China cracks down on house churches

[Dinner]

I find the very early Christian history in China to be very interesting. Mostly because there were so many different religions and ideas all present in China at one time which made China truly unique in the world after the fall of the western Roman Empire. HERE is an interesting web site which contains a lot of information though it was written by Christians so it contains a heavy dose of that religion.

Christian missionaries first reached China in the 5th Century AD with three Nestorian Christian missionaries which were recieved by the Tang Dynasty. Emperor Tang Tai Zong greeted them, asked them to stay as his guests, and eagerly listened to their tails of the western world but he was not at all interested in converting. The Emperor did make a show of good faith by agreeing to construct several Christian Churches throughout his vast Empire (and he ordered the construction of still more Buddist Temples in order to keep the Buddist Monks happy) which were called the Da Qin Temples. Da Qin was the ancient Chinese name for the Roman Empire. In 845, Emperor Tang Wu Zhong was anti-Buddhist, and ordered the burning of all temples in China. Unfortunately, the Da Qin Temple was also destroyed at the time.

[Dinner]

China also had a small population of Jews.

Early Israelite Immigrants (947-950 A.D.)

The Israelites settled in China as early as the Five Dynasties (947-950) or the third year of King Dynasty (1163 A.D.). Israelite temples were built across China, during the King and Tang Dynasties in Kaifeng, Yangzhou, Ningbo, Hangzhou and Ningxia. The Chinese called Judaism the 'Religion of Muscle Picking' (may be because God touched the socket of Jacob's hip while wrestling with him, Genesis 32:25), or the 'Ancient Religion'. Since the Israelites wore blue hats during ceremonies, they were also known as the 'blue hats'. The Bible or the Pentateuch was known as the 'Heavenly Scripture' or the 'Way of Scripture'. The Jewish temples were called the Qing Zhen* Temple. The emperor of China awarded three monuments to the Israelites, who eventually mixed with the Chinese, adopted Chinese customs and last names like Li, Zhao, Ai, Zhang, Gao, Shi, and Kim. By late Qing Dynasty, the Israelites were completely blended into the Chinese.

* Qing Zhen is a term used by Chinese for foreign religions like Muslim and Judaism.

[Straybow]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Thanks for your opinion, but that's, um, utterly irrelevant to the matter at hand and what's being discussed here. But good effort!

No, you brought up BK's comments regarding Scalia, and then responding to Mr. Fun's extrapolation about privacy and all that.

Please keep up with the thread, guys.

[Commy]

Wow...this is tense...

Anyway, I'm not in favor of using force to achieve goals and dreams, but I do believe religion is more of a negative force...I just wish China didn't have to go about it that way, all it does is have to be patient...30 yrs. from now, religion will probably by a minority group than a majority of the world...afterall, its not like China has a new crackpot every four years like we have to deal with in the US...

[chequita guevara]

The problem is, religion preaches a path to immortality, which is a great comfort to those whose lives are bleak. Hell, I wish it were true. But it's mental slavery and many of the teachings of religions are at odds with human freedom. WHile I don't actually approve of what China is doing (or rather how they are going about it), I do think people need to be protected from religion.

[Straybow]

So should we capitalists protect people from commies by persecuting them?

[MrFun]

I'm done debating with BK in this thread -- I have tried to get him to wake up from his wet dream of suppression of minority groups, but to no avail.

[Agathon]

The problem is, religion preaches a path to immortality, which is a great comfort to those whose lives are bleak. Hell, I wish it were true. But it's mental slavery and many of the teachings of religions are at odds with human freedom. WHile I don't actually approve of what China is doing (or rather how they are going about it), I do think people need to be protected from religion.

Do you think that people should be protected from Plato?

[Ben Kenobi]

I'm done debating with BK in this thread -- I have tried to get him to wake up from his wet dream of suppression of minority groups, but to no avail.

Yeah, a pale deaf boy is really in the majority here in San Antonio.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Agathon

The problem is, religion preaches a path to immortality, which is a great comfort to those whose lives are bleak. Hell, I wish it were true. But it's mental slavery and many of the teachings of religions are at odds with human freedom. WHile I don't actually approve of what China is doing (or rather how they are going about it), I do think people need to be protected from religion.

Do you think that people should be protected from Plato?

No, but I wouldn't advocate anyone reading it.

[Straybow]

That's funny, my life was anything but bleak when I became a Christian. The thought of immortality, heaven vs hell, etc. didn't once cross my mind. I'm more free now than I was before becoming a Christian.

If nothing else you are a slave to your pitifully miniscule human intellect and understanding. Now that's mental slavery at odds with human freedom.

"I wish it were true, but on second thought don't contradict my paradigm. La la la la la la la la la la la la la I can't hear you la la la la la la la la..."

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Heaven's Gate

Hey, those were our local brand of religious nutjobs. They definately were luny as can be but they never hurt anyone else and eventually it was only the members of the cult who where found face down in their cool aid.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

No, but I wouldn't advocate anyone reading it.

Why not? He practically invented socialism.

[Ben Kenobi]

The problem is, religion preaches a path to immortality, which is a great comfort to those whose lives are bleak. Hell, I wish it were true. But it's mental slavery and many of the teachings of religions are at odds with human freedom. WHile I don't actually approve of what China is doing (or rather how they are going about it), I do think people need to be protected from religion.

I think Communism is harmful, but I don't think it should be banned to protect people from it. I think communists should be free to speak, so other folks can point and laugh.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Yes, it is possible to agree with scalia and also agree that the sodomy restrictions should be quashed. Disagreement with the method is not the same as disagreement with the motive.

But you didn't do that in that thread. You just expressed disagreement with the verdict. If you're changing your opinion now, that's fine--but when the verdict was first made, this clearly wasn't your view, as the thread shows.

Sure, some laws are unjust, but that does not mean one can evade just laws in an effort to breaking unjust ones. You ask me whether I would respect laws barring private religious practice, and I could no more respect them than I could stop breathing.

Unjust...in your opinion? So why does your opinion of what is or isn't just get to trump the law, eh? Certain mayors felt bans on gay marriage were unjust and started performing ceremonies, anway...

I seem to say many things, that you don't have direct evidence of me saying. Yes I believe it to be wrong, but where have I said the husband ought to be prosecuted? Wrong! = prosecution. Not everything that is harmful can also be unlawful as the law cannot, and should not become the equivalent of morality.

The issue is clouded here. You said that a woman should be required to have her husband consent before a doctor can prescribe birth control. So what would happen to a woman who didn't? What about a doctor who prescribed it without his consent?

The point is that you advocated a legal control over the woman's reproductive decision. Saying a husband should have a say in it is one thing, but saying their should be laws dictating that is quite another.

You also asked, "Why should a husband be able to get a vasectomy without the consent of his wife?" The clear implication of this is that he should be legally prohibited from doing so. You yet again are changing your story.

Even though I believe sodomy to be morally wrong, it doesn't make it right for the state to regulate the association of persons.

This is all I asked for all along. And this is in contradiction to your posts in the thread I cited. I'm glad you realize this, but I wonder why you were so hesitant to say so, and why you're insisting--falsely--that you said this in the other thread.

My sole experience has just as much merit as your experience. So my point is that citing personal experience is irrelevant to my point. Countering an irrelevant point is like knocking off a foul ball on a full count. Sure, the pitcher didn't get a strike, but you still ain't ahead.

Actually, since I've been to at about 7 gay pride parades in various locales, it's a matter of statistical sampling. You've been to one in one city (at which, you say, you didn't even see a sex act). I've been to several in several cities. And I haven't witnessed any. The worst thing I witnessed was a homeless woman who walked down 5th avenue in NY topless and would unzip her jeans and flash the crowd. She wasn't a part of the parade, and was escorted off the street by police.

That doesn't mean incidents don't occur, but it sure does indicate they're pretty damned rare.

You chose to engage the comparision.

Huh? I chose to counter your implication that the parades were about sex, based on your ONE personal experience, with my SEVERAL contrary personal experiences. I don't see why it's not a valid comparison.

If the one death of an abortion doctor at one prolife demonstration would tar all the other demonstrations, then why should the case be different for the pride parades?

Who says it does? Strawman.

You have admitted that the incidence of public sex at pride parades do occur, even as you excuse them since they are 'rare'.

If that excuse does not fly for the prolifers, why should it fly for the gay rights folks? Answer the question please.

"Excuse?" Please, stop. It's embarrassing that you're so dishonest about this.

I "excused" nothing. How is saying that such acts SHOULD be prosecuted "excusing" them?

You seem caught up on this notion that a maverick engaging in an unsavory act somehow despoils an entire event, despite it's not being condoned. Yet when I turned this very argument around on you in the other thread, you squeal like stuck pig. What's with you and the double standards?

Just like in the other thread, you've gotten caught in the tangles of your own twisted logic.

Part of sexual freedom is engaging in public sex acts, but the two are not equivalent. Surely, you agree with me here, that saying sexual freedom is broader.

Nothing in your initial statement is about the "broader" meaning, as much as weasel about it. A reminder:

You already have the ability to practice your sexuality in the manner of your choosing, with the sole restriction that you do not do so in public. And even that restriction has loopholes, like during your pride parades.

You should adopt 'truth in advertising' and call them sexual freedom parades, which is really all they are anyways.

So you say that the parades permit public sex acts (which is false), and say they should thus be renamed "sexual freedom" parades.