The Darwin Fish: an insult to Christians and a tolerance for hypocrisy? [Archive]

TheNoNamedOne

04-10-2008, 01:35 AM

The sign of Christ has been the fish sign with "IXOYE" written in it.

http://www.uspceu.com/usp/tuna/Curriculum/OtrasTunas/Continentes/CentroSudAmerica/Mejico/EstudiantinaIxoye.gif

In recent years this sign has been co-opted by those who are atheists or who reject Creationism with the Darwin Fish (and other funny alternatives at the expense of Christian belief by using their symbol).

http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~gwglaser/darwin%20fish.gif

Is this satyrical use of the symbol of Christ over-the-line in regards to sensitivity to sacred beliefs and symbols, or is it just amusing, and, therefore, fair play? Aren't Jesus, his beliefs, and his followers being mocked?

It seems to represent the triumph of science and reason over superstition and legend with an air of smugness and "in your face" laugh at personal beliefs held dear. With the feet on the Darwin Fish, is it asserting that Christians are less evolved in some way of intellect?

In America these images are often on bumpers. For all our fears against Islam and perceived threats from it in a predominantly Christian society, why is it that pop fashion culture of statements with images are so easily directed at Christianity, and not Islam as a target? Is there hypocrisy in fear and holding back from offending Islam, but full speed ahead at ripping on Christianity?

Sex Wax

04-10-2008, 02:01 AM

Wow....I kinda see what you are saying. I think that if people want to put that emblem on the cars they drive it is cool. If you belive in Jesus, you should be able to show your faith. And I also think that if you belive in a non-religeous creation theory, you should be able to do the same. But I do agree that taking another symbol and incorporating into your own, to make fun of something is kinda wrong. Then that be seen as "mocking". While I may think it is funny, some people may get offended. So iI think putting those types of symbols up in plain view is up to the person, whether they wish to advertise or make fun of, either is an American right. That doesn't mean that just because you can do it, means you should. Man TP, I had to think for a bit....Good Post! And I put pics! Can I put just one in please?

:thumbup1:

DoctorP

04-10-2008, 02:07 AM

Could it be considered a copyright infringement?

TheNoNamedOne

04-10-2008, 02:09 AM

Man TP, I had to think for a bit....Good Post! And I put pics! Can I put just one in please?

Sure -- if it is related to mockery of symbols of Christianity or other religions AND tolerance -- or lack of it concerning hypocracy. If it's not tied into that, then please post it as a link. Thanks.

Sex Wax

04-10-2008, 02:20 AM

The only pic I was thinking of was the KKK guys in pink. They all have the rainbow coalition signs and are kinda making fun of the for real KKK (which can all die and rot in hell). I think some people will put things on their cars or wear t-shirts with their causes just to get a reaction. Almost like posting on a forum. I think that yes, it is an insult. To the christians.

TheNoNamedOne

04-10-2008, 02:29 AM

I think some people will put things on their cars or wear t-shirts with their causes just to get a reaction. Almost like posting on a forum. I think that yes, it is an insult. To the christians.

So should it matter that they are insulted and non Christians should not speak up for Christians? -- let them fight their own battles when they are insulted? Or should non Christians out of a sense of decency, too, jump on those who are intolerant with mocking?

I tie this use of religious symbolism to hypocrisy because I think that is important here.

What if some mocked Judaism and the belief that they are money lovers and a race of usery when it comes to money? Would the Star of David with a $ sign in the center of it be acceptable for display and tolerated? Or folding money into the Star of David such as this (maybe a heart of love in the center)?:

http://s3.amazonaws.com/static.onmylist.com/list_item_images/20418/starofdav2_list_view.jpg

Any more or less offensive than the Darwin Fish? Do you think this image would receive a quicker backlash than Darwin Fish? -- which virtually have no backlash at all and are flouted and quite acceptable.

Sex Wax

04-10-2008, 02:39 AM

I was only using the christian example because it was shown in the OP. I think that any symbol that is mocked in a malicious (sp?) way is wrong when it is used to hurt or embarress a religion. Do I support our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq? Yes, I do. Do I think that calling them "ragheads is wrong? Yes I do. It all boils down to the type of person you are. If you want to put an item in view that mocks something...be prepared to defend your views, and if you want to put an item in view that suports something, be prepared to defend your views. Either way, people will sometimes judge you by what youe decide to endorse. And sorry my spelling and grammer suck. I do understand.

kombu_kid

04-10-2008, 02:42 AM

Is this satyrical use of the symbol of Christ over-the-line in regards to sensitivity to sacred beliefs and symbols, or is it just amusing, and, therefore, fair play?

It's fair play in my book.

It seems to represent the triumph of science and reason over superstition and legend with an air of smugness and "in your face" laugh at personal beliefs held dear. With the feet on the Darwin Fish, is it asserting that Christians are less evolved in some way of intellect?

"Represents the triumph"?.......please....depending on what people want to believe, they'll swallow a lot of things hook, line, & sinker. For instance, there are a number of people who believe that say that an overabundance of the gas we exhale is going to cause polar bears to die and 20ft. waves down 5th Ave.

Is there hypocrisy in fear and holding back from offending Islam, but full speed ahead at ripping on Christianity?

Is the sky blue?.........to me, that's the hilarious part.....all these big tough-talking journalists slamming Christianity......but they will barely peep a word against Islam. But some do......

Again, as I've said before, I'm no fan of organized religion. I lot of what I believe is basic.......good vs. evil. I strive to be the best person I can be, despite what demons (not necessarily literally...) steer me to do wrong. I know my weaknesses.......they slide up & down on a chrome pole to music!!!!!

okisteve

04-10-2008, 08:54 AM

The sign of Christ has been the fish sign with "IXOYE" written in it.

In recent years this sign has been co-opted by those who are atheists or who reject Creationism with the Darwin Fish (and other funny alternatives at the expense of Christian belief by using their symbol).

Is this satyrical use of the symbol of Christ over-the-line in regards to sensitivity to sacred beliefs and symbols, or is it just amusing, and, therefore, fair play? Aren't Jesus, his beliefs, and his followers being mocked?

It seems to represent the triumph of science and reason over superstition and legend with an air of smugness and "in your face" laugh at personal beliefs held dear. With the feet on the Darwin Fish, is it asserting that Christians are less evolved in some way of intellect?

In America these images are often on bumpers. For all our fears against Islam and perceived threats from it in a predominantly Christian society, why is it that pop fashion culture of statements with images are so easily directed at Christianity, and not Islam as a target? Is there hypocrisy in fear and holding back from offending Islam, but full speed ahead at ripping on Christianity?

TP - I think that the IXOYE fish became a target of satire because of how it was being used by some Christians practically the same way people wear lapel pins to show lodge membership, or school ties. For those who understand the image (loaves and fishes) it may have had an air of smugness - lookit me, I believe in something GOOD! In addition, it seemed to be adopted mainly by "reborn" Christians, back when fundamentalists were becoming very influential in the conservative movement.

I suppose you can look at the Darwin fish as ridiculing the fundamentalists. I think the poke at Jews for loving money is taking it past ridicule because it brings up charges that have led mobs and an entire continent to murder and destruction. I haven't seen that coming out of evolution (yet).

Incidentally, radical Muslims may be calling for Jihad, but you don't see them mocking Christianity very much, do you?

DougP

04-10-2008, 09:01 AM

Could it be considered a copyright infringement?

If that's the case then the Greeks could sue the Christians for stealing their symbol of Pisces.

BleuEneG

04-10-2008, 10:15 AM

If that's the case then the Greeks could sue the Christians for stealing their symbol of Pisces.

lol DougP...yeah but there are tons of geometrical concepts that are stolen from the Greeks, such as the Western standard on physical beauty based on the Golden mean.

Here's the real deal on the "jesus fish"...and I have told this to folks and other christians and they don't believe me so whatever what do I care? I know what it means and it's not as simple as a stick on piece of plasitc representing loaves and fishes. So since I am better at cutting and pasting then explaining it here are the sources that made the most sense to me when I reseached this years ago.

As far as the "fish"..its really the middle part of two intercecting circles...

[I]The Vesica Piscis is formed by the intersection of two circles or spheres whose centers exactly touch. This symbolic intersection represents the "common ground", "shared vision" or "mutual understanding" between equal individuals. The shape of the human eye itself is a Vesica Piscis. The spiritual significance of "seeing eye to eye" to the "mirror of the soul" was highly regarded by numerous Renaissance artists who used this form extensively in art and architecture. The ratio of the axes of the form is the square root of 3, which alludes to the deepest nature of the triune which cannot be adequately expressed by rational language alone.

I can't find the source now but I read somewhere that gnostic christians also used the vesica piscis to represent Yeshua since when one looks at it vertically it looks like a female vagina and since Yeshua was of God born of a woman it made sense to them.

The whole thing of using the, ICTHUS 'greek for fish" was originally all based in secrecy to first century christians..who were more gnostic and mystical than modern day mainstream ones...IT was NOT to show off. It was a code that when others saw they knew "okay this guy is down with this, too."

The fish symbol was adopted by early Christians as a secret sign, due to persecution. The fish symbol was chosen because, in the original Greek,the letters stand as an acrostic for "Jesus Christ, Son of God, Saviour." An acrostic is a poem whose initial or last letters can be put together to form a word or message.

And as far as the whole christians being offended thing goes...well that's part of being a christian...the first flollowers of Yeshua knew that. He said" if the world hates me they will hate you too."

TheNoNamedOne

04-10-2008, 12:30 PM

I suppose you can look at the Darwin fish as ridiculing the fundamentalists. I think the poke at Jews for loving money is taking it past ridicule because it brings up charges that have led mobs and an entire continent to murder and destruction. I haven't seen that coming out of evolution (yet).

That is an excellent point -- and so is the "yet" affixed parenthetically.

Having the offense moved into the violent realm, is that the repellant that protects symbols from further mockery? I know Jews have been persecuted even prior to WW2 on Europe, but had that monolithic undertaking in genocide never taken place, would it make it less wrong to display a Star of David in some way as shown above?

Incidentally, radical Muslims may be calling for Jihad, but you don't see them mocking Christianity very much, do you?

True. They are dead serious. Though, the cartoon contest sponsored by Iran to mock Christ not too long ago received many submissions from around the world. And I am not too sure if many Imams or a great number of Muslims and their leaders condemned Iran for sponsoring such a thing. Perhaps there was a good degree of complicity in silence.

Isaak Brodsky

04-10-2008, 03:35 PM

TP, another excellent thread!! The responses to your questions have also been really thoughtful. Your OP has forced me to learn some new things about symbolism and the general tendency of people to use symbols as efforts to embody the sublime. I’d already had some suspicions that the fish had been adopted as an emblem for millennia for a variety of phenomena across cultures and belief systems. It is not at all surprising, to me, that people whatever their political/religious faiths will adopt certain symbols to represent their particular system.

Sex Wax has an interesting point but one that I don’t necessarily agree with entirely. I think that our tendency to offend people is just a natural byproduct of human behavior. For example, ninety-nine point seven percent of my students have for the past fourteen years reported in evaluations of my in-class performance that I am a perfect gentleman as well as entertaining and filled with little-known and interesting but useless facts. However, point-three percent of students invariably determine that I am a perfect jackass who is both offensive and utterly unfunny. Try as I may to build a bridge of communication between myself and them, a small minority of students find me entirely offensive.

Despite the fact that we can’t please everyone all of the time, we should nevertheless keep trying to find common ground. If we don’t – at least those people with immense political/military power – then we risk further strife. Some folks, though, wouldn’t give two cold turds about whether strife, mistrust, and misunderstanding continue to survive, so they do what they can to stir up strife and discord – like the example you cited. The Darwin fish only serves to thumb a nose or two at those who hold any belief in the divine. I wouldn’t say that displaying such a fish on your back bumper is necessarily wrong, only that it is a consequence of the natural order of competition between one point of view and a sharply different point of view which are both competing for the bigger stage.

proudtobnotpc

04-10-2008, 03:45 PM

BleuEneG

04-10-2008, 03:48 PM

proudtobnotpc

04-10-2008, 03:51 PM

WTF? where the hell did this hostility come from? who is pushing anything on you in this thread? we are adults having what I consider to be an interesting discussion.

Is that all you have to contribute?
hey sorry did not mean to come off as hostile just trying to explain my point of view. I am aiming my statement at all little bible thumpers that keep hand out leaflets on Gate 2 street and at Jusco. I was in no way aiming or talking to anyone directly here on this forum.

okisteve

04-10-2008, 06:14 PM

That is an excellent point -- and so is the "yet" affixed parenthetically.

Having the offense moved into the violent realm, is that the repellant that protects symbols from further mockery? I know Jews have been persecuted even prior to WW2 on Europe, but had that monolithic undertaking in genocide never taken place, would it make it less wrong to display a Star of David in some way as shown above?

True. They are dead serious. Though, the cartoon contest sponsored by Iran to mock Christ not too long ago received many submissions from around the world. And I am not too sure if many Imams or a great number of Muslims and their leaders condemned Iran for sponsoring such a thing. Perhaps there was a good degree of complicity in silence.

I had not heard of that cartoon campaign, but an Iranian newspaper held a contest for the best cartoon mocking the Holocaust. That would have had Amadinejad's approval, while he probably would tread more softly when it comes to Christians. He did write to GW Bush to say that he thought good Christians didn't invade other countries and outstay their welcome. Obviously he was not a history major.

As for the monetized Star of David, yes, if history had not happened, I would downgrade the seriousness of that symbol to the same level as http://brimstone.us/5_june_s_FailureFries.gif

You probably realize though that Jews have been slandered as moneygrubbers and persecuted for it and other slanders for over a thousand years. The WWII holocaust may have been the worst but far from the only really horrible one.

InDuhUSA

05-02-2008, 10:06 PM

I believe if you (Christians) continue to PUSH your BS on me, than I will continue to point out that God is not real and its all ahttp://www.japanupdate.com/forum/post_thanks.php?do=post_thanks_add&p=92854
Thanks big money game. That being said if you leave me alone I will leave you alone.
GOD IS IMAGINARY (http://godisimaginary.com/index.htm)
The truth about your so called God.

Those Christians who PUSH are usually of the radical kind. From what I know about Christianity, it is not a "strong arm religion."

However, most Christians who feel that there is an actual Heaven and Hell and who believe that the only way to get there is through a relationship with Jesus Christ actually have a genuine love for non-christians and are simply wanting to help them see that need. Because of the Christian belief in an eternal punishment and the fact that the God of Christianity wants to save them from it, and that He commissions His own people to show others the way to this salvation, they feel an obligation to share with you the way.

However, it is your right to accept or reject that Savior, even by telling them that the deity they want you to know is imaginary. You can even thumb your nose at them by putting the DARWIN half fish on your car. But that will never stop geuine Christians from loving you and praying for you. That will never stop their God from loving you. But the choice would still be yours. If you die and find out there is an eternal hell, well, you might regret all of the anger you are expressing.

In my personal viewpoint, it takes a lot more faith to believe that intelligent life came by way of a BIG BANG and an evolutionary process than by an intelligent designer who existed before the universe came into being. Everyone has faith in something. You simply have faith in one thing and Christians have faith in something else.

okisteve

05-02-2008, 10:15 PM

Great post, InDuh.

I actually think that an intelligent designer might be responsible for conceiving and putting in place the complex process of evolution. Is that called covering all bets, or just covering my ass?

But that argument leads to, 'was there a series of intelligent designers?'. As to ask, who designed the Intelligent Designer?

Brand_X

05-03-2008, 02:44 PM

oops post got messed up and dont wanna retype it.

Tanimaga

05-03-2008, 03:34 PM

But that argument leads to, 'was there a series of intelligent designers?'. As to ask, who designed the Intelligent Designer?

Or did the intelligent designer have a set of rules to abide by? I believe Einstein was quoted to something similiar.

TheNoNamedOne

05-03-2008, 03:36 PM

Ahhhh... the infinite regress raises its head to bedevil us mere mortals.

perfect10

05-03-2008, 04:57 PM

Everyone that I have know that has the Jesus fish on there car was very pushy about anyone that was not Christian should be, and if you did not want to hear what “the Lord” had in store for you, you were going to hell. I am very tolerant of other people’s beliefs but when they do not pay attention to the history of the religion, it pisses me off.

Why is it ok for Christians to take symbols from other religions but if some one turns a Christian symbol into there own every one gets offended? Lets take a look at just a few things that Christians have made there own the; Easter eggs and bunny, the rabbit and eggs are well know sign of fertility it was a main symbol for the Vernal Equinox, or Spring Equinox in pagan religions. The Christmas tree adapted from the Patron tree, which were usually left living and used during sacrifices, and the list goes on.

So why is it ok for Christians to do such a thing and everyone has to except it yet if some one does it to the Christian world, everyone is outraged about it?

Those Christians who PUSH are usually of the radical kind. From what I know about Christianity, it is not a "strong arm religion."

Then there is the crusades that need to be addressed I really think people need to do some research on what was done in the name of Christianity. Christian have been forcing their beliefs ever since the religion was invented and for centuries if you were not Christian in a lot of the world you were killed because your pagan was might corrupt the perfect Christian world. Just take a look at what happened during the great plague, Christian were out to kill as many pagans as possible because they thought it was a curse brought on to the Christian world through pagans. Then look at the Salem witch trials something I am sure everyone on this forum is familiar with.

InDuhUSA

05-04-2008, 04:21 AM

Then there is the crusades that need to be addressed I really think people need to do some research on what was done in the name of Christianity. Christian have been forcing their beliefs ever since the religion was invented and for centuries if you were not Christian in a lot of the world you were killed because your pagan was might corrupt the perfect Christian world. Just take a look at what happened during the great plague, Christian were out to kill as many pagans as possible because they thought it was a curse brought on to the Christian world through pagans. Then look at the Salem witch trials something I am sure everyone on this forum is familiar with.

The Crusades do not represent what true Christians believed back then or now anynmore than the radical evolutionists who forced their beliefs on all school children represent today (I hope). The crusades were basically Roman Catholic in nature and we more interested in spread RC theology than they were in sharing the good news of Jesus Christ as the Bible teaches it and as Christians understand it today. To have a soldier with a sword next to a monk with a bucket of water and tell someone to make a choice is not what Jesus taught and should not be refkective of Him.

Jesus told His disciple to go to a house and share the news. If they were not received then they were to shake the dust from their feet and get to steppin'. He did not tell them to burn the house down and to force their views upon them. Once Jesus was rejected by the samaritans and two of His disciples wanted to call down fire upon that city. Rather than say, "Yeah, they did me wrong, how dare they reject me. Let's burn'em up," Jesus actually REBUKED them for their unloving attitude. So the crusades do not reflect what true Christianity is about as I understand it. And neither do the witch hunts.

Do all the white slave traders of the 1700s and 1800s represent all whites in general? This is what radical AFRICAN Americans like Farrakhan seem to insinuate when he pushes his racist views. Are all Black robbing and pillaging with the inner-city? This is what so many whites seem to believe in spite of the numerous well educated African Americans who have contributed to our society and have made many inventions that we all use today. Think about that the next time you stop at a traffic light, fly in a helicopter, wear a gas mask that can save your life, one of your family members has a blood transfusion, eat ice cream, or spread peanut butter on your sandwhich. An African American made that possible.

What I am saying is that you cannot use such a broad brush to paint a whole group just because of a few. Don't do that with all Christians just because of those who did unchristian things.

05-04-2008, 04:31 AM

The Crusades do not represent what true Christians believed back then or now anynmore than the radical evolutionists who forced their beliefs on all school children represent today (I hope).
Sounds like what I keep hearing about Islam.

I hate organized religion. I hate it. I want nothing to do with it. Faith is one thing, but organized religion can burn in hell if there is such a thing. It's a pleasant fairy tail (most likely) that is corrupted by man to the point of voilence.

Go to OCSI (Okinawa Christian School International). Pretty sure they still make kids pray or study the bible every day for a grade. If that's not forcing religion down one's throat, I don't know what is. Fail bible class, and you fail in education. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Tell me this: Why would a perfect God need an old testament? Why not just get it right the first time?

InDuhUSA

05-04-2008, 05:24 AM

Sounds like what I keep hearing about Islam.

Don't know much about Islam or the Koran. But no matter how much you hate religion, there is no justification for painting a whole group with on boroad bruch to express that hatred. Remember what I said about the whites and blacks.

Go to OCSI (Okinawa Christian School International). Pretty sure they still make kids pray or study the bible every day for a grade. If that's not forcing religion down one's throat, I don't know what is. Fail bible class, and you fail in education. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Uh, that's the nature of a Christian school DK. You can't go to a Christian school and teach Buddhism or evolution. If you go to a Chriostian school you will be made to do things that Christians do. You should have begged your parents to send you to a secular school.

Personally when I was there I would not send my kids to OCS. It costed too much as far as I was concerned. I sent them downtown to the Japanese school where they were ridiculed by the local kids for being half-american (gaijin). They still suffer the scars today. But still I refuse to blame all japanese kids for the hatred of a few. The positive side is that they made good friends who looked past their half gaijinnness.

Tell me this: Why would a perfect God need an old testament? Why not just get it right the first time?

Depends on our definitions of "perfection."

Sex Wax

05-04-2008, 06:39 AM

In response to InDuhUSA:
Don't know much about Islam or the Koran. But no matter how much you hate religion, there is no justification for painting a whole group with on boroad bruch to express that hatred. Remember what I said about the whites and blacks.

If you dont know much about Islam or the Koran, I would suggest studying up on other religions before you try to compare them or their history to one another. In reference to your "whites and black" statement. The KKK is a "white Christian" group (that should all be shot), and at that time in history, the majority of "blacks" were christians. During the 60's, many "blacks" became involved in Islam. Which as far as I know, Islam, is a religion, not a terrorist group.

Uh, that's the nature of a Christian school DK. You can't go to a Christian school and teach Buddhism or evolution. If you go to a Chriostian school you will be made to do things that Christians do. You should have begged your parents to send you to a secular school.

If you go to a "good" Christian shool, you will be made aware of many differing views on creation. Fundamentalist Christian schools reject evolution. Students should have the right to study and learn all the facts not just "Religious Doctrine". IMO, dk has a wide knowledge of religion.

Personally when I was there I would not send my kids to OCS. It costed too much as far as I was concerned. I sent them downtown to the Japanese school where they were ridiculed by the local kids for being half-american (gaijin). They still suffer the scars today. But still I refuse to blame all japanese kids for the hatred of a few. The positive side is that they made good friends who looked past their half gaijinnness.

I'm sorry that OCS "costed" to much for you. My kids, I have 3 by the way, go to "downtown" schools, and Kumon. None of the other kids ridicule my children, I take an active part in my kids schools activities. All my kids schoolmates love when I come and hang out. They teach me, and I teach them. Maybe if you would have gone to the school, and met the teachers, met the students, participated in the activities with your children, things would have gone smoother.

Depends on our definitions of "perfection."

Is being a "Christian" Perfect? Is being "Muslim" perfect? Bhuddist?, Hindu? Judaism? Shinto? Can you tell us what is perfect please....we all want to know. It would save alot of bloodshed if you would enlighten us.

:thumbup1:

InDuhUSA

05-04-2008, 09:53 AM

In response to InDuhUSA:

If you dont know much about Islam or the Koran, I would suggest studying up on other religions before you try to compare them or their history to one another.

Well now Coitus Wax, I am not sure which one of my posts made any comparisons to other religions. Could you do this Bible thumping idiot a favor and show me where I committed such a horrendous error. I would be in your debt.

In reference to your "whites and black" statement. The KKK is a "white Christian" group (that should all be shot), and at that time in history, the majority of "blacks" were christians. During the 60's, many "blacks" became involved in Islam. Which as far as I know, Islam, is a religion, not a terrorist group.

Anyone can attach a label on to themselves. The question is, do they actually follow the TRUE teachings that the label represents. Sure the KKK claims to be Christian just as the followers of Judaism in Jesus day claim to be serving Yahweh. However, they were racist because they hated the Samaritans. Jesus on the other hand made efforts to reach out to them.

Furthermore, the KKK hate Jews, forgetting that Jesus Himself was Jewish. So your pointing out this thing with the KKK is really moot and is nothing more than a logical fallacy called guilt by association.

And yes, I grew up around Black Muslims who were very militant and hated white folks. It was one of the reasons I would never join them at the time (and besides my lack of desire for bean pie :D).

If you go to a "good" Christian shool, you will be made aware of many differing views on creation. Fundamentalist Christian schools reject evolution. Students should have the right to study and learn all the facts not just "Religious Doctrine". IMO, dk has a wide knowledge of religion.

The word "good" is subjective. It is dependent upon what the person considers "good." You consider a "Christian" school that teaches evolution and other religions to be "good." My friend, that is not a "Christian" school; that is a PUBLIC school.

I commend DK for his wide knowledge of religions. DK has always appear to me to be a very intelligent and well learned person. My contention with anyone is not so much what you want to believe. That is everyone's choice. My desire is to help you guys see that you continually paint Christianity with a very broad brush. Prejudice does things like that :cool:

I'm sorry that OCS "costed" to much for you. My kids, I have 3 by the way, go to "downtown" schools, and Kumon. None of the other kids ridicule my children, I take an active part in my kids schools activities. All my kids schoolmates love when I come and hang out. They teach me, and I teach them. Maybe if you would have gone to the school, and met the teachers, met the students, participated in the activities with your children, things would have gone smoother.

Mr. Wax, you assume too much about me from one post. Nonetheless, thank you for your sympathies. I most certainly was involved in the schools and NEVER had a problem with the TEACHERS. It was SOME of my kids CLASSMATES that caused THEM problems with their prejudice towards Gaijins. But yes, spent many a Sunday away from my Bible thumping church to attend UNDOCAI (not sure if I spelled that right) and a number of other activities involving the kids.

You have to ask questions before you make assumptions O' Waxxy one :D

Is being a "Christian" Perfect? Is being "Muslim" perfect? Bhuddist?, Hindu? Judaism? Shinto? Can you tell us what is perfect please....we all want to know. It would save alot of bloodshed if you would enlighten us.

:thumbup1:

Being a Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, Shinto, Muslim, or whatever is a CHOICE. Having no religion at all and claiming to be atheist or agnostic is also a choice. Believing in God or denying His existence is a choice for each person. The choice does not make anyone "perfect," depending on how one defines PERFECTION.

navypt

05-04-2008, 09:59 AM

God forbid you deface a Star of David or a Muslin Crescent moon - people wouldnt dare unless they would be faced with a mad crowd. No worries if you deface a Christian symbol. Maybe Christians shouldnt be so passive and stand up when sacrilige is aloof. Its a shame - people need to have respect for each other views and religious beliefs. If people just learned to do that, chill, and drink some shima together, life would be a more peaceful place. Seriously, I think it is in poor taste and disrespectful.

05-04-2008, 12:26 PM

05-04-2008, 05:12 PM

Depends on our definitions of "perfection."
I thought it was a pretty straightforward question... Are you saying that "God" is in fact not perfect, and thus needed two attempts to get it right? It seems like perfection would be an absolute. In order to get a perfect grade, you get a perfect score. I'd think it'd be the same with creation. As a software developer, perfect code is code that works exactly as it was intended. Imperfect code requires a rewrite. The New Testament is a rewrite.

InDuhUSA

05-04-2008, 09:17 PM

I thought it was a pretty straightforward question... Are you saying that "God" is in fact not perfect, and thus needed two attempts to get it right? It seems like perfection would be an absolute. In order to get a perfect grade, you get a perfect score. I'd think it'd be the same with creation. As a software developer, perfect code is code that works exactly as it was intended. Imperfect code requires a rewrite. The New Testament is a rewrite.

Certainly your question was straightforward, but it failed to to take into account that the English language is very rich and that words can have more than one meaning. Words have different meanings in different places and cultures.

One Biblical meaning of the word perfect is MATURE. Jesus taught us that we must be perfect as our Father in Heaven is perfect. In this, we are to grow in to maturity. This does not mean that Christians won't make mistakes, but it means that we will be more adult like in our behavior. I could say more been then I would sound like one of those Bible thumpin' preachers that are so despised on these forums :eek:

Socrates once said (and I paraphrase) that if two people are going to have a discussion, they must define their terms. Hence why I need to understand your view of what it means to be perfect considering your OCS background and all.

I think you understand "perfect" as free from error or mistakes, having not even a spot or the smallest of blemish. I would describe God that way too. However, what does that have to do with God making two COVENANTS with man (a "Testament" is a "covenant")? It may not be that God didn't get it right, it may simply be His need to accomodate humans always getting it wrong. That is exactly what the New Testament teaches concerning the reason why we needed "two testaments."

In the first covenant, man was unable to live up to the law of God. In the second testament, the law is fulfilled through Jesus Christ so that man can be helped by His sacrifice on their behalf. The first testament is basically a teaching on God's standard, what He expects man to measure up to, and the history of man's inability to do so. The second Testament presents a God-Man who cared about the human race, lived God's standard for man, died on their behalf, rose again, and now makes salvation available to all.

So why does a perfect God need TWO Testaments - because of you and me and our failure to be perfect as He is. Does that answer your question? If not, throw your toughest ones at me. I know how to run away for a few days and hope that ya'll don't notice I failed to answer a question too tough for me :D

InDuhUSA

05-04-2008, 09:29 PM

Many people who go to OCSI don't go because their parents thought, "Hey, I want to send my kids to a Christian school." They go because there's not a lot of options, so in a way, I commend OCSI for being in the right place at the right time when the only other real options are base education (which many are not able to get), the rinky dink Amerasian school, or a local school. The reason I said what I've said is because I have actually been TOLD by an OCSI teacher that they don't push religion down anyone's throat. I think she said something along the lines of, "We only make one student pray in every class, and the prayer is written on the chalkboard."

I couldn't believe it.

Seriously, let the Christian kids pray if they want to. When I went to OCSI, a lot of the kids weren't Christian and had no intentions of becoming a Christian. Yet the teachers kept on them the whole time I was there to change them from their wicked ways. Many people don't go to OCSI because they want a Christian education. They go because there's not a lot of options, and I think OCSI should respect that and at the same time capitalize on it (rather than just capitalizing on it).

You have a couple of valid points but I am not in the position to judge OCSI. I can only base it upon the experience you relate to me and I have no reason to question your integrity. I did know a couple of the teachers and other staff when I was in Okinawa and most of them did not appear to me to be "strong arm evangelists" but then again, I may be coming from a bias perspective. What may seem to you as cramming religion down people's throats may seem to me to be simply sharing with students the truth without coercion.

Now even in public schools the kids are made to turn from their wicked ways. My oldest daughter's last year in the Japanese school (junior high), she and her friends went outside (can't remember whether it was during school or after school) and her friends started smoking (my daughter didn't smoke but she was dumb enough at that time to hang with those kids that were doing it). The teacher caught them, brought them all in the class, slapped each of their faces (except my daughter, they did not want an international incident I suppose), called the parents, and gave us all a lecture about our children's immoral behavior.

Now, I doubt if OCSI goes arounds smacking kids in their faces for their wicked ways, but I could be wrong. :)

slickmetal

05-04-2008, 10:17 PM

I found this youtube video to be informative, intriguing, and true to most of its facts. I promise it will open up your mind.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=2aW2N46vf4Q

So, if you want to go on about symbols, etc - make sure you watch the entire video.

05-04-2008, 10:19 PM

So why does a perfect God need TWO Testaments - because of you and me and our failure to be perfect as He is. Does that answer your question? If not, throw your toughest ones at me. I know how to run away for a few days and hope that ya'll don't notice I failed to answer a question too tough for me :D
A perfect God wouldn't set unrealistic requirements, would he?

05-04-2008, 10:22 PM

Now, I doubt if OCSI goes arounds smacking kids in their faces for their wicked ways, but I could be wrong. :)
No, you get kicked out of OCSI for smoking, which, for some of the kids I went to school with, didn't leave them many options for finishing high school. I'd rather get slapped in the face than kicked out for something so petty.

My college was the same way. They'd kick you out and keep your tuition if you got caught smoking. An $18,000 cigarette. Tell me that's not highway robbery. I quit that hellhole before they could kick me out.

InDuhUSA

05-05-2008, 08:00 AM

A perfect God wouldn't set unrealistic requirements, would he?

Oh I don't know DK. Is it unrealistic to command people not to steal from each other, not to screw someone's else's wife, to be unselfish and not covetous of what someone else has, to help the poor and needy, etc.? Aside from the rituals that were required of the Israelites (which they did keep), God was most concerned with the MORAL law. This is what He asked them to do. How unrealistic is that?

The law was basically teaching us to be UNSELFISH and to love our neighbor as ourself. How unreasonable could that be my friend? (I say this with all sincerity. No sarcasm involved).

InDuhUSA

05-05-2008, 08:01 AM

No, you get kicked out of OCSI for smoking, which, for some of the kids I went to school with, didn't leave them many options for finishing high school. I'd rather get slapped in the face than kicked out for something so petty.

My college was the same way. They'd kick you out and keep your tuition if you got caught smoking. An $18,000 cigarette. Tell me that's not highway robbery. I quit that hellhole before they could kick me out.

I agree with you. That is a little too harsh of a punishment.

Isaak Brodsky

05-05-2008, 09:03 AM

I found this youtube video to be informative, intriguing, and true to most of its facts. I promise it will open up your mind.

So, if you want to go on about symbols, etc - make sure you watch the entire video.

I suspect that "true to most of its facts" means that the facts you refer to do not actually refer to anything outside the video production. That is, the reasoning behind your observation here, is entirely circular.

Far from true, I found the video to be a slick and dishonest production and a rhetorically deceptive collage of diverging events. It will open the minds of "free thinkers" who are only willing to adopt sloppy scholarship and foist upon the general public as some universal truth a cleverly fabricated narrative.

I should say that it opened my mind to the amazing lengths some folks will go to try and disassemble God's plan for man. You'd think, too, that after a couple thousand years since the resurrection that men would be able to devise even more clever schemes to dis-credit the message.

For a fuller discussion of the factual and rhetorical holes, in the video, check out the following discourse:

http://tektonics.org/copycat/osy.html

okisteve

05-05-2008, 11:17 AM

Oh I don't know DK. Is it unrealistic to command people not to steal from each other, not to screw someone's else's wife, to be unselfish and not covetous of what someone else has, to help the poor and needy, etc.? Aside from the rituals that were required of the Israelites (which they did keep), God was most concerned with the MORAL law. This is what He asked them to do. How unrealistic is that?

The law was basically teaching us to be UNSELFISH and to love our neighbor as ourself. How unreasonable could that be my friend? (I say this with all sincerity. No sarcasm involved).

I assume that you think it also applies to neighbors who happen to be gay. :)

okisteve

05-05-2008, 11:42 AM

I suspect that "true to most of its facts" means that the facts you refer to do not actually refer to anything outside the video production. That is, the reasoning behind your observation here, is entirely circular.

Far from true, I found the video to be a slick and dishonest production and a rhetorically deceptive collage of diverging events. It will open the minds of "free thinkers" who are only willing to adopt sloppy scholarship and foist upon the general public as some universal truth a cleverly fabricated narrative.

I should say that it opened my mind to the amazing lengths some folks will go to try and disassemble God's plan for man. You'd think, too, that after a couple thousand years since the resurrection that men would be able to devise even more clever schemes to dis-credit the message.

For a fuller discussion of the factual and rhetorical holes, in the video, check out the following discourse:

http://tektonics.org/copycat/osy.html

Hmmm, well, I removed my thanks to Slick on that post. I was seriously considering that the consistent December 25 birthday was BS, but the rest of it was amusing in my beery haze.

Evidence? Evidence? We don' need no stinkin' EVIDENCE!