Ethnocentrism

[MortonGneiss]

The question was asked in another thread 'what is the motivation behind negative posting towards Islam and Muslims?'. My thoughts on enthnocentrism were seen to go beyond the scope of the original question so I am reposting here.

We have three major monotheistic movements in the world, Judaism, Christianity and Islam, each having many sub-factions. The core belief of each is that they are 'God's chosen people' as dictated through first 5 books of the OT which each of them share in common. And they each believe that their scripture is the true word of God. They do deviate from each other in new scripture delivered by a prophet from one camp and the son of God from another. Judaism is right there with Christianity and Islam up to this new messenger point.

Now, Islam and Christianity view each other 'evil' and standard bearers of the 'adversary', and each view themselves as the righteous warriors of God who will defend God in the battle of Armageddon that the other side will innitiate.

This is everything they have in common.

Of attacking Islam Tim says:

That having been said, to identify a threat is not, in and of itself - "bashing". To ignore a threat in hopes it will evaporate on its own has historically led to more unnecessary human suffering than any other passive activity a man or civilization can muster. It is the duty of those who have the power to stop suffering, or curtail evil to just do it - and do it justly. It's as simple as that.

My answer:

This is precisely why there will never be peace between the Big Three. We can thank Judaism for this ethnocentric mindset. The threat that has lead to the most human suffering and death is religion itself. As a Christian you should be very careful who you point that finger of blame at, as history paints Christianity as the worst offender of the 3 in the human casualities department. To label another set of beliefs as 'evil' and suggest cultural assassination as the answer..well you both agree there.

Since we're on to a new thread, I think I'll take the liberty of expanding this point a bit.

First, what I'm saying with this, is that with what each of the three accept as true(they are God's chosen, their scripture/beliefs are correct, and all other scripture/beliefs/Gods are false) makes it impossible that they will ever come together peaceably.

Two, the members of each of these groups are only members of these groups because of which culture they were born into. It's not difficult to see that if a Christian person had been born and lived their life in the middle-east they would be Muslim, just as if a Muslim person had swapped places they would be Christian. So what really seperates these beliefs at this point is a cultural and geographic boundary.

Third, ignoring threats isn't what has lead to the most human suffering and casualty..religion holds that title, specifically Christianity.

Fourth, the motivation on both sides to kill/convert each other is born of exactly the same belief structure. Monotheism at it's core is devisive in creating this "Us vs. Them" mentality. How many sects of Christianity alone do we have? Have you ever watched members of one church try and convert another? If you haven't it's an ugly thing to watch and it certainly doesn't lead to a peaceful resolution.

Islam as a religion isn't quite as old or quite as mature as Christianity. They haven't gone through their growing pains yet, the violent fundamentalism we see in Islam today is very reminiscent of periods of Christianity's past.

That should be a good start.

 

[Vaneeza Malkah]

Ethnocentricity doesn't have anything to do with religion rather the culture you were born/raised in and it exists in every country and culture.

 

[MortonGneiss]

Ethnocentricity doesn't have anything to do with religion rather the culture you were born/raised in and it exists in every country and culture.

It doesn't? So when God is continually calling for the destruction of other cultures and beliefs throughout the OT...he means something else? The first commandment, the concept of God's chosen, words like infidel, heathen etc. all born of these 3 religions..not ethnocentric?

The very notion of God's chosen people defines ethnocentricity to the letter, and all of these religions operate under that premise.

 

[arunma]

We have three major monotheistic movements in the world, Judaism, Christianity and Islam, each having many sub-factions. The core belief of each is that they are 'God's chosen people' as dictated through first 5 books of the OT which each of them share in common.

Christianity and Islam differ from Judaism in that the chosen people do not belong to any specific ethnicity, but rather are drawn from all races. I don't think you've accounted for this. Have you?

Now, Islam and Christianity view each other 'evil' and standard bearers of the 'adversary', and each view themselves as the righteous warriors of God who will defend God in the battle of Armageddon that the other side will innitiate.

Sorry, but that's false. When the Battle of Meggido arives, I'm quite certain that God will be able to defend himself. I find the notion of "defending God" to be blasphemous.

First, what I'm saying with this, is that with what each of the three accept as true(they are God's chosen, their scripture/beliefs are correct, and all other scripture/beliefs/Gods are false) makes it impossible that they will ever come together peaceably.

Define peaceably coming together. If by that you mean to imply that Christians should accept the validity of Islam, then I agree that we'll never come together peaceably. However, I'm completely in favor of befriending Muslims.

Two, the members of each of these groups are only members of these groups because of which culture they were born into.

Absolutely false. I wasn't even born into a Christian family. I was raised Hindu, and didn't even know about Jesus until I was 19. The case of not being raised Christian is quite common in my church, so you can't simply pass me off as an exception to the general rule. You'll need to explain this, or your thesis fails.

It's not difficult to see that if a Christian person had been born and lived their life in the middle-east they would be Muslim, just as if a Muslim person had swapped places they would be Christian. So what really seperates these beliefs at this point is a cultural and geographic boundary.

Culture is irrelevant. There are two problems here. First, you've stereotyped "Christian culture" as Western European culture. There isn't any such thing as Christian culture. Most of us today know that the very notion of Christian culture is racist (the Ku Klux Klan proposes that Christianity is a tool meant to maintain the superiority of European culture). Christianity and culture are irrelevant. Paul the Apostle emphasized the importance of missionaries adapting to different cultures as they preach the Gospel.

Secondly, if Christianity is determined by geographic boundaries, then those boundaries seem to be changing very quickly. Before Europe became the center of Christendom, Christianity grew in the Middle East. Today, Europeans are largely apostate, Christianity is strong in America, and it is growing most quickly in Southern Africa, South Korea, and China. And in a few hundred more years, there's no telling which new culture will receieve the Gospel, and which will go apostate. Your proposition that Christianity is determined by cultural and geographic boundaries doesn't seem to fit the facts.

Fourth, the motivation on both sides to kill/convert each other is born of exactly the same belief structure.

Wait a minute. "Kill/Convert?" Those two acts are irrelevant. You might as well have written "Kill/Bake cookies." How does conversion have anything to do with death? Before you point out to me that Christians killed Muslims in the Crusades, may I remind you that they didn't make any attempt to convert them. So you can't tell me that Christians employed a "convert or die" strategy.

Monotheism at it's core is devisive in creating this "Us vs. Them" mentality.

I don't see the problem. Christians are called to be separated from the world. It's not like we don't want others to join us. Do you want us to convert others to the faith, or don't you?

 

[MortonGneiss]

Christianity and Islam differ from Judaism in that the chosen people do not belong to any specific ethnicity, but rather are drawn from all races. I don't think you've accounted for this. Have you?

Oh, I have, I think it was a result of the Jewish history that forced them to adopt that system 'of God's chosen' and a 'people apart' to retain their identity, and not be assimilated into the cultures that were enslaving them. Conversion is definitely a Christian concept, not going to argue that. But ethnocentric doesn't limit itself to race, it's the core beliefs we're looking at. Then sense that group X is better and superior because of their beliefs.

Sorry, but that's false. When the Battle of Meggido arives, I'm quite certain that God will be able to defend himself. I find the notion of "defending God" to be blasphemous.

The Muslims I've interviewed have all said they are just waiting for Christianity to fullfill enough prophecy before they Jihad. There is quite a selection of books on the topic. Try CHRISTIANITY AND ISLAM: THE FINAL CLASH never read it myself, but it jumped to the top of the book list dealing with the subject on Amazon.

Define peaceably coming together. If by that you mean to imply that Christians should accept the validity of Islam, then I agree that we'll never come together peaceably. However, I'm completely in favor of befriending Muslims.

How can you befriend someone if you can't tolerate, let alone respect, their beliefs?

Absolutely false. I wasn't even born into a Christian family. I was raised Hindu, and didn't even know about Jesus until I was 19. The case of not being raised Christian is quite common in my church, so you can't simply pass me off as an exception to the general rule. You'll need to explain this, or your thesis fails.

Actually I can dismiss you as an exception to the rule, because that's how social science works. The cultural norm is the largest determining factor, and right now culture exists within geographical boundaries.

You said you were raised Hindu, which I find to be an incredibly tolerant and respectable religion, when did you convert? Why did you convert? Where were you when you converted? And what sect of Christianity did you convert to and why?

Culture is irrelevant. There are two problems here. First, you've stereotyped "Christian culture" as Western European culture. There isn't any such thing as Christian culture. Most of us today know that the very notion of Christian culture is racist (the Ku Klux Klan proposes that Christianity is a tool meant to maintain the superiority of European culture).

Western European culture is the result of a millenia or so of Catholic indoctrination. The KKK is the fringe element, but the superiority complex is maintained throughout the bulk of denominations.

Christianity and culture are irrelevant. Paul the Apostle emphasized the importance of missionaries adapting to different cultures as they preach the Gospel.

Secondly, if Christianity is determined by geographic boundaries, then those boundaries seem to be changing very quickly. Before Europe became the center of Christendom, Christianity grew in the Middle East. Today, Europeans are largely apostate, Christianity is strong in America, and it is growing most quickly in Southern Africa, South Korea, and China. And in a few hundred more years, there's no telling which new culture will receieve the Gospel, and which will go apostate. Your proposition that Christianity is determined by cultural and geographic boundaries doesn't seem to fit the facts.

Unfortunately, if you grow up in Utah(geographic boundary) you will likely be Mormon. The spread of Christianity is due to missionary work. The geographical model breaks down in the face of missonary work because they are artificially changing the demographic by spreading across these boundaries. Hindu's don't prostelyze, which is why their rate of infection? is relatively low outside their geographic boundaries. The demographic only changes for these groups with emmigration.

Here's a parable: According to Herodotus, The King of Persia was interested in the cultural differences in his kingdom. So he went to one group who burned their dead, and asked them what it would take to get them to eat their dead. They were upset at the suggestion, and rejected any amount of money to do it. He then went to the Indian groups in his lands, who ate their dead fathers, and asked them what it would take to get them to burn their dead instead. They were also upset at suggestion. What is the point of this parable? Culture is KING. It's the key determining factor in behavior.

Wait a minute. "Kill/Convert?" Those two acts are irrelevant. You might as well have written "Kill/Bake cookies." How does conversion have anything to do with death? Before you point out to me that Christians killed Muslims in the Crusades, may I remind you that they didn't make any attempt to convert them. So you can't tell me that Christians employed a "convert or die" strategy.

Conversion for a long time did have a lot to do with death. But it's also cultrual assissination at the highest order. Cortez, Delanda, Diego didn't impliment torture and murder in attempted conversions during their conquest of the new world? They wrote all about it, read it sometime. Some of bloodiest most gruesome accounts I've ever read.

I don't see the problem. Christians are called to be separated from the world. It's not like we don't want others to join us. Do you want us to convert others to the faith, or don't you?

No, I don't want you do conversions. I want you to have your beliefs and keep them to yourself, like more self-respecting religions like Hinduism.

 

[urnotme]

Ethnocentricity doesn't have anything to do with religion rather the culture you were born/raised in and it exists in every country and culture.

It can unless it is an atheistic society. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnocentrism
Ethnocentrism (Greek ethnos ("nation" + -centrism) or ethnocentricity is the tendency to look at the world primarily from the perspective of one's own culture. Many claim that ethnocentrism occurs in every society; ironically, ethnocentrism may be something that all cultures have in common.

Various researchers study ethnocentricism as it pertains to their specialized fields. This article covers anthropology, political science and especially sociology.

This term was coined by William Graham Sumner, a social evolutionist and professor of Political and Social Science at Yale University. He defined it as the viewpoint that “one’s own group is the center of everything,” against which all other groups are judged. Ethnocentrism often entails the belief that one's own race or ethnic group is the most important and/or that some or all aspects of its culture are superior to those of other groups. Within this ideology, individuals will judge other groups in relation to their own particular ethnic group or culture, especially with concern to language, behaviour, customs, and religion. These ethnic distinctions and sub-divisions serve to define each ethnicity's unique cultural identity.

 

[Vaneeza Malkah]

I wouldn't put too much weight on greek thought or perhaps the opposite, you should be skeptical of greek thought. The world is tribal. Islam may have united many different tribes, but not really. In Pakistan there is much division amoung the various tribal groups to where these conflicts are more in number than the religous conflicts. Yes religion is "a" factor of ethnocentricity but it is not the driving force. There is no "muslim" culture the same - varying by nation and by tribe, there is no "jewish" culture the same - an example would be the Ashkenaz, Sephards, Oriental, and before most of the tribes lost their identity it was also an issue. Christian culture varies primarily by nationality and perhaps as a sub-culture by denomination.

 

[Helo]

Actually White is correct. Ethnocentricity is the belief that your own culture is better or more advanced than annother culture.

No culture is better than annother, simply different. But these differences often clash which leads to ethnocentric beliefs. For instance, people from Japan often feel that Americans are rude because Americans tend to be very foreward and direct which is considered very rude by many Japanese.

 

[Montalban]

First, what I'm saying with this, is that with what each of the three accept as true(they are God's chosen, their scripture/beliefs are correct, and all other scripture/beliefs/Gods are false) makes it impossible that they will ever come together peaceably.

False. Christians are peaceful towards all sorts of religions.

Two, the members of each of these groups are only members of these groups because of which culture they were born into. It's not difficult to see that if a Christian person had been born and lived their life in the middle-east they would be Muslim, just as if a Muslim person had swapped places they would be Christian. So what really seperates these beliefs at this point is a cultural and geographic boundary.

False. Undermined by the question "Why are there Christians in the first place?"
Look at early Christian communities.
Judea- amongst ex-Jes
Egypt, the same
Armenia, different society.
Asia minor - Greek
Rome - Italian
Ethiopia and Persia also had different communities. Christianity had and still has universal, cross-cultural appeal

Third, ignoring threats isn't what has lead to the most human suffering and casualty..religion holds that title, specifically Christianity.

False. The butchering of the Germans in WWII was not undertaken because of "Christian values"

Fourth, the motivation on both sides to kill/convert each other is born of exactly the same belief structure.

False. Christians believe in the truth of Christianity; which is the example of Christ who never forcibly converted anyone.
Islam had both peaceful, and forced converts right from the start.

Islam as a religion isn't quite as old or quite as mature as Christianity. They haven't gone through their growing pains yet, the violent fundamentalism we see in Islam today is very reminiscent of periods of Christianity's past.

Christianity, in the very beginning was peaceful. It took really until Augustine, 400 years later to develop a 'just war' thesis. Islam is violent right from the inception in Muhammed's mind of the Koran.

That should be a good start.

For spotting an unstructured deal of anti-Christian ranting based on ill-informed ideas, yes, it's a jolly good start.

 

[MortonGneiss]

False. Christians are peaceful towards all sorts of religions.

Again, the spanish conquest, and the systematic erradication of the pagan religions doesn't support that. And the current missionary directive

False. Undermined by the question "Why are there Christians in the first place?"

The answer is still: Culture is KING.

False. The butchering of the Germans in WWII was not undertaken because of "Christian values"

You sure about that? Hitler explained his actions as lead by his Lord and Savior. If you don't believe that Nazism was in part a Christian organization, then please explain why they Aryan Nation(Nazi remnants) today is known as the Church of Jesus Christ Christian

False. Christians believe in the truth of Christianity; which is the example of Christ who never forcibly converted anyone.

Sorry your history doesn't support that. Your missionaries today use such loving tactics of conversion as sending bibles to starving peoples instead of food, or in direct relief situations withholding food and medicine until they've had a chance to prostelyze.

 

[arunma]

But ethnocentric doesn't limit itself to race, it's the core beliefs we're looking at. Then sense that group X is better and superior because of their beliefs.

This argument has two flaws. First of all, if you claim that ethnocentrism doesn't limit itself to ethnicity (which is what I think you meant by race), then you aren't discussing ethnocentrism anymore. You're discussing a supposed superiority complex, which is an entirely different issue. Secondly, you've failed to discern between claiming that one's beliefs are superior, and claiming that one himself is superior.

The Muslims I've interviewed have all said they are just waiting for Christianity to fullfill enough prophecy before they Jihad. There is quite a selection of books on the topic. Try CHRISTIANITY AND ISLAM: THE FINAL CLASH never read it myself, but it jumped to the top of the book list dealing with the subject on Amazon.

I don't have any comment, since I'm not a Muslim.

How can you befriend someone if you can't tolerate, let alone respect, their beliefs?

Very easily. Do you have a problem befriending people whose beliefs you find offensive?

You said you were raised Hindu, which I find to be an incredibly tolerant and respectable religion, when did you convert? Why did you convert? Where were you when you converted? And what sect of Christianity did you convert to and why?

As you can tell from my faith icon, I am a Baptist. The circumstances of why I'm a Christian aren't relevant to this topic (not that I don't wish to talk about it, but this would be a topic for another thread). By the way, if you think that Hinduism is a tolerant religion, you've been putting too much stock in the cut & pastes that Hindus post on this forum.

Western European culture is the result of a millenia or so of Catholic indoctrination.

Western Europe had a culture long before Christianity reached it. Now, if you're trying to say that Catholicism is important to understanding Western European culture, then I agree.

The KKK is the fringe element, but the superiority complex is maintained throughout the bulk of denominations.

Once again, you haven't distinguished between a belief in personal superiority, and a belief that one's religion is correct.

Unfortunately, if you grow up in Utah(geographic boundary) you will likely be Mormon.

And if you grow up in Utah, you'll also most likely be white. You've failed to understand that what you described above is a statistical effect. You need to prove that Utah's culture is the mechanism which causes people to become Mormon. Now, if you wish to merely say that children tend to adopt their parents' religion, that's fine. But if you say that children don't have good reasons for doing this, then I disagree.

Culture is KING. It's the key determining factor in behavior.

That's fine, but you just admitted that "the geographical model breaks down in the face of missonary work." Are you trying to say that people become Christians for no other reason than to maintain family tradition, or aren't you?

But it's also cultrual assissination at the highest order.

Please tell me how conversion to Christianity is an assassination of one's culture. This sounds to me like the excuse that Jews and Hindus (and probably members of many other culturally dependant religions) use to prevent their children from converting to Christianity. You're trying to tell me that one can't become a Christian without forsaking his culture.

Cortez, Delanda, Diego didn't impliment torture and murder in attempted conversions during their conquest of the new world? They wrote all about it, read it sometime. Some of bloodiest most gruesome accounts I've ever read.

I don't know about Delanda or Diego, but I do know about Cortez. Cortez was a conquistador, not a missionary. Now, I don't know what was going through his mind, but my guess is that much like the KKK, he saw Christianity as a tool that ought to be used to enforce the superority of Western European culture. But seeing as how none of us approve of the actions of the conquistadors, I'm not sure why you even brought it up. We aren't guilty of their sins by virtue of being Christians.

No, I don't want you do conversions. I want you to have your beliefs and keep them to yourself, like more self-respecting religions like Hinduism.

The last thing we want to do is conform ourselves to idolatry. As for proselytizing, why would we not share good news which we believe will give others eternal life? You're viewing this from a completely secular lens. You've neglected that from our perspective, the Gospel of Christ will benefit those who receive it.

 

[arunma]

You sure about that? Hitler explained his actions as lead by his Lord and Savior. If you don't believe that Nazism was in part a Christian organization, then please explain why they Aryan Nation(Nazi remnants) today is known as the Church of Jesus Christ Christian

I can't explain it. But can you explain why S.S. officers were indoctrinated into Norse paganism as part of their training?

 

[MortonGneiss]

I can't explain it. But can you explain why S.S. officers were indoctrinated into Norse paganism as part of their training?

The S.S. Officers were? No, I didn't know that, I'll have to look into it. That's quite interesting, but the fact remains, one the primary motivational tools for the average German was Christianity.

Did you know that Hitler was actually was looking for religious artifacts like the Ark of the Covenant? Indiana Jones was correct about that.

 

[arunma]

The S.S. Officers were? No, I didn't know that, I'll have to look into it. That's quite interesting, but the fact remains, one the primary motivational tools for the average German was Christianity.

Thank you. Rather than posting token links to personal websites, I'll allow you to do your own research, since you seem to have the resources available to you.

Did you know that Hitler was actually was looking for religious artifacts like the Ark of the Covenant? Indiana Jones was correct about that.

No, I didn't know that Hitler looked for the Ark of the Covenant. But I don't see how this associates him with Christianity. All it proves is that he didn't read his Bible, since it says that after the institution of the New Covenant, the Ark will not be remembered anymore (Jeremiah 3:16), and that it will eventually be in the heavenly Temple (Revelation 11:19).

 

[MortonGneiss]

This argument has two flaws. First of all, if you claim that ethnocentrism doesn't limit itself to ethnicity (which is what I think you meant by race), then you aren't discussing ethnocentrism anymore. You're discussing a supposed superiority complex, which is an entirely different issue. Secondly, you've failed to discern between claiming that one's beliefs are superior, and claiming that one himself is superior.

First, the common definition, which you should look up, is simply a group that considers themselves superior.

Second, the beliefs in question address both. You have looked into Christianity haven't you?

Very easily. Do you have a problem befriending people whose beliefs you find offensive?

Yes I do. I couldn't befriend someone that I was constantly judging for their beliefs...it just seems insincere.

As you can tell from my faith icon, I am a Baptist. The circumstances of why I'm a Christian aren't relevant to this topic (not that I don't wish to talk about it, but this would be a topic for another thread).

It doesn't really matter. You proved my point by saying that you were raised Hindu, and didn't know about Jesus until you were 19. Perfect example of what I was say.

Western Europe had a culture long before Christianity reached it. Now, if you're trying to say that Catholicism is important to understanding Western European culture, then I agree.

It would silly to say Western Civ. didn't exist before Christianity. But it would irresponsible to say that Christianity had a positive impact on it.

And if you grow up in Utah, you'll also most likely be white. You've failed to understand that what you described above is a statistical effect. You need to prove that Utah's culture is the mechanism which causes people to become Mormon. Now, if you wish to merely say that children tend to adopt their parents' religion, that's fine. But if you say that children don't have good reasons for doing this, then I disagree.

*sigh* I'm not sure why you don't understand this. Maybe if I explain it this way: In a region that is strictly arab, with zero outside influence or exposure to Christianity, it is 100% impossible for a child to be born there that will just happen to, as if by magic, be Christian. Yes, we are dealing with the statistical norms, there are outliers in everything, but it doesn't damage my position.

That's fine, but you just admitted that "the geographical model breaks down in the face of missonary work." Are you trying to say that people become Christians for no other reason than to maintain family tradition, or aren't you?

No, I'm saying that people like you reject family tradition in the face of these systems. There are lot's of ploys used to draw people into Christianity. And that's what we're looking at, this mechanism of Christianity that sends them into other regions, across these boundaries, to change the beliefs of the people that live there.

Please tell me how conversion to Christianity is an assassination of one's culture. This sounds to me like the excuse that Jews and Hindus (and probably members of many other culturally dependant religions) use to prevent their children from converting to Christianity. You're trying to tell me that one can't become a Christian without forsaking his culture.

If your culture has spiritual beliefs, then the Christian missionary is interested in having you reject it, they'd be more interested in destroying it, but they go one step at a time. With missionaries, we're not talking about one or two people, their goal is to convert everyone. And innoculating children against Christianity is a very good and nobel goal. Imagine if tomorrow all if Islam converted to Christianity, how radically different would their culture be after that? It would completely change their lifestyle. Hindu's have one of the oldest traditions on the planet, it's dispicable to want to take that away from them. Some see it as forsaking your culture..cause well it is, you're tossing out your entire heritage to follow someone else's.

I don't know about Delanda or Diego, but I do know about Cortez. Cortez was a conquistador, not a missionary.

Cortez was a Christian paladin, and his actions were in strict accordance to the Christian doctrine of that time. I'll send you 30pg essay on that if you like.

Now, I don't know what was going through his mind, but my guess is that much like the KKK, he saw Christianity as a tool that ought to be used to enforce the superority of Western European culture. But seeing as how none of us approve of the actions of the conquistadors, I'm not sure why you even brought it up. We aren't guilty of their sins by virtue of being Christians.

But that would be a guess..a very incorrect guess.

And by identifing yourself with the organization, yes you are culpable for it's crimes. That's as silly as trying to call yourself a Nazi, but not wanting to accept everything associated with the title.

The last thing we want to do is conform ourselves to idolatry. As for proselytizing, why would we not share good news which we believe will give others eternal life? You're viewing this from a completely secular lens. You've neglected that from our perspective, the Gospel of Christ will benefit those who receive it.

What good has the Gospel of Christ brought the world?

 

[Arthra]

I think there is more inter-faith dialogue going on these days between Jews, Christians and Muslims and that this is going on dispite headlines about terrorism... I'm very optimistic in the long run that there will be better communication and dialogue in the future...

Also there's something to be said for the "self fulfilling" prophecy... that is if you antipate positive outcomes you are more likely to get them... If negative outcomes are expected this too can occur.

So I think we need on the whole and in the long range to look more more for the positives in the major world religions and build on that!

To me ethnocentrism is more of a defensive reaction and a desire not to change..to conserve whatever characteristics that are considered desirable in a group... We should be careful I think in characterizing tgough large groups of people as being ethnocentric...there are probably ranges in ideas along a continuum so some will be willing to risk change more than others.

-Art

 

[satay]

If your culture has spiritual beliefs, then the Christian missionary is interested in having you reject it, they'd be more interested in destroying it, but they go one step at a time. With missionaries, we're not talking about one or two people, their goal is to convert everyone. And innoculating children against Christianity is a very good and nobel goal. Imagine if tomorrow all if Islam converted to Christianity, how radically different would their culture be after that? It would completely change their lifestyle. Hindu's have one of the oldest traditions on the planet, it's dispicable to want to take that away from them. Some see it as forsaking your culture..cause well it is, you're tossing out your entire heritage to follow someone else's.

Namaste MortonGneiss,

I agree with your posts. I would just like to add that Missionary activity has failed miserably in India. The missionaries have been trying for over hundreds of years to rape the Vedic culture. The only small success they have is in some very poor regions of India where missionaries "bought" people out by enticing them with money, food and medicine.

The reason for such a miserable failure of missionaries in India is the strong tradition and the tolerance of the Vedic culture. Vedic culture has been tolerating everyone from Jews to Buddhists to Muslims and anyone else in between.

Just recently, we saw an article where missionaries and Christian priests of Indian churches are trying to assimilate Vedic rituals in their church this includes but is not limited to worshipping the deity of Jesus and performing aarti ritual to the statue of jesus. This shows the cunning and arrogant nature of the christian organization where they will do anything to destroy the cultures that tolerate them. It also shows the absurdity and lack of sensitivity to the land that feeds them special privileges in the name of secularism. But then again, from a missionary point of view such act as immoral as it may be, are valid since they are under the illusion that they are "saving" souls which in itself is the height of absurdity, since the final analysis of Christian dogma is that a man is imperfect himself!

satay

 

[MortonGneiss]

Namaste MortonGneiss,

I agree with your posts. I would just like to add that Missionary activity has failed miserably in India. The missionaries have been trying for over hundreds of years to rape the Vedic culture. The only small success they have is in some very poor regions of India where missionaries "bought" people out by enticing them with money, food and medicine.

I was watching a TBN praise-a-thon last night, and their goal was collect donations of $1000 from each caller, that money would pay for a satellite link that they could send to India and Iraq. Whether anyone will listen to these stations or not I can't say. But it's their claim that they are there.

In the case of Iraq I find this news very disturbing, and it goes to what Arthra was saying about 'self-fullfilling prophecy'. If the main condition for Islam to Jihad is for Christianity to wage war on them and try to convert them...why aren't we avoiding creating that condition? If TBN does go live in Iraq, I can only see that it will instigate more violence and bloodshed.

 

[urnotme]

I wouldn't put too much weight on greek thought or perhaps the opposite, you should be skeptical of greek thought. The world is tribal. Islam may have united many different tribes, but not really. In Pakistan there is much division amoung the various tribal groups to where these conflicts are more in number than the religous conflicts. Yes religion is "a" factor of ethnocentricity but it is not the driving force. There is no "muslim" culture the same - varying by nation and by tribe, there is no "jewish" culture the same - an example would be the Ashkenaz, Sephards, Oriental, and before most of the tribes lost their identity it was also an issue. Christian culture varies primarily by nationality and perhaps as a sub-culture by denomination.

I was just deining wethnoxetissism. I find on these boards whem we say something we mean one thing but when muslims say it they mean something else. We agree that jesus was the messiah but we have differant definitions of what a messiah is.

 

[satay]

I was watching a TBN praise-a-thon last night, and their goal was collect donations of $1000 from each caller,

This is nothing new since many of the westerners have no idea of the cultural norms of countries outside of the western sphere. These westerners are ready to give out their hard earned money for two reasons: 1. Guilt 2. They truly believe that organizations like world vision are really making a difference which is not true if one just gets off his lazy butt and scratches the surface a little bit.

that money would pay for a satellite link that they could send to India and Iraq. Whether anyone will listen to these stations or not I can't say. But it's their claim that they are there.

Muslims raped Vedic culture for hundreds if not thousands of years. They did not employ cunning methods like trying to assimilate Vedic rituals in their mosques; they simply killed and butchered those who refused to convert. What happened in India? I will let the history speak for itself.

Many Hindus that I know of go have gone to Muslim 'dargha' or Sikh gurudwaras or churches. I have done this myself. I feel comfortable doing this because I am secure in my faith and Vedic culture teaches tolerance of others' beliefs and cultures. But this tolerance of Hindus is often mistaken as cowardice. This is why now a more 'fundamentalist' movement is surfacing in India. In my opinion, it is long overdue.

In the case of Iraq I find this news very disturbing, and it goes to what Arthra was saying about 'self-fullfilling prophecy'. If the main condition for Islam to Jihad is for Christianity to wage war on them and try to convert them...why aren't we avoiding creating that condition? If TBN does go live in Iraq, I can only see that it will instigate more violence and bloodshed.

Ever wonder what will happen if all the christians are able to convert people of other faiths but muslims? Ever wonder what will happen when there are only two religions on this planet - Islam and Christianity? I wonder about that all the time.

satay