as the topic changes to peaceful philosophy and the real things which the East feels are responsible for their progress.
You mind explaining this? No religious or intellectual baiting involved, I’m just curious as to what you (the author, I know, but you seem to be vouching for it here) mean by the East’s “peaceful philosophy?”
To let you know where I’m coming from, the things that raised my eyebrows here were:
How are the philosophies of the East any more peaceful than arguably the most influential philosophy of the West (possibly of the world, in fact), Christianty? I’m not talking about the “implementation” of said philosophy, but the system itself, which necessitates:
Despite the value of what may have been written, the East’s “peace” report card is not exactly filled with rows of A+'s. So how does one square the “philosophy” with the results?
To be fair, I think you need to define the word “philosophy,” as you intend it. In my first question, I think the generally accepted definition of a system of knowledge is appropriate, but in the second, I would think that would more adequately be described as character or maybe predisposition.
Or maybe I simply misread. Just curious.
EDIT: Forget it unless you feel like explaining further, sorry, I missed a clause in your post and now I am pretty sure I did misinterpret what you meant (again!).[/quote]
I’m no expert on Eastern war history, but I think what they meant is that, while the West was not content until every other place on earth was named after them and followed their ways, the East tried to seclude themselves (after pounding on their neighbors) from the “regressive” ways of the rest of the world. I’m mostly referring to China here.
The book I mentioned above is called “The Book of Tea” by Karuzo Okakura and you can download it for free from the amazon website after downloading the kindle program for PC, which is also free.[/quote]
Okay, that is what I thought you meant.
I would disagree with the statement as it stands, but that’s probably mainly because it’s a simplification that cannot be explained in a couple of paragraphs. I’m obviously not going to argue against the points of a book I haven’t read.
Thanks for the explanation. [/quote]
To keep the topic roughly related and further answer your question, Christianity is a belief system where the believers are agents and have to go and convert others in order to save them. Say what you will about it, but throughout history, conversion has been used as cultural rape. First, the tribe being converted has to learn how to read so they can read the word of God. Then, they are brought up todate, often in the name of help, in terms of education. The education given is eventually in english and they are connected with a western colony. In many cases, the period of missionaries is followed by the western country coming in and wiping out the original culture. This has been done numerous times all over the world. I’m not saying that the missionaries have the intention of wiping out the original culture, but they operate as a key player in the process, whether they mean to or not, by default of the fact that they are trying to get the people to change their religion and in order to do so, have to introduce the culture where their own religion exists. It’s difficult to nearly impossible to convert someone who doesn’t speak your language, believe that the world was created the way you say it was, or believe that there is the same type of God as you say.