Jesus vs Horus vs Krishna vs .....

monosharp

First of all, mod if you feel this shouldn't be here then please move it to the atheist forum.

I'm posting it here because I'm not an atheist (I'm catholic) and I'd honestly like christian opinions on this but if it must be moved then so be it.

I was just randomly web surfing and came across this, all religions are derived from worship of the sun theory and thought I'd have a read into it. Anyways, I ended up reading about and watching a short movie on youtube about it.

Basically It's being really really convincing. Now I don't actually believe 100% that what its trying to say is true but I do believe that if the facts are right then theres obviously a lot of truth in it.

Ok a basic summary of what its trying to prove....

Jesus, Krishna, Horus etc etc etc are basically a worship of the sun and its movements through the skies and its relation to the stars. (Yeah I didn't exactly jump on board at first either).

But it really does do a compelling job.

Here is the youtube video links.

Part 1 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=koK1z1YnBIQ
Part 2 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFQlV6pdJ78&feature=related
Part 3 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_82kd0UAYHA&feature=related

I've actually already found out that some of the claims of the video are less then 100% facts (i.e > they are disputed or slightly different from what they say by one scholar to another)

Anyways, Looking for the christian view on this ? Specifically because even when I did believe in God/Jesus etc. I still never, never believed in literal truth of the bible in any way.

p.s > I'm catholic but I'd already became very disillusioned with christianity years ago before watching this/hearing about it and have being looking into getting into Buddhism for the past few months so I'm not claiming to have being converted or anything else by watching this.

Pompey Magnus

Well I can't give you a Christian persective I'm afraid, but from how you describe your belief I had been very similar a few years ago. I never took most of the Bible literally, I never accepted transubstantiation, I didn't believe the New Testament was completely accurate but I did believe the main core of it was true and I did believe in a man called Jesus and his resurrection.

It was only when I started finding out just how common virgin births and resurrection myths were at that time did I start to get properly suspicious and I began to look into things more and I realised that so much of the Christian story was common to numerous other Mediterranean pagan cults. I discovered that St Paul, pretty much the founder of the Christian religion, grew up in Tarsus where every year the citizens celebrated the death and resurrection of the God Attis, and he would have been aware of the similar celebrations in the nearby cities Byblus and Paphos of the God Adoni's resurrection.

As I found out more about these faiths (and about Christianity) a picture began to form in my mind about how Christianity could have been man made, how perhaps there had been a man called Jesus (I'm no longer sure of even this) and he may have led a pacifist Jewish group which opposed Roman rule in Judea and was executed by Pilate and how myths could have grown around this man which became more and more exaggerated as time went on.

I recently watched Penn and Teller's Bullsh*t program on the Bible and they pointed out that today in America, perhaps the most technologically advanced nation on Earth, just 30 years after his death, thousands of people really believe Elvis is still alive. I mean they really, truely believe this. This is with photographs of him dead as a doornail in the morgue. Could it be possible, just possible, that in a relatively primitive society such as Judea 2000 years ago a similar belief arose about another dead man? If you agree that it is possible then I think it is reasonable to also assume that it is the most likely scenario. They also pointed out that there was another man called Appolonius of Tyrana who, also in the 1st Century, was claimed by his followers to have healed the sick, raised the dead and could walk through walls. The Roman governor had Appolonius executed, but he was raised from the dead and ascended into Heaven. Sound familiar?

Fanny Cradock

The whole parallel thing has been discussed a good few times before. It's utter tosh, imo. Here are but a few.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055206745&highlight=horus

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055140647&highlight=horus&page=5

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055150389&highlight=horus

monosharp

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

The whole parallel thing has been discussed a good few times before. It's utter tosh, imo. Here are but a few.

Doh, I didn't search beforehand. Thought this was relatively new.

But, and this is from more then this current video, this is from my own opinion and my problem with Christianity ever since I got doubts years ago.

Surely people cannot believe the Bible is the word of God ? It was written years after Jesus (if he existed) and it was written by men and the gospels were chosen by men for men. The ones they didn't like were left out.

This, unlike the video evidence IS fact.

The reason I became disillusioned with christianity, is not the core teachings of Jesus. i.e > love thy neighbour, be kind to strangers etc etc etc.

My problem is that the vast majority of Christianity does not follow it and puts more relevance to the man-made bs in the bible.

But this is OT so I'll stop here. Actually I'll just put in a quote which says it better than anything else.

"If Jesus came back and saw what was being done in his name, he wouldn't be able to stop throwing up." - Woody Allen

How can we ignore the evidence of the past ? regarding Horus and countless others ? Virgin birth, resurrection etc.

I'm not saying that its proof Jesus didn't exist but what I am saying is that its proof or near-proof that extremely large bits of what we think we know about him are complete bs.

philologos

monosharp wrote: »

I'm not saying that its proof Jesus didn't exist but what I am saying is that its proof or near-proof that extremely large bits of what we think we know about him are complete bs.

Most scholars and historians concede that Jesus did indeed exist.

I suggest that you look to Josephus - Jewish Antiquities.

Heck, even the Jews who were opposed to him left a bit of space about his life in the Babylonian Talmud.

monosharp wrote:

My problem is that the vast majority of Christianity does not follow it and puts more relevance to the man-made bs in the bible.

This is where I'm stuck with your post. How can you determine what is or what is not "man made BS" in the Bible. The Bible is a divinely received text as far as I or most Christians are concerned.

monosharp

Jakkass wrote: »

Most scholars and historians concede that Jesus did indeed exist.

I suggest that you look to Josephus - Jewish Antiquities.

Heck, even the Jews who were opposed to him left a bit of space about his life in the Babylonian Talmud.

I'm not saying he didn't exist although I'm still unsure.

But what I am fairly certain of is that we know almost nothing about him.

Even if there was a real man/son of God/etc named Jesus who preached goodwill and died on the cross, I firmly believe that a huge percentage of what we think we know about him is completely invented.

So actually its quite right to say that the Jesus of the bible didn't exist because that Jesus is an accumulation of stories and myths written by men nearly 100 years after he died.

philologos

monosharp wrote: »

So actually its quite right to say that the Jesus of the bible didn't exist because that Jesus is an accumulation of stories and myths written by men nearly 100 years after he died.

See this is what I'm puzzled at. How can you say that these are myths and stories?

Paul wrote of Jesus less than 20 years after Christ died.

Mark wrote the first Gospel 30 years after Christ died.

It's not that outlandish when you think of it.

Zombrex

monosharp wrote: »

I'm not saying that its proof Jesus didn't exist but what I am saying is that its proof or near-proof that extremely large bits of what we think we know about him are complete bs.

Not really. The theories that Jesus wasn't a real person are no more supported than the theories that he was.

The issue isn't that either side on the real/not real has damning proof condemning the other. The issue is that there is so little actual hard evidence on either side. You can't say that a theory such as Jesus didn't exist has been demonstrated nonsense, but equally there is little hard evidence for it either.

Pompey Magnus

Jakkass wrote: »

I suggest that you look to Josephus - Jewish Antiquities.

This is the same Josephus whose Testimonium Flavium early Christian leaders felt required "editing" because it wasn't as convincing as they wanted it. Christians made such a bad job at forging his accounts that neutral historians can't be sure whether any of the one small passage regarding Jesus is authentic Josephus or a later insertion. The parts claiming "He was the Messiah" and his supposed resurrection were certainly Christian forgeries, the rest is questionable. If convincing details of Jesus were in the original Testimonium (completed in 94 AD) then no early Christian writer bothered to mention it, including Justin Martyr (mid second century), Irenaeus (late second century), Clement of Alexandria (late second century), Origen (early third century), Cyprian (mid third century) or Arnobius (late third century).

Christian scholars such as these were extremely active in defending their faith against pagan hostility and promoting the divinity of Jesus yet not one of them thought of referencing a respected, neutral, non-Christian historian to the Roman Emperors whose "supposed" accounts say Jesus was the Messiah and rose from the dead. I guess we can either assume they collectively had their eyes off the ball on that one or else they knew that the Testimonium had no reference at all to Jesus, and did have until the forth century, over 200 years after it was written by Josephus.

If we accept a watered down account by Josephus on Jesus all we have is a very short paragraph which basically only says there was a teacher named Jesus who was crucified. The irony is however that early Christian Churchmen may well have ruined the reliability of their only source of a non-Christian account for a historical Jesus because they got greedy and wanted it to show his divinity also. But then again perhaps the account originally had no reference to Jesus in which case the Christian forgers partially succeeded. Interestingly, Josephus earlier in his Jewish Wars wrote about the same incidents in Judea as he did in the Testimonium during the governorship of Pilate, any mention of Jesus is conspicuously absent from this account and instead Josephus points out that "all was quiet".

Pompey Magnus

Jakkass wrote: »

Paul wrote of Jesus less than 20 years after Christ died.

Paul never met Jesus and freely admits that his accounts were not based on talking to eye witnesses but rather from voices in his head and ghostly images that he saw. Not a star witness by any means.

monosharp

Jakkass wrote: »

See this is what I'm puzzled at. How can you say that these are myths and stories?

Paul wrote of Jesus less than 20 years after Christ died.

Source ? I've looked and the earliest mention of him I can find was written 70 years after his death.

Mark wrote the first Gospel 30 years after Christ died.

70 years, and the gospel of Mark is technically anonymous.

Wikipedia wrote:

A wide range of recent critical scholars believe that Mark was written at the earliest after the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Second Temple in 70.

It's not that outlandish when you think of it.

To think that 2,000 years ago, years after the guy died, all these different texts were written (by who knows who), some completely contradicting others then a small handful of these texts, some of which also still contradict eachother are put into a book and this is supposed to be the word of God ? Thats outlandish.

Then add in the fact that theres any number of similarities in these gospels with other older religions and you should only come to the conclusion that the bible can no more be considered Gods word or an accurate description of Jesus's life anymore then Lord of the Rings.

Jesus (if he existed) was probably a great man and probably did great things, many of which are probably recorded in the Bible, probably inaccurately. But the Bible cannot be taken as exact truth.

There are just too many coincidences and similarities between the "divinity" of Jesus and others to consider its anything but taken from older religions and older ideas.

Look at our own Saint Brigid, look how we took a pagan goddess and made her our own.

philologos

monosharp wrote: »

Source ? I've looked and the earliest mention of him I can find was written 70 years after his death.

Wikipedia wrote:

First Epistle to the Corinthians
The letter was written during this time in Ephesus, which is usually dated as being in the range of 53 to 57 AD

monosharp wrote:

70 years, and the gospel of Mark is technically anonymous.

70AD was when Marks Gospel was written. Christ Himself was crucified in 36AD. So roughly 30 years after Christ had ascended to heaven.

Pompey Magnus

monosharp wrote: »

Source ? I've looked and the earliest mention of him I can find was written 70 years after his death.



70 years, and the gospel of Mark is technically anonymous.

Jakkass is correct, St Paul was converted to Christianity between 32-36 AD and wrote his epistles well before the Gospels. Mark was probably written around about 70 AD.

Jakkass wrote:

Christ Himself was crucified in 36AD

Not if he was born before the death of Herod the Great in 4 BC and died at age 33.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

Paul wrote of Jesus less than 20 years after Christ died.

What ever ones religious beliefs Paul is not a historical source for Jesus. He never met him, he only met people who claimed to have met him. He is at best a secondary source for Jesus, and a primary source for the early Christian Church.

BrianCalgary

Wicknight wrote: »

What ever ones religious beliefs Paul is not a historical source for Jesus. He never met him, he only met people who claimed to have met him. He is at best a secondary source for Jesus, and a primary source for the early Christian Church.

He did meet Him, on the road to Damascus.

BrianCalgary

monosharp wrote: »

To think that 2,000 years ago, years after the guy died, all these different texts were written (by who knows who), some completely contradicting others then a small handful of these texts, some of which also still contradict eachother are put into a book and this is supposed to be the word of God ? Thats outlandish. .

If there were contradictions in the text, you would have a point.

monosharp wrote: »

Then add in the fact that theres any number of similarities in these gospels with other older religions and you should only come to the conclusion that the bible can no more be considered Gods word or an accurate description of Jesus's life anymore then Lord of the Rings. .

Sorry this argument doesn't wash. Of course there are similarities. Satan has always told half truths in order to yank people away from what is truth.

monosharp wrote: »

Jesus (if he existed) was probably a great man and probably did great things, many of which are probably recorded in the Bible, probably inaccurately. But the Bible cannot be taken as exact truth..

If he existed? now you are showing your complete ignorance of history. There is no question that a man called Jesus of Nazareth existed in the time in question. Why do yoy say that the events are recrded inaccurately? What evidence do you have to refute the events?

monosharp wrote: »

There are just too many coincidences and similarities between the "divinity" of Jesus and others to consider its anything but taken from older religions and older ideas. ..

Such as?

monosharp wrote: »

Look at our own Saint Brigid, look how we took a pagan goddess and made her our own.

Did she rise form the dead and fulfill all the OT prophecies of someone special? Whi is St Brigid?

monosharp

BrianCalgary wrote: »

If there were contradictions in the text, you would have a point.

..... how can you say that ??

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_consistency_and_the_Bible#The_Gospels

GE 2:17 Adam was to die the very day that he ate the forbidden fruit.
GE 5:5 Adam lived 930 years.

GE 6:19-22, 7:8-9, 7:14-16 Two of each kind are to be taken, and are taken, aboard Noah's Ark.
GE 7:2-5 Seven pairs of some kinds are to be taken (and are taken) aboard the Ark.

GE 10:5, 20, 31 There were many languages before the Tower of Babel.
GE 11:1 There was only one language before the Tower of Babel.

etc etc etc etc

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/inconsistencies.html

Sorry this argument doesn't wash. Of course there are similarities. Satan has always told half truths in order to yank people away from what is truth.

So worship of Horus etc was the work of the devil ? Worship of Buddha was the work of the Devil ? Worship of Krishna was the work of the Devil ?

If he existed? now you are showing your complete ignorance of history. There is no question that a man called Jesus of Nazareth existed in the time in question.

There is no hard proof that someone called Jesus of Nazareth existed at all. Unless you go only by Christian sources. There's not a single non-Christian source.

Why do yoy say that the events are recrded inaccurately? What evidence do you have to refute the events?

The evidence that you could substitute Jesus for Horus or any number of other pre-Christian "Gods" and the only significant difference would be the names involved.

Such as?

Watch the video link I provided.

Or this one. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICo9JMkJBKw&feature=related

Or ...

Conception:
- Horus -> By a virgin. (some doubt but its mostly accepted as being by a virgin)
- Jesus -> By a virgin.
Father:
- Horus -> Only begotten son of the God Osiris.
- Jesus -> Only begotten son of Yehovah
Mother:
Horus: Miri
Jesus: Miriam
Foster father:
- Horus -> Sep (Jo-seph)
- Jesus -> Joseph
Foster father's ancestry:
- Horus -> Of Royal descent
- Jesus -> Of Royal descent
Annunciation:
- Horus -> By an angel to Isis, his mother.
- Jesus -> By an angel to Miriam, his mother.
Birth heralded by:
Horus -> The star Sirius, the morning star.
Jesus -> An unidentified "star in the East."
Birth date:
- Horus -> Ancient Egyptians paraded a manger and child representing Horus through the streets at the time of the winter solstice (typically DEC-21).
- Jesus -> Celebrated on DEC-25. The date was chosen to occur on the same date as the birth of Mithra, Dionysus and the Sol Invictus (unconquerable Sun), etc.
Birth witnesses:
- Horus -> Shepherds
- Jesus -> Shepherds
Later witnesses to birth:
- Horus -> Three Solar deities
- Jesus -> Three wise men
Age at rite of passage ritual:
- Horus -> 12
- Jesus -> 12
Break in life history:
- Horus -> No data between ages of 12 & 30
- Jesus -> No data between ages of 12 & 30
Baptism location:
- Horus -> River (Eridanus)
- Jesus -> River (Jordan)
Age at baptism:
- Horus -> 30
- Jesus -> 30
Baptized by:
- Horus ->Anup the Baptiser.
- Jesus -> John the baptist
Fate of Baptiser:
- Horus ->Beheaded
- Jesus -> Beheaded
Temptation:
- Horus -> Taken from the desert of Amenta up a high mountain by his arch-rival Sut. Sut (a.k.a. Set) was a precursor for the Hebrew Satan
- Jesus -> Taken from the desert in Palestine up a high mountain by his arch-rival Satan.
Result of temptation:
- Horus -> Resists temptation
- Jesus -> Resists temptation
Close followers:
- Horus -> 12 disciples (some doubt)
- Jesus -> 12 disciples
Activities:
- Horus -> Walked on water, cast out demons, healed the sick, restored sight to the blind. He "stilled the sea by his power."
- Jesus -> Walked on water, cast out demons, healed the sick, restored sight to the blind. He ordered the sea with a "Peace, be still" command.
Transfigured:
- Horus -> Mountain
- Jesus -> Mountain
Method of death
- Horus -> By crucifixion.
- Jesus -> By crucifixion.
Accompanied by:
- Horus -> 2 thieves
- Jesus -> 2 thieves
Burial
- Horus -> tomb
- Jesus -> tomb
Fate after death:
- Horus -> Descended into Hell; resurrected after three days.
- Jesus -> Descended into Hell; resurrected after about 30 to 38 hours (Friday PM to presumably some time in Sunday AM) covering parts of three days.
Resurrection announced by:
- Horus -> Women
- Jesus -> Women
etc

Characteristics of Horus:
Nature" Regarded as a mythical character.
Main role: Savior of humanity.
Status: God-man.
Common portrayal: Virgin Isis holding the infant Horus.
Title: KRST, the anointed one.
Other names: The good shepherd, the lamb of God, the bread of life, the son of man, the Word, the fisher, the winnower.
Zodiac sign: Associated with Pisces, the fish.
Main symbols: Fish, beetle, the vine, shepherd's crook.

Characteristics of Jesus:
Nature" Regarded as a 1st century CE human man-god.
Main role: Savior of humanity.
Status: God-man.
Common portrayal: Virgin Mary holding the infant Jesus.
Title: Christ the anointed one.
Other names: The good shepherd, the lamb of God, the bread of life, the son of man, the Word, the fisher, the winnower.
Zodiac sign: Associated with Pisces, the fish.
Main symbols: Fish, beetle, the vine, shepherd's crook.

And thats just Horus.

Did she rise form the dead and fulfill all the OT prophecies of someone special? Whi is St Brigid?

huh ?

Fanny Cradock

Even at a casual glance somebody with a smattering of Biblical knowledge will notice that a couple of bogus claims.

*There is no mention in the Bible of how many 'wise men' visited Jesus;
*There is no mention of 25th December in the Bible.

If those two howlers don't tweak your suspicions as to the veracity of the other claims then you should probably just declare the Zeitgeist Movie the best film ever made and leave it at that.

The parallel claims that you copied and pasted have also been copied and pasted on these forums at least once before. It grows tiresome to see the same text regurgitated all over the internerd and with so little in the way of supporting evidence. Anywho, see halfway down this thread if you are interested in an alternative view to the claims you believe. Also, look at this site for a much more in-depth discussion.

::Edit::

I just had a look at that last link you provided. Some guy repeating the same claims in your above post without any expansion or analysis now counts as a critique on the origins of Christianity? I wonder if he also copied from the same site as you

monosharp

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Even at a casual glance somebody with a smattering of Biblical knowledge will notice that a couple of bogus claims.

*There is no mention in the Bible of how many 'wise men' visited Jesus;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_Magi wrote:

Because three gifts were recorded, there are traditionally said to have been three Magi, though Matthew does not specify the number

Which is the problem, the Bible like any religious document is a smattering of half, truths, complete lies and the writers very biased personal opinion.

*There is no mention of 25th December in the Bible.

Did you read what I posted ? because I never claimed Horus was born on Dec 25th, he was born on Dec 21.

The fact that they are both in late Dec/early Jan is a strong argument that both were related to the movements of the Sun. i.e > the Sun "Dies" in Dec and is reborn for the year.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_Jesus wrote:

The nativity accounts in the New Testament gospels of Matthew and Luke do not mention a date or time of year for the birth of Jesus. In Western Christianity, it has been traditionally celebrated on December 25 as Christmas (in the liturgical season of Christmastide), a date that can be traced as early as 330 among Roman Christians. Before then, Jesus' birth was generally celebrated on January 6 as part of the feast of Theophany,[10] also known as Epiphany, which commemorated not only Jesus' birth but also his baptism by John in the Jordan River and possibly additional events in Jesus' life. (Many today in Eastern Christianity celebrate Christmas on January 7 because they continue to use the Julian calendar, in which December 25 corresponds to January 7 on the Gregorian calendar now in common usage.) Some scholars note that Luke's descriptions of shepherds' activities at the time of Jesus' birth suggest a spring or summer date.[11] Some scholars[specify] speculate that the December 25th date of the celebration derived from a Christian opposition to or absorption of the cult of the unconquered sun (Sol Invictus) promoted by Roman emperors in the third century in their efforts to establish a new imperial religion. The pope, Benedict XVI, has challenged this theory, arguing that a December 25th date was determined simply by calculating nine months beyond March 25th, regarded as the day of Jesus’ conception (the Feast of the Annunciation).

If those two howlers don't tweak your suspicions as to the veracity of the other claims then you should probably just declare the Zeitgeist Movie the best film ever made and leave it at that.

Never seen that movie but you proved nothing I said wrong. I never said 3 wise men visited Horus, I said 3 deities. I did say 3 wise men visited Jesus because thats whats generally accepted and a number is not specified.

The parallel claims that you copied and pasted have also been copied and pasted on these forums at least once before. It grows tiresome to see the same text regurgitated all over the internerd and with so little in the way of supporting evidence.

I'm not saying that Jesus's story is taken from Horus's exactly, I'm saying that a virgin birth (and there is controversary about horus's virgin birth), date of birth, age when teaching (12) age when baptised (30), the names they were both known as, their method of death etc etc. That all these are signs that became "mystical" somehow in the past and were put into the Jesus story.

Pompey Magnus

The original youtube links were from Zeitgeist. To be honest I think your best bet would be to take the movie like you would take religion, mostly misleading and half truths but perhaps at a basic level some underlying truth to it. I don't believe the religions listed there were half as "spot on" similar to Christianity as made out but I do believe that certain concepts such as resurrection and virgin births were common to older religions than Christianity and could well have been the basic building blocks for the Christian story.

Even the early Christians like Justin Martyr were concerned by some of the basic similarities, they had the luxury of believing the Devil was at work but neutral observers have to come up with a more earthly solution to these coincidences.

monosharp

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

The original youtube links were from Zeitgeist. To be honest I think your best bet would be to take the movie like you would take religion, mostly misleading and half truths but perhaps at a basic level some underlying truth to it.

ah right, I didn't know the youtube video was taken from a movie.

I don't believe the religions listed there were half as "spot on" similar to Christianity as made out but I do believe that certain concepts such as resurrection and virgin births were common to older religions than Christianity and could well have been the basic building blocks for the Christian story.

Yeah i don't believe I said I believed the movie 100% and I know some parts of it are very debateable. But the parts that aren't are more then enough for a lot of interesting thought on the subject.

I'm speaking as someone who really never believed the literal truth of the bible. Virgin births, walking on water, healing the sick, blah blah blah blah.

Absolutely none of that is necessary to get the core, good message across. And I believe these man-made parts of the bible and christianity in general is whats wrong with christianity.

Actually maybe this is off topic but I'm going to explain why I'm moving away from Christianity and why this video and the Jesus/Horus link trying to prove that a lot of the bible is bs is of interest to me, actually scrap that, Ive already moved away from Christianity.

You have complete lunatics in how many parts of the world who believe the literal truth of the bible doing terrible things in the name of God and the bible. Jesus taught love, pace, kindness and yet how many Christians practice these beliefs moreso then the "We're right, your wrong" ones.

I don't know about you but growing up as a Catholic in my place, there was no emphasis put on loving thy neighbour, kindess etc and every emphasis put on things like singing gods praise, not using condoms because it was a sin, getting baptised or you were gowing to hell etc etc etc.

What was Jesus' stance on abortion ? on condoms ? on other religions ?
Where in the bible does Jesus say sing about and pray to God all day and you've got your ticket into heaven.

I'm in Korea at the moment and at present this country has something like 25% christian, 25% buddhist and 50% atheist. For the past 20 years+ the christian lunatics (American fundamentalist christian types) here have being damaging buddhist temples, damaging statues etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Buddhism#Current_situation wrote:

There was also a rash of temple burnings in the 1980's and 1990's, and attacks on Buddhist artwork have continued. In one instance, a Christian minister used a microphone on a cord as a bolo weapon and smashed temple paintings and a statue. In other instances, red crosses have been painted on temple walls, murals, and statues. Buddha statues have also been decapitated. See Frank Tedesco's "Questions for Buddhist and Christian Cooperation in Korea," Buddhist-Christian Studies 17 (1997).

Furthermore, students at Buddhist universities report aggressive attempts to convert them to Christianity on campus, especially near campus temples.

I have seen and heard and experienced more hatred and anti-someone or something from christians then I've ever heard or seen or experienced pro-something good.

You know that Jesus' teachings and Buddhas' teachings are very very similiar.

Yet any Christian I've ever met is "Your wrong, I'm right, your going to hell, your religion is wrong". Any buddhist I meet "oh your catholic ? thats interesting."

I have had really long conversations with buddhists here who were actually interested in learning about Catholicism and I'd get responces like "Oh Jesus was a wise man. He must have being very enlightened".

You try (and I have) mentioning buddhism to christians here (Korea) and you'll get a "I'm not interested, I'm Christian".

To summarise my experiences here.

If your not a Buddhist, the Buddhist does not care, he will treat you no differently, he doesn't believe your wrong, he doesn't believe your off to hell. The buddhist doesn't care about converting you.

If your not a christian, the christian really cares, he will treat you differently, he does believe you are wrong and he does believe your off to hell. He'll most likely try to convert you.

PDN

monosharp wrote: »

If your not a Buddhist, the Buddhist does not care, he will treat you no differently, he doesn't believe your wrong, he doesn't believe your off to hell. The buddhist doesn't care about converting you.

If your not a christian, the christian really cares, he will treat you differently, he does believe you are wrong and he does believe your off to hell. He'll most likely try to convert you.

The fact is that there are people who claim to be Buddhists who attack Christians and vice versa. In Bhutan, for example, the official religion is Buddhism and Christianity is forcibly suppressed - this includes arrest, imprisonment and the burning of churches.

Similarly, in Sri Lanka Christians are attacked by Buddhist mobs led by Buddhist monks. http://www.tamilnet.com/art.html?catid=79&artid=20555

You get intolerant and violent people everywhere. They can do this in the name of Christianity, in the name of Islam, or in the name of Buddhism.

monosharp

PDN wrote: »

The fact is that there are people who claim to be Buddhists who attack Christians and vice versa. In Bhutan, for example, the official religion is Buddhism and Christianity is forcibly suppressed - this includes arrest, imprisonment and the burning of churches.

Ok first of all. I said, and I quote

Monosharp wrote:

To summarise my experiences here.

If your not a Buddhist, the Buddhist does not care, he will treat you no differently, he doesn't believe your wrong, he doesn't believe your off to hell. The buddhist doesn't care about converting you.

If your not a christian, the christian really cares, he will treat you differently, he does believe you are wrong and he does believe your off to hell. He'll most likely try to convert you.

I am talking about my experiences here (Korea). I'm perfectly aware that there are extremists in every religion, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism etc etc.

But the number in Buddhism in particular comes nowhere near to the level in Christianity and as far as I'm aware theres nowhere in the world where Buddhists are anti-religion specifically because of religion. Its almost always mixed with politics or other factors whereas with Christians to name one, you see it everywhere all the time.

They can be anti-someone else specifically because of religion.

Secondly your ignoring the fact its intrinsically linked to politics in Bhutan and its the government and government officials that are doing this.

You might as well say that Catholics are attacking protestants and vice versa in Northern Ireland only because of religion and completely ignore the politics.

Similarly, in Sri Lanka Christians are attacked by Buddhist mobs led by Buddhist monks. http://www.tamilnet.com/art.html?catid=79&artid=20555

In the very article you link to it states that its because of a mixture of religion, politics and nationalism.

And ....

http://www.tamilnation.org/conferences/cnfUK88/brian.htm wrote:

The colonial rulers and in particular the Christian missionaries, have played more than a minimal role in the intransigent attitude of the Buddhist clergy. It is not widely known that when the Christian missionaries arrived in Sri Lanka, they were welcomed by the Buddhist clergy in the true spirit of Buddhist tolerance in the belief that one religion is as good as another. In fact, it was the Buddhist clergy who assisted in the translation of the Bible into Sinhala. It was when insensitive missionaries with a colonial attitude denounced Buddhism as paganism and took unjustifiable steps to almost compel the inhabitants to abandon their Native' religion by offering selective advantages in education and job opportunities to converts, that problems arose. The promotion of Christianity at the expense of Buddhism and active suppression of Buddhism resulted in an understandable hostile reaction of the Buddhist clergy.

You get intolerant and violent people everywhere. They can do this in the name of Christianity, in the name of Islam, or in the name of Buddhism.

They can do it in the name of it but do they do it only for it ?

In both instances you quoted its not because of religion alone, religion is only a factor in determining ones political/nationalistic stance.

What I was stating was my experiences here in Korea. I've met Christians and Buddhists and the Christians were anti-Buddhist simply because they were Buddhist, the Buddhists weren't anti-anyone.

It may not be too long before it changes here too because the Christians are doing the same thing they did in Sri Lanka. A lot of the best Universities won't admit non-Christians. My current employer doesn't hire non-Christians and this is not uncommon from what I've heard.

philologos

monosharp wrote:

In both instances you quoted its not because of religion alone, religion is only a factor in determining ones political/nationalistic stance.

You can say the same about most wars that were (wrongfully) put in the name of religion, when actually another motive was the cause.

BrianCalgary

monosharp wrote: »

To summarise my experiences here.

If your not a Buddhist, the Buddhist does not care, he will treat you no differently, he doesn't believe your wrong, he doesn't believe your off to hell. The buddhist doesn't care about converting you.

If your not a christian, the christian really cares, he will treat you differently, he does believe you are wrong and he does believe your off to hell. He'll most likely try to convert you.

Do you not find your observations interesting: the Buddhist doesn't care, the Christian does care?

monosharp

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Do you not find your observations interesting: the Buddhist doesn't care, the Christian does care?

Ah I get you.

The Christian cares so they want to save my soul whereas the Buddhist does not ?

Let me ask you. Do you believe that people should be allowed to practice whatever religion they wish without interference or that people should be "shown" the light and "right" religion of Christianity ?

I don't mean shown by forced means, but the usual trying to convert people crap I have to put up with at least twice a month here.

JACKASS wrote:

You can say the same about most wars that were (wrongfully) put in the name of religion, when actually another motive was the cause.

Yes you can, but it wasn't my point and it wasn't my argument.

My argument was that when only religion is taken into account, religion, solely. That Christians firmly believe they are right, everyone else is wrong and people should be converted. Whereas Buddhists respect everyone else like no other religion worldwide does.

PDN

monosharp wrote: »

Ah I get you.

The Christian cares so they want to save my soul whereas the Buddhist does not ?

Let me ask you. Do you believe that people should be allowed to practice whatever religion they wish without interference or that people should be "shown" the light and "right" religion of Christianity ?

I don't mean shown by forced means, but the usual trying to convert people crap I have to put up with at least twice a month here.

We should have the right to say 'No, thank you.' when others try to convert us to anything (be it religion, politics or drinking Coke instead of Pepsi). Others should respect us when we say "No, thank you' and drop the subject.

However, equally we should have the right to talk to others about our beliefs and, if they are willing to discuss the matter with us, to present our views as convincingly as we can.

Basic human rights.

To enforce others to convert is a denial of human rights.

To prevent people from peaceably attempting to convert others is also a denial of human rights.

philologos

monosharp wrote: »

My argument was that when only religion is taken into account, religion, solely. That Christians firmly believe they are right, everyone else is wrong and people should be converted. Whereas Buddhists respect everyone else like no other religion worldwide does.

Actually Judaism doesn't evangelize. But can't you see a logical flaw. If something is true, you preach it. You don't selfishly keep it to yourself. Christianity is something to be shared to all mankind, and that sharing is not negative.

monosharp

PDN wrote: »

We should have the right to say 'No, thank you.' when others try to convert us to anything (be it religion, politics or drinking Coke instead of Pepsi). Others should respect us when we say "No, thank you' and drop the subject.

However, equally we should have the right to talk to others about our beliefs and, if they are willing to discuss the matter with us, to present our views as convincingly as we can.

Ok let me explain my situation and ask is this right in your opinion.

I live in a very big city and to say theres a lot of Christian churches around .... well .... its a bit of an understatement. I can literally see 20-30 churches when I look out my window. I am not kidding.

Now at least twice a month I get a knock on my door, some speak English, some don't but they all are trying to talk to me about Jesus and why I should join their church.

Ok I say, these people, while being really annoying in frequency are very very polite, genuine and nice.

But equally I get it maybe once a month on the street.Someone will just randomly ask me something "Oh hey dude your a foreigner. (we're rare here)" or "Hey how are you ? do you work around here ? Wanna meet my friend Jesus ?".

Ok these people are usually just as polite and nice about it.

I realise they have the best of intentions, i.e > save me from a lifetime of fire, brimstone and etc etc. But honestly, no matter how nice they are, no matter how casual they are, the sheer frequency of it is starting to drive me insane and I don't even speak the same language as most of them. Just last month I had two gorgeous young women come to my door and rant on to me in Korean even after I told them I didn't speak korean and trying to hand me Christian magazines. (they asked in english but i assume thats all they knew since they proceeded in korean).

Then you have the buddhists. I see the monks on the street all the time, they never try to convert anyone. If you ask them something they'll talk away to you all day. They'll never say religion X is wrong/bad/evil, they'll actually talk and listen to you about anything.

They are the most tolerant people I have ever met. Perhaps its because Buddhism is as much a philosophy or maybe more a philosophy than a religion.

Basic human rights.

To enforce others to convert is a denial of human rights.

Ok so what about incentives ?

i.e > Universities only accepting people of religion x ?

To prevent people from peaceably attempting to convert others is also a denial of human rights.

And yet the majority of Christians I have met (here) honestly have an active dislike of anything and anyone else.

Its not my experiences at home but here.

Christians = Completely intolerant
Buddhism = The definition of the word tolerance.

monosharp

Jakkass wrote: »

Actually Judaism doesn't evangelize. But can't you see a logical flaw. If something is true, you preach it. You don't selfishly keep it to yourself. Christianity is something to be shared to all mankind, and that sharing is not negative.

But man ...

The majority of christians here are completely intolerant of other religions, is that preaching the truth ? because you believe everyone else is wrong and they should be scorned/looked down on/wiped out because of that ?

You have Christians who actively defile other religions temples here.

Wikipedia -> South Korean Buddhists are persecuted by Christians. Recently Christians are destroying temples, statues of the Buddha, praying for the destruction of all Buddhist temples, and persecuting Buddhist monks.

And this is NOT a poor third world country, this is one of the richest in the world.

Christians among many religions treat others with disdain, they are so intolerant that it goes completely against their own teachings, imo it goes against their own teachings anyways.

philologos

monosharp wrote: »

The majority of christians here are completely intolerant of other religions, is that preaching the truth ? because you believe everyone else is wrong and they should be scorned/looked down on/wiped out because of that ?

That's not true either. I see an element of truth in other religions, even Buddhism and some of the Dharmic religions. However I believe that Christianity is the most true. I do not hate or despise anyone for their religious affiliations though. I'd like to know how you think the majority of Christians are intolerant?

Preaching the truth doesn't mean that we should or have to attack the property of other religions, and people who do this are infact a minority, and they are disregarding Christ's teachings.

monosharp wrote:

You have Christians who actively defile other religions temples here.

Wikipedia -> South Korean Buddhists are persecuted by Christians. Recently Christians are destroying temples, statues of the Buddha, praying for the destruction of all Buddhist temples, and persecuting Buddhist monks.

This isn't just Christianity, and I don't see why I have to apologise for those people.

And this is NOT a poor third world country, this is one of the richest in the world.

Christians among many religions treat others with disdain, they are so intolerant that it goes completely against their own teachings, imo it goes against their own teachings anyways.

Yes, all Christians, all of us. :rolleyes:

I don't think this is even worthy of discussion if you are on the Christian forum saying that we are to blame for this that and the other. The good of Christianity outweigh what unchristian things that people do in the name of Christ (you only have to look to the range of missionaries, and people setting up AID's hospitals, and curing leprosy with the Leprosy Mission.

monosharp wrote:

And yet the majority of Christians I have met (here) honestly have an active dislike of anything and anyone else.

I don't know where you've got this from. However I think it's important to suggest that just because you find your religion to be more true than others doesn't mean that it is an active dislike. I actually find a lot of Judaism and Islam in particular to be very interesting.

Fanny Cradock

monosharp wrote: »

Which is the problem, the Bible like any religious document is a smattering of half, truths, complete lies and the writers very biased personal opinion.

Don't sugar coat it! Tell us what you really think

monosharp wrote: »

Did you read what I posted ? because I never claimed Horus was born on Dec 25th, he was born on Dec 21.

The fact that they are both in late Dec/early Jan is a strong argument that both were related to the movements of the Sun. i.e > the Sun "Dies" in Dec and is reborn for the year.

I glanced through your post.

Anyway, I never stated that you believed Horus was born on the 25th December. I did mention that the 25th of December is a date not mentioned in the Bible and therefore of no particular significance to Christianity. The fact that Christianity adopted the 25th of December in latter years (sometime in the 3rd Cent., I believe) is hardly a revelation. Indeed, it's largely accepted that this was done as a matter of convenience.

monosharp wrote: »

Never seen that movie but you proved nothing I said wrong. I never said 3 wise men visited Horus, I said 3 deities. I did say 3 wise men visited Jesus because thats whats generally accepted and a number is not specified.

Well, if you are attempting to draw parallels between Jesus and Horus it seems rather disingenuous to be mentioning a misconception that is generally accepted and not the actual facts.

I gather that you didn't read the links I provided (don't blame you ); they both discuss Horus' method of death (if there was one). If you delve a little further into this you will find more, eh, inconsistencies.

I see the discussion has move on light years from the original topic! So maybe we'll leave Horus there for the moment

monosharp

Jakkass wrote: »

That's not true either. I see an element of truth in other religions, even Buddhism and some of the Dharmic religions. However I believe that Christianity is the most true. I do not hate or despise anyone for their religious affiliations though. I'd like to know how you think the majority of Christians are intolerant?

Because the majority of Christians I have met are intolerant. Remember I'm technically still Catholic from a Catholic family from a predominately Catholic Country.

The reason I believe this is, to be a Christian or a Jew or a Muslim you must automatically believe that everything else is wrong. Its part of the religion itself to see itself as the only truth.

Maybe I'm completely wrong but can a Christian believe a Muslim or a Hindu is right as well as being a Christian himself ?

Preaching the truth doesn't mean that we should or have to attack the property of other religions, and people who do this are infact a minority, and they are disregarding Christ's teachings.

Must full heartedly agreed.

This isn't just Christianity, and I don't see why I have to apologise for those people.

I didn't ask you to.

Yes, all Christians, all of us. :rolleyes:

Ah now come on you know I didn't mean that.

I should apologise, I think I started ranting 2 or 3 posts ago and lost sight of what I was trying to discuss as well as not getting what I meant across.

What I'm trying to say is this.

To be a Christian, a Muslim, a Jew etc its more or less a given that you consider the others wrong and they should be shown the light or they're going to be in for a nasty shock when they die. (Am I wrong ?)

This kind of attitude breeds intolerance and extremism.

I know many many people can be Christian, Jewish etc and just simply accept it and accept the fate of others when they are "wrong".

But it still breeds this idea of "we're right". Which, no matter how peacefully practised is still a bad thing in my opinion.

Again, I am apologising for some of my earlier comments.

Jakkass

Jakkass wrote:

I'd like to know how you think the majority of Christians are intolerant?

He said "here", referring to his experiences in Korea, not all christians everywhere

PDN

monosharp wrote: »

Ok let me explain my situation and ask is this right in your opinion.

Is it right that you live in a city where there a lot of Christians, and that those Christians often try to share their faith with you but in a way that you yourself describe as nice, genuine and polite?

Sounds fine to me. If I lived in a place where the majority were atheists, or Muslims, I would expect that, as a minority, I would get drawn into lots of discussions.

In fact, as an evangelical Christian who moved to County Louth in the 1990s, I found that the majority (Catholic) often wanted to talk to me about our differences. Unfortunately, while perhaps genuine, they were frequently not polite or nice to me.

Ok so what about incentives ?

i.e > Universities only accepting people of religion x ?

That would sound wrong to me if it is a publicly funded university. However, if it is privately funded (maybe even set up through the sacrificial giving of believers who saw a need for a Christian University) then I wouldn't see a problem in a selective admission procedure.

And yet the majority of Christians I have met (here) honestly have an active dislike of anything and anyone else.

Its not my experiences at home but here.

Christians = Completely intolerant
Buddhism = The definition of the word tolerance.

I'm sorry to hear that, but as you say it seems to be a specific Korean problem. Also, not all Buddhists are as tolerant as those you are encountering in Korea.

Just another thought. You seem to be comparing Buddhist monks with everyday Christians you meet. Is that comparing like with like? Maybe it would be fairer to talk to some Christian clergy who would provide more of a comparison with a monk?

monosharp

PDN wrote: »

Is it right that you live in a city where there a lot of Christians, and that those Christians often try to share their faith with you but in a way that you yourself describe as nice, genuine and polite?

Sounds fine to me. If I lived in a place where the majority were atheists, or Muslims, I would expect that, as a minority, I would get drawn into lots of discussions.

Let me explain something to you.

I'm living in a country where 1/4 are Christian and 1/4 are Buddhist and the rest are Atheist.

I WANT to learn about Buddhism and I find it hard here.
I DON'T want to learn about Christianity and I find it hard to avoid it here.

Honestly I do realise these people have the best intentions at heart but ...

Alright let me try explain again.

Whenever I do talk to a Buddhist person, they couldn't care less about converting me, they're more then willing to talk and answer questions about anything but they don't think I'm in for a fiery death if I don't join them and they respect your religion and your choice. Its not even an issue at all.

But with a Christian its almost the opposite. The do care about converting you (good intentions) and they're more then willing to talk and answer questions about Christianity but mention Buddhism or something else to them and they seem to HAVE to get in a comment putting down that religion. Its automatic no matter how nice and polite they are, it almost always happens. They may act like they respect your choice and your religion but deep down they "know" your wrong and you just need to be convinced and if you can;t be convinced then your doomed.

That would sound wrong to me if it is a publicly funded university. However, if it is privately funded (maybe even set up through the sacrificial giving of believers who saw a need for a Christian University) then I wouldn't see a problem in a selective admission procedure.

Right so.

It isn't state funded as far as I'm aware but. I have friends here who had to pay Christian ministers money to sign off on them being lifelong Christians in his flock just so they could go to these Universities because some of the Christian Universities are, quite simply the best and they won't accept non-Christians.

That's not right.

I don't know if it works the other way around for all Buddhist Universities but I do know that at least one (one of the biggest/best) accepts anyone regardless of religion. Although if the Christians go there they have to put up with a big statue of Buddha in the middle of the place and an extremely old temple.

I'm sorry to hear that, but as you say it seems to be a specific Korean problem.

There was plenty of it in Ireland too. Most of the older people around my area consider anything that's not at least Christian to be wrong, just wrong. Even being protestant is fairly dodgy.

Also, not all Buddhists are as tolerant as those you are encountering in Korea.

Perhaps your correct but....

Christianity -> Believes and preaches that if your not Christian, your wrong. Claims to be the only path to salvation.
Buddhism -> Believes and preaches tolerance and respect to everyone regardless. Doesn't claim to be the only path.

I realise there are extremists everywhere in everything including Buddhism but I find it extremely unlikely that Buddhist intolerance would even register beside others.

Just another thought. You seem to be comparing Buddhist monks with everyday Christians you meet. Is that comparing like with like? Maybe it would be fairer to talk to some Christian clergy who would provide more of a comparison with a monk?

No man, I was comparing Buddhists, both Monks and people with Christians . I've only met a couple of Christian ministers here who I am not going to talk about because I would not even want to try and link them to Christianity. Completely intolerant and seemed more like businessmen then priests/ministers.

I WANT to learn about Buddhism and I find it hard here.
I DON'T want to learn about Christianity and I find it hard to avoid it here.

Eh... if the buddhists were trying to convert you, would you mind then?
It seems a little like your starting attitude puts how you view the people of different religions in a different light already?

monosharp

bluewolf wrote: »

Eh... if the buddhists were trying to convert you, would you mind then?
It seems a little like your starting attitude puts how you view the people of different religions in a different light already?

That's a good question. I don't know how I'd feel to be honest.

I don't really understand your second point. I don't have any anti-Christian views, I used to be Christian, technically still am I suppose.

philologos

monosharp wrote: »

Because the majority of Christians I have met are intolerant. Remember I'm technically still Catholic from a Catholic family from a predominately Catholic Country.

The reason I believe this is, to be a Christian or a Jew or a Muslim you must automatically believe that everything else is wrong. Its part of the religion itself to see itself as the only truth.

Maybe I'm completely wrong but can a Christian believe a Muslim or a Hindu is right as well as being a Christian himself ?

I accept that elements of Hinduism, Buddhism and almost every world faith contain elements of the truth, however Christianity is most accurate.

I think you've made up your mind that you aren't truly a Catholic inside. Mind you I'm not of Catholicism so perhaps it isn't my place to say who or who is not a Catholic inside. But I hope you do continue to search for what is true.

Just noting from what you said earlier:

monosharp wrote:

Yet any Christian I've ever met is "Your wrong, I'm right, your going to hell, your religion is wrong". Any buddhist I meet "oh your catholic ? thats interesting."

It's not my place to say who is or who is not going to hell. It's not the correct way to bring anyone to a religion either. You need to be concerned to what Jesus CAN do for your life, and the positive implications of Christianity.

monosharp

monosharp wrote: »

That's a good question. I don't know how I'd feel to be honest.

I don't really understand your second point. I don't have any anti-Christian views, I used to be Christian, technically still am I suppose.

I'm just saying since you're starting off with the attitude of wanting to learn about one and not the other, you might be less patient with the other.

BrianCalgary

monosharp wrote: »

Ah I get you.

The Christian cares so they want to save my soul whereas the Buddhist does not ?

Let me ask you. Do you believe that people should be allowed to practice whatever religion they wish without interference or that people should be "shown" the light and "right" religion of Christianity ?

I don't mean shown by forced means, but the usual trying to convert people crap I have to put up with at least twice a month here.

Yes people shpuld be allowed to practice any religion they desire, as long as it doesnt infringe on th ewellbeing of others.

In the same breath I invite anyone of any religion to come and try and convert me. I have no problem with that. I also have the right to speak my faith with gentleness and respect and people have the right to say 'no thanks'.

monosharp wrote: »

Yes you can, but it wasn't my point and it wasn't my argument.

My argument was that when only religion is taken into account, religion, solely. That Christians firmly believe they are right, everyone else is wrong and people should be converted. Whereas Buddhists respect everyone else like no other religion worldwide does.

I would beg to differ on Buddhists being the perfect angels that you claim. Take a peek at Tibet and their treatment of Christians.

Lockstep

monosharp wrote: »

Because the majority of Christians I have met are intolerant.

Inductive reasoning=bad

Húrin

monosharp wrote: »

First of all, mod if you feel this shouldn't be here then please move it to the atheist forum.

I'm posting it here because I'm not an atheist (I'm catholic) and I'd honestly like christian opinions on this but if it must be moved then so be it.

I was just randomly web surfing and came across this, all religions are derived from worship of the sun theory and thought I'd have a read into it. Anyways, I ended up reading about and watching a short movie on youtube about it.

I've seen it, it's rubbish. Krishna was the eight child of his mother, for instance. Not the son of a virgin.

Húrin

BrianCalgary wrote: »

I would beg to differ on Buddhists being the perfect angels that you claim. Take a peek at Tibet and their treatment of Christians.

Westerners have an embarrassing habit of putting Buddhism up on a pedestal. It's easy when you're ignorant.

monosharp

Húrin wrote: »

Westerners have an embarrassing habit of putting Buddhism up on a pedestal. It's easy when you're ignorant.

I'm ignorant of Buddhism because I'm a westerner ? Or are you saying I'm just ignorant.

PDN

BrianCalgary wrote: »

I would beg to differ on Buddhists being the perfect angels that you claim. Take a peek at Tibet and their treatment of Christians.

The fact is that history records bad people who were professing Buddhists and bad people who were professing Christians.

It is true that in the West we are more familiar with the Crusades etc, yet we are largely uninformed about the role that Zen Buddhism played in shaping Japanese militarism and fascism leading up to WWII. The sad truth is that churchgoing Germans were present at Nazi deathcamps and practicing Buddhists participated in the torture and slaughter of the Rape of Nanking. All of us live in glass houses and so should be reluctant to throw stones.