Hello Vulcan,
Originally posted by Vulcan
Sorry seagoon, but thats bollocks.
"Buddhism was, and is, the dominant religion in Thailand. The philosophy of the priests was non-attachment to the world. Thus, if a prisoner dropped at the side of the road and was obviously dying, they would ignore him. The pitiful condition of the slave labourers was of
no concern to them. There was no place for mercy in their thinking."
This is seems to be a very one eyed view. For a start buddhist monks usually have no posessions, and secondly the japanese would probably execute them if they did do anything. Buddhism aspires to teach great respect for life. I can easily counter this example with examples of 'christians' in germany who did not lift a finger to help jews in concentration camps, or in some cases even exploited them.
I expected that something like that would be your answer, as it probably would have been mine when I was a pagan. In the face of evidence that would support things like the eternal change for the better that Christianity can make in a persons life, deny the evidence, or go after the messenger.
Vulcan, Gordon lived for three years (1942-1945) as a slave worker in the midst of a Buddhist culture, for the first of those years he was an atheist. He saw what the effects of embracing a philosophy of pragmatism and materialism were in the Chungkai POW camp. He saw first hand what a miserable society those philosophies produce. Then he saw the difference between the actions and lives of the evangelical Christians in the camp, particularly in terms of self-sacrifice, peace, and contentment. He also noticed that it was not his fellow atheists who sacrificed themselves to help him. He did however find out that Christians sacrificed to save him, and that others like Angus McGillivray died to save men in the camp. He then saw the huge change in the camp and its prisoners after widespread conversions began to occur.
We aren't talking about theoreticals here or the famous "what should happen," but what
did happen we are talking about historical facts, recorded in his memoirs and which many have affirmed and which noone amongst the thousands who survived the railway have contradicted.
Now, he also noticed that when a prisoner fell out and was dying, the local Buddhist monks didn't help, why would they? As the Buddha taught "All Life is suffering" and quite possibly the suffering man was reaping a Karmic reward. Regardless, there is no good Samaritan parable in Buddhism. He noticed the difference however in villages that had converted to Christianity, they did help, giving what help they could to a suffering stranger, regardless of the terrible consequences that could follow. The monks could have helped, if only to ease the suffering of that man's passing, but they did not. Even the monks outside the camp had more than the prisoners did, but they saw no reason to help. Now you can argue that it was not better to help, that to help would have been based on a faulty Christian worldview, or even that they weren't truly Buddhists as you argued about the Sri Lankans, but the fact is that one group
didn't help dying prisoners because of their worldview, and another group did
because of their worldview.As for the Germans, I've documented in a previous thread (Chairboy's "Atheists Least Trusted" back in March) that the German "Christians" who supported Hitler were not worshipers of Christ but of Hitler and were co-opted overwhelmingly from the theologically liberal churches that didn't believe in the fundamentals of the Christian faith. As I wrote back in March:
"It's important to note that the resistance to the claims of Hitler and the Nazis on the allegiance of Christians came from the sectors of the church that actually believed the bible and considered the claims of Christ to be paramount. In other words it was by-and-large the evangelicals who resisted. A fact that is born out by the fact that the signers of the Barmen Declaration here self-consciously identified themselves as evangelicals. The churches that were most easily co-opted and controlled by the Nazis were those which had dismissed the truth claims of the bible, rejected supernaturalism, and thought Christianity was just another source of morals and national pride." As the leading Pastor in this movement put it:
"Christ has come to us through Adolf Hitler... We know today the Saviour has come... We have only one task, be German, not be Christian." Now surely you can see the difference between that kind of idolatry and the genuine Christianity that swept through the Changkai prison camp?
My view on posts such as yours...
If a christian man commits a good deed, he is a good christian. If he commits a bad deed, then he is obviously not a true christian. (as viewed by christinans)
Not really, Christianity has more to do with faith in Christ and a supernaturaly changed heart. Good works in Christianity are the fruits and evidences of a lively faith. Their total absence indicates an empty profession. However, Christians freely confess that it is impossible to live a sinless life this side of eternity. The genuine Christian's life will therefore consist of a struggle with sin, and involve a lot of repentance and a gradual process of growth in grace and holiness.
But the critical difference between the Christian before and after, is the new desire to die to self, to live for Christ and to turn from sin. The complete change not just in philosophy but of life. This new birth is impossible in the closed universe of scientific materialism, therefore it is denied and the evidence of it dismissed, or as was the case with Nazis, this new life is dismissed as weak, worthless, and pathetic. This however is a problem with the observer, not a problem with the evidence.
