Genuine honest question

monosharp

Right.

I am not anti-religion per say, I am also not an atheist per say.

In fact I do feel like I would benefit from some spirituality in my life and I am truely looking for it, but here are my problems.

Christianity

- I cannot accept the Bible as fact, I just can't. I couldn't even lie to myself and pretend to believe it. Maybe I'm too stupid, maybe I'm too smart, whatever, I just cannot accept it.

I am not against the idea of a supreme being nor am I even against the idea of God and Jesus but I cannot and could never accept the Bible as anything more then fiction.

Islam/Judaism/etc

See above

Buddhism

- This is the closest to "interested" I have being in a religion for many reasons but I also have many problems with some kinds of Buddhism. I actually see it as more of a philosophy then anything, not a religion per say.

So while I'm sure most people will tell me I can't be a Christian without accepting the Bible, I truely do respect the basic message of Christianity.

So here are my main issues with it and why I can't join the flock.

1. Agressiveness. This Christian belief that they need to spread it to everyone, everywhere and do so agressively really gets to me. I would go so far as to say I hate it. I also hate anyone else doing anything similar such as cults etc but in my experience no one is as agressive as christians in forcing their religion on the world through any and all means.

The majority of Buddhists don't do this which is a HUGE reason why I respect them.

Why ? Just explain to me why you do this ?

2. Disrespect of others. As it says on the tin, I know most christians don't actively disrespect other religions but they do so passively. For example they consider themselves right, full stop, end of story. Theres no if, buts etc. Christianity is the one true faith and everyone else is going to hell. Everyone elses 'religion' is similiar to having an imaginary friend.

Again, this is fine if you don't let it affect your life outside church. I mean honestly, I know people who simply won't associate with non-christians on any level and those who do want to costantly talk about JC etc which makes me and others not want to associate with them.

I love my sister in law for example but I hate been near her on Sundays because she always asks "Want to come to church with me ?". And I feel bad refusing her and I don't want to have to say it every damn weekend.

Then take Buddhists. They don't care if you are buddhist or not, couldn't mean less to them what religion you were. Why ? Because they respect other religions, they accept other religions as a different path.

JimiTime

monosharp wrote: »

Christianity

So here are my main issues with it and why I can't join the flock.

1. Agressiveness. This Christian belief that they need to spread it to everyone, everywhere and do so agressively really gets to me.

You must define agressive? Is approaching folk on the street agressive in your mind? If not, what are you referring to?

in my experience no one is as agressive as christians in forcing their religion on the world through any and all means.

Again, I'd be curious to know about these any and all means you've witnessed?

The majority of Buddhists don't do this which is a HUGE reason why I respect them.

Why ? Just explain to me why you do this ?

Well, I don't agree with being agressive. I certainly agree with giving the good news of the kingdom to mankind though. What you have is a serious misunderstanding of a Christians preaching work. Contrary to your notion that we should just shut up and let people get on with it, would be outrageously selfish and irresponsible for me as a Christian. Just imagine it comes to Judgement day, and a guy I know who was for example, a buddhist. He turns to me and says, 'why didn't you tell me? You knew about this, and you kept it to yourself??' What a Christian gives, is a gift. A hope. A message that earns salvation when accepted. To just say, 'Oh I'll keep it to myself', would be the ultimate selfish act.

2. Disrespect of others. As it says on the tin, I know most christians don't actively disrespect other religions but they do so passively. For example they consider themselves right, full stop, end of story. Theres no if, buts etc. Christianity is the one true faith and everyone else is going to hell. Everyone elses 'religion' is similiar to having an imaginary friend.

Certainly judgementalism is an issue. However, this notion that a Christians should repect other religions baffles me. i certainly respect 'people' of other religions. I certainly 'do not' respect beliefs that are leading them down a path of destruction. Also, of course I consider myself right! If I didn't, I would not have the hope and the faith etc. I find this such a silly notion.

Again, this is fine if you don't let it affect your life outside church. I mean honestly, I know people who simply won't associate with non-christians on any level and those who do want to costantly talk about JC etc which makes me and others not want to associate with them.

If a person wants to associate with Christians, thats their perogative. If Christ is the biggest thing in their lives, and your friends hate it if you bring it up, you may want to find friends who share your faith. Personally, I have friends of faith, and friends of none. I don't have an issue.

I love my sister in law for example but I hate been near her on Sundays because she always asks "Want to come to church with me ?". And I feel bad refusing her and I don't want to have to say it every damn weekend.

Well, if your sister is a genuine Christian, and not merely a church goer, then she probably would love to see you share in the Gift Christ is offerring you. Other than that, all I see is you, for whatever reason, refusing to communicate your feelings to her tbh.

Then take Buddhists. They don't care if you are buddhist or not, couldn't mean less to them what religion you were. Why ? Because they respect other religions, they accept other religions as a different path.

Fair play to them. Means nothing though if Christ told us the truth.

kelly1

monosharp wrote: »

Christianity

- I cannot accept the Bible as fact, I just can't. I couldn't even lie to myself and pretend to believe it. Maybe I'm too stupid, maybe I'm too smart, whatever, I just cannot accept it.

Hello Mono, this is a bit of a stumbling block alright!

How do you feel about the New Testament taken in isolation? Do you have issues with what Jesus said? Do you disagree with His moral teachings or do you not believe the miracles? Can you give examples please?

God bless,
Noel.

P.S. I don't agree with agressive evangelization. Telling people that they're going to Hell is probably going to be counter-productive. But I think there is a very urgent need to bring the good news to people. The bad news (hell and damnation) needs to be handled very sensitively. I think the majority of people have no idea how offensive sin is to God and how desperately we need of His mercy. God has been very patient with us but I don't think it will last indefinitely. Repentance is literally vital.

antiskeptic

monosharp wrote: »

Right

Right..

In fact I do feel like I would benefit from some spirituality in my life and I am truely looking for it, but here are my problems.

What benefits do you suppose would attach to having some spirituality in your life?

Christianity

- I cannot accept the Bible as fact, I just can't. I couldn't even lie to myself and pretend to believe it. Maybe I'm too stupid, maybe I'm too smart, whatever, I just cannot accept it. I am not against the idea of a supreme being nor am I even against the idea of God and Jesus but I cannot and could never accept the Bible as anything more then fiction.

The reason you can't accept the Bible as fact (although plenty of things in the Bible likely aren't fact: the environment of Hell consisting of elevated temperatures being one - for example)) is that you are not a "believer". An unbeliever has no reason to believe the Bible is (we might better say) the word of God, so you are occupying precisely the position you should be occupying as an unbeliever.

The sequence of events regarding arrival at belief in the Bible as the word of God would appear to be as follows. You:

a) believe God (which doesn't require that you believe in God)

b) God, on account of that belief, demonstrates his existance to you / Bible is his word / Christ is your saviour/ etc

c) you now believe God exists, Bible is his word, Christ is your saviour, etc.

You believe on account of God ensuring you believe - you don't arrive at that belief under your own steam / by a process of analysis

Islam/Judaism/etc

See above

I'm not sure that Islam/Judaism proscribe a God-powered belief.

So while I'm sure most people will tell me I can't be a Christian without accepting the Bible, I truely do respect the basic message of Christianity.

The basic message of Christianity is that all of mankind stands condemned before a Holy God but that God has taken (costly) action to make it possible for that situation to be rectified. You are part of that mankind.

Perhaps what you respect of Christianity is a sub-section of the message such as "do unto others.."?

1. Agressiveness. This Christian belief that they need to spread it to everyone, everywhere and do so agressively really gets to me. I would go so far as to say I hate it. I also hate anyone else doing anything similar such as cults etc but in my experience no one is as agressive as christians in forcing their religion on the world through any and all means.

Assuming you're not referring to The Crusades or The Inquisition I can't imagine what you're talking about. Anyone is entitled to attempt to spread any message they like so I can't see any issue with Christians taking to the street/tv/radion/leafleting etc

The majority of Buddhists don't do this which is a HUGE reason why I respect them.

Compare the messages. As far as I'm aware there is no negative afterlife outcome possible so why should anyone worry. Christianity has a message which poses terrifying prospects for those who are not saved - there is a duty to warn folk of such things - even if it means getting up their noses.

You'd be forgetting perhaps that they are instructed to do so by God so the Christian themselves shouldn't be taken to have a problem with being the cause of irritation per (so long as the irritation is caused by the message and not the messanger I mean: it is said that if your preaching of the Gospel of Jesus Christ doesn't cause offence then you are not preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ)

Why ? Just explain to me why you do this ?

Consider where I believe you to be going. The horrific description of it as contained in the Bible is limited to using concepts we can begin to apprehend. The Bible is limited in that sense.

You're heading for the most appalling existance - one that can't be imagined. Duty ... and the fact I wouldn't wish such a thing on my worst enemy (if I had one) insists I say so.

2. Disrespect of others. As it says on the tin, I know most christians don't actively disrespect other religions but they do so passively. For example they consider themselves right, full stop, end of story. Theres no if, buts etc. Christianity is the one true faith and everyone else is going to hell. Everyone elses 'religion' is similiar to having an imaginary friend.

Truth is completely and wholly intolerant of error/lie so you should expect such a thing of putative Truth-bearing. Look at it this way perhaps: if Christianity is True then all other "paths to the summit" are in fact the produce of satans bowel movements. They are to be resisted as satan is to be resisted. The packaging it's wrapped up in doesn't alter the nature of the contents.

Again, this is fine if you don't let it affect your life outside church. I mean honestly, I know people who simply won't associate with non-christians on any level and those who do want to costantly talk about JC etc which makes me and others not want to associate with them.

These Christians, if Christians, are in error.

Then take Buddhists. They don't care if you are buddhist or not, couldn't mean less to them what religion you were. Why ? Because they respect other religions, they accept other religions as a different path.

Precisely. The question isn't what sounds nice and suits you. Sugar is sweet ...but it rots your teeth. The question is: what's true. Your objection is based on a faulty premise. Which renders the objection void.

monosharp

JimiTime wrote: »

You must define agressive? Is approaching folk on the street agressive in your mind? If not, what are you referring to?

First can I thank you for responding the way you did, very politely and honestly. I really appreciate it.

Aggressive is indeed approaching people on the street in my mind. If for no other reason then it happens so frequently. I don't mind it now and again and I'd even be willing to forgive it if the people were polite but most of the time they are extremely forceful and won't accept a simple "No thank you". Some do but the majority get rude and continue trying to press me

Also, where I'm living at the moment, Seoul, South Korea, there are a not inconsiderable minority of Christians who are very anti-Buddhist/Confucianist. They are a minority but the problem is that the majority of Christians while not actively supporting this attitude, usually don't think its wrong.

Many churches here view Buddhism/Confucianism as the main competition and tend to be very vocal against it.

Again, I'd be curious to know about these any and all means you've witnessed?

At least once a week I get approached by someone offering me salvation and usually a "No thank you" gets me a rude response.

Christians here marching down the street with a loudspeaker proclaiming the Buddha is the devil.

Well, I don't agree with being agressive. I certainly agree with giving the good news of the kingdom to mankind though. What you have is a serious misunderstanding of a Christians preaching work. Contrary to your notion that we should just shut up and let people get on with it, would be outrageously selfish and irresponsible for me as a Christian. Just imagine it comes to Judgement day, and a guy I know who was for example, a buddhist. He turns to me and says, 'why didn't you tell me? You knew about this, and you kept it to yourself??' What a Christian gives, is a gift. A hope. A message that earns salvation when accepted. To just say, 'Oh I'll keep it to myself', would be the ultimate selfish act.

And thats perfectly 100% fine. But If you offered it to me once, twice or three times and I keep refusing do you continue to offer ? A few times is fine, I can accept that without any problem. Its when its a constant bombardment that gets to me.

Certainly judgementalism is an issue. However, this notion that a Christians should repect other religions baffles me. i certainly respect 'people' of other religions. I certainly 'do not' respect beliefs that are leading them down a path of destruction. Also, of course I consider myself right! If I didn't, I would not have the hope and the faith etc. I find this such a silly notion.

Your absolutely right, I didn't think about it properly before I posted.

If a person wants to associate with Christians, thats their perogative. If Christ is the biggest thing in their lives, and your friends hate it if you bring it up, you may want to find friends who share your faith. Personally, I have friends of faith, and friends of none. I don't have an issue.

Do you constantly ask your non-religious friends to come to church ?

Well, if your sister is a genuine Christian, and not merely a church goer, then she probably would love to see you share in the Gift Christ is offerring you. Other than that, all I see is you, for whatever reason, refusing to communicate your feelings to her tbh.

She knows my feelings.

Fair play to them. Means nothing though if Christ told us the truth.

But can't you accept that theres even the smallest 0.0001% chance that YOU are wrong. Now look at the situation.

Even if you can't accept that, can't you accept that other people simply do not believe in your path ? Its not that they are stupid or uneducated or they haven't seen the light, they just don't believe in your path.

Buddhists respect Christianity, one of the great buddhist teachers has said that many parts of the Bible were written by enlightened men.

Can't you just respect my choice of faith ? even if you believe I'm going to hell for it ?

santing

monosharp wrote: »

So while I'm sure most people will tell me I can't be a Christian without accepting the Bible, I truely do respect the basic message of Christianity.

What do you define as the basic message? Would it contain: "All people are lost, but God in His love sent a Saviour?" The following verse descibes the exclusiveness of this saviour:

John 14:6 ESV Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

Now if I believe this, I wouldn't be a very nice guy if I kept it for myself!

monosharp wrote: »

Buddhism
- This is the closest to "interested" I have being in a religion for many reasons but I also have many problems with some kinds of Buddhism. I actually see it as more of a philosophy then anything, not a religion per say.
...
The majority of Buddhists don't do this which is a HUGE reason why I respect them.
...
Then take Buddhists. They don't care if you are buddhist or not, couldn't mean less to them what religion you were. Why ? Because they respect other religions, they accept other religions as a different path.

Buddhism has its attractions. But under the very friendly face is in the end a philosophy dictated by "nonattachment." In the end the Buddhist doesn't care whether you are right or wrong, in pain or in need, as long as he is on the way of Buddha. Quite a selfish attitude imho.

seanybiker

I have great respect for buddhists. More of a way of life/thinking though than a religion in my opinion.

Slav

I'm not sure if you what exactly your genuine honest question is about: do you want this thread to be some sort of Christianity vs Buddhism comparison or you want some feedback on the issues of aggressiveness and disrespect from Christian perspective. I assume it's the later though the former might be an interesting discussion as well.

monosharp wrote: »

I am not against the idea of a supreme being nor am I even against the idea of God and Jesus but I cannot and could never accept the Bible as anything more then fiction.

The Bible is a collection of very different books written by people of different background at different times with different purposes. Do you consider them all to be fiction or some of the books/chapters/verses make more sense to you?

monosharp wrote: »

- This is the closest to "interested" I have being in a religion for many reasons but I also have many problems with some kinds of Buddhism. I actually see it as more of a philosophy then anything, not a religion per say.

Well, I think it is a religion though an atheistic one.

monosharp wrote: »

So while I'm sure most people will tell me I can't be a Christian without accepting the Bible, I truely do respect the basic message of Christianity.

I'd be very interested to know where your knowledge of the message of Christianity comes from. Just in case this is not a rhetoric question; my interest is genuine.

monosharp wrote: »

1. Agressiveness. This Christian belief that they need to spread it to everyone, everywhere and do so agressively really gets to me. I would go so far as to say I hate it. I also hate anyone else doing anything similar such as cults etc but in my experience no one is as agressive as christians in forcing their religion on the world through any and all means.

I think you impression is based on observing the evangelisation work that is carried out by a number of fairly new Christian denomination. They don't represent mainstream Christianity (at least outside the United States) but probably more visible then others. Speaking of my denomination (Orthodox) I think it could even benefit from being a little be more "aggressive" in Gospel preaching.

monosharp wrote: »

2. Disrespect of others. As it says on the tin, I know most christians don't actively disrespect other religions but they do so passively. For example they consider themselves right, full stop, end of story. Theres no if, buts etc. Christianity is the one true faith and everyone else is going to hell. Everyone elses 'religion' is similiar to having an imaginary friend.

Disrespect of others and disrespect of other religions are two different things and still we have to define what exactly we mean by disrespect. Speaking again about Orthodoxy all this "disrespect" is down to acknowledging that "X are non-Christians", "Y teaches heresies" or "Z is a schismatic Church". This is purely a "sanitary" measure, a way to ensure orthodoxy survives. In practical sense it only means that Orthodox Christians should not pray together with X, Y or Z congregations; that's where it starts and that's where it ends. Does it count as disrespect?

monosharp wrote: »

I know people who simply won't associate with non-christians on any level and those who do want to costantly talk about JC etc which makes me and others not want to associate with them.

That sort of behaviour contradicts with Christian message IMO and should not be associated with Christianity.

monosharp wrote: »

Then take Buddhists. They don't care if you are buddhist or not, couldn't mean less to them what religion you were. Why ? Because they respect other religions, they accept other religions as a different path.

Christianity also see Buddhism as a different path though not the right one. Same I believe as Buddhists see Christianity as a wrong one. Probably the reason why Buddhists are seen sometimes as more tolerant to other beliefs is because Buddhism is rather individualistic in its core. First of all your business is your own karma and not your neighbour's.

davgtrek

"Just imagine it comes to Judgement day, and a guy I know who was for example, a buddhist. He turns to me and says, 'why didn't you tell me? You knew about this, and you kept it to yourself??'"

that exerpt from Jimitimes response is one of the funniest images I have come across in years.

No disrespect to peoples beliefs at all here but that would make a great comedy sketch.

monosharp

kelly1 wrote: »

Hello Mono, this is a bit of a stumbling block alright!

How do you feel about the New Testament taken in isolation?
Do you have issues with what Jesus said? Do you disagree with His moral teachings or do you not believe the miracles? Can you give examples please?

The morals I can agree with.

I can't believe that a supreme like God would be so petty as he is made out to be in the Bible.

In my mind, at least 90% of the Bible is man made fiction.

kelly1

monosharp wrote: »

The morals I can agree with.

OK, that's a start

monosharp wrote: »

I can't believe that a supreme like God would be so petty as he is made out to be in the Bible.

Can you elaborate on that please? How to your mind is God petty? I really can't understand this.

JimiTime

monosharp wrote: »

First can I thank you for responding the way you did, very politely and honestly. I really appreciate it.

No problem.

Aggressive is indeed approaching people on the street in my mind. If for no other reason then it happens so frequently. I don't mind it now and again and I'd even be willing to forgive it if the people were polite but most of the time they are extremely forceful and won't accept a simple "No thank you". Some do but the majority get rude and continue trying to press me

I think this requires more clarity. Is it people approaching on the street, or is it rude people approaching you? If someone politely approaches you, and politely accepts your decline is that aggressive in your opinion?

Also, where I'm living at the moment, Seoul, South Korea, there are a not inconsiderable minority of Christians who are very anti-Buddhist/Confucianist. They are a minority but the problem is that the majority of Christians while not actively supporting this attitude, usually don't think its wrong.

As someone who knows pretty much nothing about Korea, I'd have no idea of what the scenario is like.

Many churches here view Buddhism/Confucianism as the main competition and tend to be very vocal against it.

Again, not to be pedantic, but how is this manifested?

At least once a week I get approached by someone offering me salvation and usually a "No thank you" gets me a rude response.

Again, if I take your word that you get a rude response, then this is poor form from the Christian. May I ask for an example of this rude response?

Christians here marching down the street with a loudspeaker proclaiming the Buddha is the devil.

This sounds disrespectful. The good news of the kingdom can be shared without resorting to such tactics, which I would think don't serve their cause very well with the buddhist community.

And thats perfectly 100% fine. But If you offered it to me once, twice or three times and I keep refusing do you continue to offer ?

IMO, No.

A few times is fine, I can accept that without any problem. Its when its a constant bombardment that gets to me.

Is it that they know that you keep refusing, yet continue to pester you? Or is it that each day they don't remember you from the last?

Your absolutely right, I didn't think about it properly before I posted.

Is this the end of boards as we know it??

Do you constantly ask your non-religious friends to come to church ?

Certainly not.

She knows my feelings.

If that is indeed the case, then maybe you should ask her why she keeps asking? I think she's the only one who could really answer.

But can't you accept that theres even the smallest 0.0001% chance that YOU are wrong. Now look at the situation.

Of course I can. However, I have reasoned my faith to the extent that I am in no doubt. So I believe 100% in the good news of Gods Kingdom. As long as I hold this belief, it is my duty as a decent human being to let others know this message.

Even if you can't accept that, can't you accept that other people simply do not believe in your path ? Its not that they are stupid or uneducated or they haven't seen the light, they just don't believe in your path.

I certainly don't think people who don't believe what I do are stupid or uneducated etc

Buddhists respect Christianity, one of the great buddhist teachers has said that many parts of the Bible were written by enlightened men.

Again, fair enough. Christianity in turn, does not respect buddhism. For it propagates a notion contrary to the good news of the kingdom. Surely you can see, that if Christ was who he said he was, then buddhism, Islam, Hinduism etc are paths that lead a person away from salvation? As I said, I certainly respect the 'people' of these groups, and their right to follow their religion etc. However, I certainly don't respect the religion itself. It would be quite the oxymoron to respect something I consider a lie which leads my fellow man astray. You see where I am coming from?

Can't you just respect my choice of faith ? even if you believe I'm going to hell for it ?

Of course I respect your free will to choose your faith, and I would find aggressive and rude approaches to changing your mind rather counter-productive. I also repect your right to say 'no thanks' if I wish to speak about the gospel to you. As I said though, this respect for 'you' does not extend to the faith you choose if such a faith leads you from the truth.

monosharp

Slav wrote: »

The Bible is a collection of very different books written by people of different background at different times with different purposes. Do you consider them all to be fiction or some of the books/chapters/verses make more sense to you?

Honestly, I believe its a religious book by religious men. I believe most of it is fiction some fiction with facts thrown in and the rest a factual account which has been corrupted.

Do I believe in a guy called Jesus ? Sure.
Do I believe he was the son of God ? no.
Do I believe he had a good message and did good ? Sure.

I'd be very interested to know where your knowledge of the message of Christianity comes from. Just in case this is not a rhetoric question; my interest is genuine.

Brought up a Catholic.

Christianity also see Buddhism as a different path though not the right one. Same I believe as Buddhists see Christianity as a wrong one. Probably the reason why Buddhists are seen sometimes as more tolerant to other beliefs is because Buddhism is rather individualistic in its core. First of all your business is your own karma and not your neighbour's.

Actually from my understanding, Buddhists see no path as the wrong one. They believe there are many paths to enlightenment, Christianity maybe one of them.

monosharp

kelly1 wrote: »

OK, that's a start

Can you elaborate on that please? How to your mind is God petty? I really can't understand this.

Well for one the fact that a being who created the universe would want to be worshipped at all.

For another 99% of what he wants done in the OT is as petty as any norse or celtic mythology.

kelly1

monosharp wrote: »

Honestly, I believe its a religious book by religious men. I believe most of it is fiction some fiction with facts thrown in and the rest a factual account which has been corrupted.

Assuming a good God exists, don't you think He would reveal the truth to human beings whom He created? Or do you think God plays games with us or hides while we go around in circles trying to establish what is true?

If God is good, He must have revealed the truth to us out of love for His creatures. If "god" is evil, what's the point in trying to find him/her/it? We're not going to be rewarded anyway.

monosharp

JimiTime wrote: »

I think this requires more clarity. Is it people approaching on the street, or is it rude people approaching you?

Its people trying to get me to come to their church. Usually "no thank you" needs to be said more then once to get rid of them.

If someone politely approaches you, and politely accepts your decline is that aggressive in your opinion?

No. Perfectly fine. Once.

Again, not to be pedantic, but how is this manifested?

wikipedia wrote:

Some South Korean Buddhists have denounced what they view as discriminatory measures against them and their religion by the administration of President Lee Myung-bak, which they attribute to Lee being a Christian.[12]The Buddhist Jogye Order has accused the Lee government of discriminating against Buddhism and favoring Christianity by ignoring certain Buddhist temples but including Christian churches in certain public documents.[12] In 2006, according to the Asia Times, "Lee also sent a video prayer message to a Christian rally held in the southern city of Busan in which the worship leader prayed feverishly: 'Lord, let the Buddhist temples in this country crumble down!'"[13] Further, according to an article in Buddhist-Christian Studies: "Over the course of the last decade a fairly large number of Buddhist temples in South Korea have been destroyed or damaged by fire by misguided Christian fundamentalists. More recently, Buddhist statues have been identified as idols, and attacked and decapitated in the name of Jesus. Arrests are hard to effect, as the arsonists and vandals work by stealth of night."[14] A 2008 incident in which police investigated protesters who had been given sanctuary in the Jogye temple in Seoul and searched a car driven by Jigwan, executive chief of the Jogye order, led to protests by Buddhists who claimed police had treated Jigwan as a criminal.[12]

Again, if I take your word that you get a rude response, then this is poor form from the Christian. May I ask for an example of this rude response?

Woman: Hello would you like to come to our church
Me: No thanks.
Woman: We worship Jesus in English ..
Me: No thank you.
Woman: *Forcing leaflet into my hand* Jesus ...*something-or-other*
Me: *keep walking*

This sounds disrespectful. The good news of the kingdom can be shared without resorting to such tactics, which I would think don't serve their cause very well with the buddhist community.

Unfortunately its more common then you may think.

Is it that they know that you keep refusing, yet continue to pester you? Or is it that each day they don't remember you from the last?

In fairness I've only been approached more then once (more then the 1 day) by one woman. Its a BIG city.

I certainly don't think people who don't believe what I do are stupid or uneducated etc

Good.

kelly1

monosharp wrote: »

Well for one the fact that a being who created the universe would want to be worshipped at all.

I would ask why not worship God?

God created the universe and and gave you life. He provides everything you need to survive, sun, air, water, food, building materials, the senses etc, etc.

And when man offended God by sinning against Him, God didn't make man pay the price but sent His only Son to die on the cross at the hands of His own creatures! Jesus not only redeemed us and saved us from Hell, but also made it possible for us to become like God through His grace which we receive as a free unmerited gift. Every good we do, when united to the merits of Jesus is accepted from God the Father as if it had been done by Jesus! This is truly wonderful!!!

The humility of Jesus is always a source of amazement for me. Jesus, who had never sinned and was never responsible for our sins agreed to come to earth to suffer abuse from the hands of sinful men and He never once uttered a word of complaint but readily accepted all the suffering for love of the Father and us. God actually condescended to come to earth to redeem a fallen race who offended Him countless times despite His infinite goodness and mercy.

Another example. I recently read that what happens in baptism is greater than the creation of the entire universe. The reason for this is that the divine life (sanctifying grace) which we receive in baptism unites us to God in a very special way and we become adorable to God because He sees Himself in us. On the other hand the creation of the material universe only requires a simple act of will on God's part but the material world isn't divine. Grace actually "divinizes" us.

All the good we do and all the love we give comes from God. We are like light bulbs and God is the electricity. Without Him, we are nothing. That's why Jesus said He is the vine and we are the branches. Unless the branch remains united to the vine, it dies. We are made to be united to God in a perfect marriage or perfect union. We weren't made to go off doing our own thing and go against God's will. We will have joy to the extent that we are united with God who is our source and destiny.

Now that is a God I have no problem worshiping!

Slav

monosharp wrote: »

Do I believe in a guy called Jesus ? Sure.
Do I believe he was the son of God ? no.
Do I believe he had a good message and did good ? Sure.

So what was his message then as you understand it?

monosharp wrote: »

Actually from my understanding, Buddhists see no path as the wrong one. They believe there are many paths to enlightenment, Christianity maybe one of them.

Of course, there are different opinions within Buddhism, especially Mahayana, regarding Christianity but I don't think anybody seriously consider it as an equal path.

Very basically, in Buddhism the right path is the Noble Eightfold Path. Christianity could be seen as a valid alternative only if it were compatible with NEP but obviously it does not follow it in many places. It even has major difficulties with the Four Noble Truths. Declaring Christianity as an equal path would simply destroy the very core of Buddhism. However, from Buddhism perspective Christianity might not be such a bad thing: although it won't bring it followers to Nirvana it might somehow improve their Karma. Speaking about Nirvana, many Christian beliefs would be major obstacles on the way to it, making it impossible for a Christian to achieve at the end.

If a Buddhist clams that Christianity is a valid path to enlightenment then I see only 3 possibilities here: they either have no idea what Christianity is about (quite likely), they are not real Buddhist or they are lying.

The Mad Hatter

Slav wrote: »

If a Buddhist clams that Christianity is a valid path to enlightenment then I see only 3 possibilities here: they either have no idea what Christianity is about (quite likely), they are not real Buddhist or they are lying.

Um...the Dalai Lama said that (or something very like it - don't have the book here to quote) in an address to a Christian audience...

Slav

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Slav wrote: »

If a Buddhist clams that Christianity is a valid path to enlightenment then I see only 3 possibilities here: they either have no idea what Christianity is about (quite likely), they are not real Buddhist or they are lying.

Um...the Dalai Lama said that (or something very like it - don't have the book here to quote) in an address to a Christian audience...

Exact wording of how he put it would be of great help. He purposely might not be very specific (especially taking into account the audience he addressed to) whether it's only about Karma or enlightenment and Nirvana.

The Mad Hatter

Slav wrote: »

Exact wording of how he put it would be of great help. He purposely might not be very specific (especially taking into account the audience he addressed to) whether it's only about Karma or enlightenment and Nirvana.

Sure. The book is The Good Heart, where he speaks on various pieces of Christian scripture.

Slav

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Sure. The book is The Good Heart, where he speaks on various pieces of Christian scripture.

Ok, if it's just The Good Heart that you are talking about then I'm still not sure it claims Christianity to be equal to Buddhism in any way. I don't have a copy of this book but as far as I remember it's more or less Dalai-Lama's is interpretation of the Christian scriptures from a Buddhist point of view, i.e. it's a way of making New Testament look compatible with Noble Eightfold Path. And it certainly is compatible if we think of Christ as of a Bodhisattva and so on and so forth but it would not be Christianity then.

It's a typical modern ecumenism and being a good politician Dalai-Lama knows exactly what he's doing.

Húrin

seanybiker wrote: »

I have great respect for buddhists. More of a way of life/thinking though than a religion in my opinion.

If you didn't respect it would you call it a religion? Most western Buddhists seem to be atheists but in south east Asia, most Buddhists are functionally religious and sometimes actually theistic.

monosharp

kelly1 wrote: »

Assuming a good God exists, don't you think He would reveal the truth to human beings whom He created?

Yes. In an undeniable fashion, in concrete terms. Not through the words/writings of men.

Or do you think God plays games with us or hides while we go around in circles trying to establish what is true?

I firmly believe a being such as God could not care less, we would be little more then Ants.

monosharp

kelly1 wrote: »

I would ask why not worship God?

And I would ask why worship God ?

God created the universe and and gave you life. He provides everything you need to survive, sun, air, water, food, building materials, the senses etc, etc.

If that was fact I would agree with you, but it isn't and I don't.

And when man offended God by sinning against Him, God didn't make man pay the price but sent His only Son to die on the cross at the hands of His own creatures!

This is a huge problem for me.

Either God is a supreme being or he is not.

If hes a supreme being then he would know everything we would do so his creating us caused the sin. At very least he knew what we would do.

Then whats the point of Jesus dying on the Cross ? To be resurrected ?

Hes God, he doesn't need to send Jesus to the Cross to die for us, he can just will it and it will be done.

The humility of Jesus is always a source of amazement for me. Jesus, who had never sinned and was never responsible for our sins agreed to come to earth to suffer abuse from the hands of sinful men and He never once uttered a word of complaint but readily accepted all the suffering for love of the Father and us. God actually condescended to come to earth to redeem a fallen race who offended Him countless times despite His infinite goodness and mercy.

This is another problem. Christians constantly tell me that no matter how Good a person is that he is always a sinner. Just being born into humanity makes you a sinner doesn't it ?

Well then that makes it impossible for Jesus not to have been a sinner.

monosharp

Slav wrote: »

So what was his message then as you understand it?

Do unto others ..
Be good.

Thats the message I accept.

Of course, there are different opinions within Buddhism, especially Mahayana, regarding Christianity but I don't think anybody seriously consider it as an equal path.

An equal path as buddhism ? I think you'll find that any path which gives enlightenment is the right path to buddhists.

There are no rules in Buddhism.

Everything the Buddha said are his guidelines but he never told anyone else to do it. It was advice, not a rule.

Very basically, in Buddhism the right path is the Noble Eightfold Path. Christianity could be seen as a valid alternative only if it were compatible with NEP but obviously it does not follow it in many places. It even has major difficulties with the Four Noble Truths. Declaring Christianity as an equal path would simply destroy the very core of Buddhism. However, from Buddhism perspective Christianity might not be such a bad thing: although it won't bring it followers to Nirvana it might somehow improve their Karma. Speaking about Nirvana, many Christian beliefs would be major obstacles on the way to it, making it impossible for a Christian to achieve at the end.

Different forms of Buddhism. Your talking very strict forms above.

His Holiness the Dalai Lama has said that it is wonderful that so many different religions exist in the world. Just as one food will not appeal to everybody, one religion or one set of beliefs will not satisfy everyone's needs. Therefore, it is extremely beneficial that a variety of different religions is available from which to choose. He welcomes and rejoices at this.

Buddhist views of Jesus differ, since Jesus is not mentioned in any Buddhist text. Some Buddhists, including Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th Dalai Lama[61] regard Jesus as a bodhisattva who dedicated his life to the welfare of human beings. Both Jesus and Buddha advocated radical alterations in the common religious practices of the day. There are occasional similarities in language, such as the use of the common metaphor of a line of blind men to refer to religious authorities with whom they disagreed (DN 13.15, Matthew 15:14). Some believe there is a particularly close affinity between Buddhism (or Eastern spiritual thought generally) and the doctrine of Gnostic texts such as The Gospel of Thomas[62]

The 14th century Zen master Gasan Joseki indicated that the Gospels were written by an enlightened being:

"And why take ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow. They toil not, neither do they spin, and yet I say unto you that even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these...Take therefore no thought for the morrow, for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself."

Gasan said: "Whoever uttered those words I consider an enlightened man."

monosharp

Húrin wrote: »

If you didn't respect it would you call it a religion? Most western Buddhists seem to be atheists but in south east Asia, most Buddhists are functionally religious and sometimes actually theistic.

I think your been overly simplistic. As someone living in Asia I can tell you that you are right and you are wrong at the same time.

Buddhism is extremely diverse even within buddhist organisations, what is taught in one temple of organisation X might be different from what is taught in another temple.

There is no defined scripture, there is no "one path".

Look at Tibetan Buddhism for example, that is led by the Dalai Lama and is full of spiritual/afterlife etc stuff. Thats very strict Buddhism. And even then its extremely liberal to other religions and other ways.

Take South Korea for example. While official statistics will say 50% of the population are atheist, 25% are some form of christian (Catholic etc) and 25% are Buddhist, its actually closer to 75% buddhist. It simply depends on how you define it.

For example my wifes father is buried in a buddhist temple, he went to temple irregularly, he read Buddhist books.

Was he Buddhist ? My wife says "No". I ask her why, she says "Because he didn't go to temple often". Doesn't make sense to me but there you go.

antiskeptic

monosharp wrote: »

Do unto others .. Be good. Thats the message I accept.

What causes you not to accept those parts of his message that indicate the destination of those who fail in anyway to do unto others/be good (Jesus being the one to go to if teaching on Hell is your interest)

By cherry-picking the message you end up with a karmic/weighing scales 'God' in which your good deeds outweighing your bad determines your destination. And of course, we all tend to give ourselves a 7/10 when self-assessing the fall of the weighing scales.

Nothing to worry about when it comes to Jesus' stripped down message in that case. Or is there?

Apparently, even serious offenders; murders, rapists, child molesters and the like, score themselves 7/10 on the good/bad deeds weighing scale. Most folk consider themselves not to be such bad people all told.

kelly1

monosharp wrote: »

Yes. In an undeniable fashion, in concrete terms. Not through the words/writings of men.

Sounds like you want God to communicate with you in a manner which suits you. I believe God has spoken to us through His chosen prophets and it is His chosen way. If God is Omnipotent, don't you think it would be possible for God to deliver the truth and have it recorded in books?

The fact is that God hasn't concretely revealed Himself to most people. Very few are lucky enough to have had experiences of God which leave no room for doubt.

So what do you conclude from this? Either God is playing games with us or He has indeed revlealed His nature and will through chosen prophets.

I firmly believe a being such as God could not care less, we would be little more then Ants.

Since you don't believe what's written in the bible, I can see how you'd come to this conclusion.

monosharp wrote: »

This is a huge problem for me.

Either God is a supreme being or he is not.

If hes a supreme being then he would know everything we would do so his creating us caused the sin. At very least he knew what we would do.

This is a subtle point, but just because God knows the future, it doesn't follow that He caused those events to happen. We still have free will but God just happens to know what choices we will make but He never causes us to make a particular choice. We are endowed with reason and a conscience and every day we make choices. We are often tempted to sin but God never forces us to sin. Sin by definition must involve choice. So there's no point blaming God for evil. Because we have free will, God must allow the possibility of evil even though He never causes it.

monosharp wrote: »

Then whats the point of Jesus dying on the Cross ? To be resurrected ?

Hes God, he doesn't need to send Jesus to the Cross to die for us, he can just will it and it will be done.

God doesn't whitewash over problems. God's justice is perfect and in the economy of justice, sin creates a debt that must be paid for. All sin has a price that must be paid. God never writes off debts.

So God knowing that we could never pay such a massive debt caused by sin willed that His only Son would die for us to pay this debt. In fact Jesus was the only being who could pay this debt because of His perfect innocent and His infinite dignity. Jesus' death on the cross basically has infinte value when it comes to paying back the debt caused by us.

monosharp wrote: »

This is another problem. Christians constantly tell me that no matter how Good a person is that he is always a sinner. Just being born into humanity makes you a sinner doesn't it?

Compared with the infinite holiness of God, we're all sinners. Even the angels are imperfect in God's sight as Scripture tells us. But there's no need to get hung up about it. God's knows our weaknesses and the temptations we are subject to. What God wants from us is is that we never deliberately sin. But even when that happens God is still ready to forgive.

BTW, nobody is born with actual sin but original sin is actually a deprivation of graces that we would have been born with if Adam hadn't sinned.

monosharp wrote: »

Well then that makes it impossible for Jesus not to have been a sinner.

Because Jesus is God and it's impossible for God to sin, it's not His nature. God can't sin and we can't fly! BTW, Jesus wasn't subject to original sin and so was born full of every grace possible.

monosharp

kelly1 wrote: »

Sounds like you want God to communicate with you in a manner which suits you. I believe God has spoken to us through His chosen prophets and it is His chosen way. If God is Omnipotent, don't you think it would be possible for God to deliver the truth and have it recorded in books?

If God is omnipotent he wouldn't have to.

The fact is that God hasn't concretely revealed Himself to most people. Very few are lucky enough to have had experiences of God which leave no room for doubt.

Why ?

So what do you conclude from this? Either God is playing games with us or He has indeed revlealed His nature and will through chosen prophets.

I think a being such as God wouldn't do either.

This is a subtle point, but just because God knows the future, it doesn't follow that He caused those events to happen.

If I create a robot, I create its programming then I know its actions yes ?

To say otherwise would mean God is fallible and not omnipotent.

So God knew/Knows what each and everyone of us would do before the first day of creation.

We still have free will but God just happens to know what choices we will make but He never causes us to make a particular choice.

He created us. Hence he made us, hence he wrote our 'programming'

kelly1

monosharp wrote: »

If God is omnipotent he wouldn't have to.

It would be a simple matter for God to reveal Himself to each of us but He chooses not to. What kind of revelation did you have in mind?

monosharp wrote: »

Why ?

Because very few people have the sole goal of doing God's will and excluding all else. We all sin to some extent. Scripture promises us that God will reveal Himself to those who live only for Him.

monosharp wrote: »

I think a being such as God wouldn't do either.

OK, so you think God should reveal Himself to everyone regardless?

If God did reveal Himself we would be in a similar situation to the angels who disobeyed God despite knowing His will and that He was their Creator. There would be no redemption possible for us like there isn't for the fallen angels! Because we can't see God and have to operate on faith and because we are subject to temptations and are prone to sin, God takes this into account and made redemption available to us. But don't quote me on that, that's just my understanding.

monosharp wrote: »

If I create a robot, I create its programming then I know its actions yes ?

To say otherwise would mean God is fallible and not omnipotent.

So God knew/Knows what each and everyone of us would do before the first day of creation.

But the very point I'm making is that we're not robots! We have free will and so we can make free choices. God's knowing the future doesn't influence our choices. It's not an easy concept to get ones head around I admit.

If you see someone drop money, you have a choice to make. You can either give them the money or keep it. Either way you are free to decide with your God-given conscience pointing you in the right direction. You can always ignore your conscience.

monosharp wrote: »

He created us. Hence he made us, hence he wrote our 'programming'

And I'm saying we're not programmed. We're not machines!

Zombrex

kelly1 wrote: »

Sounds like you want God to communicate with you in a manner which suits you.

What a odd thing to say. Since when has it being arrogant to expect an omnipotent god if he exists to communicate in a fashion a bit more logical and believable than a set of religious stories from ancient middle eastern farmers that are largely indistinguishable from every other religious story ancient humans imagined in early civilisation?

I don't want to derail this thread, OP, there are very good arguments against what the Christians are saying, if you are interested pop over to the A&A forum.

kelly1

Wicknight wrote: »

What a odd thing to say.

Not odd at all. God designed the universe and makes the rules, not us!

Zombrex

kelly1 wrote: »

Not odd at all. God designed the universe and makes the rules, not us!

But that isn't the issue. The question isn't whether or not the Christian god, once we assume he exists, can do this or not.

It is whether or not this description in the Bible is a believable description of what an omnipotent deity would behave. The OP says he doesn't believe the Bible, and specifically doesn't believe that it is how an omnipotent god would choose to reveal himself.

It makes little sense to say that such a god, being the creator of the universe, can reveal himself any way he likes. That doesn't answer the concern of the OP, it is just ignoring it.

It reminds me of the end of Star Trek V. In case you haven't seen it Kirk and Spock have been brought to the centre of the universe by a religious Vulcan who believes God resides there. When they get there they do find a powerful being there, and the crew assume the Vulcan is correct and they have found God. "God" welcomes them and asks to be brought to the ship so he can leave the planet.

Everyone is happy except Kirk."What does God need with a starship?" ... I think you can guess what happens next.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYW_lPlekiQ

kelly1

Wicknight wrote: »

But that isn't the issue. The question isn't whether or not the Christian god, once we assume he exists, can do this or not.

It is whether or not this description in the Bible is a believable description of what an omnipotent deity would behave. The OP says he doesn't believe the Bible, and specifically doesn't believe that it is how an omnipotent god would choose to reveal himself.

It makes little sense to say that such a god, being the creator of the universe, can reveal himself any way he likes. That doesn't answer the concern of the OP, it is just ignoring it.

You'd give an Aspirin a headache!

The OP is free to believe what he likes. I'm trying to justify the manner in which I believe God has revealed Himself. The fact is that He doesn't reveal Himself directly to most people but I belive that He has done so to various prophets and especially via Jesus. There's little point in speculation different modes of revelation because it clearly hasn't happened. But the OP may wish to suggest another method.

We're not specifically discussing the existence of God. For the purposes of this discussion I'm assuming that God exists and am trying to show how Christianity is reasonable.

So assuming God exists, He either has or hasn't revealed His existence to us. I've also argued that God wouldn't be good if He didn't reveal His nature and will for us. I beleive God is goodness itself but other are free to believe otherwise.

What's the problem with that?

Zombrex

kelly1 wrote: »

The OP is free to believe what he likes. I'm trying to justify the manner in which I believe God has revealed Himself.

Well from what I read it appeared that you were trying to associate the OP's genuine question about the nature of a god and how he would reveal himself with arrogance in an effort to undermine his question.

The Who are you to question God type of response irks me some what, which is why I butted in.

The OP has a genuine question, can you answer it without first assuming something that the OP hasn't already accepted (ie the Bible).

Again, using the Kirk clip, it is like saying to Kirk Who are you to ask why God wants a star ship That only works if it actually is God, and it turns out of course that in the movie it isn't.

Saying that God can reveal himself any way he chooses only works if everyone first accept that this is actually God reveiled in the Bible. Which is the stage the OP has not reached yet.

Slav

monosharp wrote: »

Do unto others ..
Be good.

Thats the message I accept.

Where does your knowledge of Christ teaching people to "be good" and "do unto others..." come from? I know you have answered "brought up Catholic" but this does not specifically identify the source of information.

monosharp wrote: »

An equal path as buddhism ? I think you'll find that any path which gives enlightenment is the right path to buddhists.

Well, that's the problem. Christianity will not give enlightenment. And therefore it cannot be seen by Buddhism as the right path.

monosharp wrote: »

There are no rules in Buddhism.

Yes and no, but it's not relevant to our discussion.

monosharp wrote: »

Everything the Buddha said are his guidelines but he never told anyone else to do it. It was advice, not a rule.

We don't really know what Gautama said as all the sources we have now are not that old. But still it's not relevant because we're talking about modern Buddhism.

monosharp wrote: »

Very basically, in Buddhism the right path is the Noble Eightfold Path. Christianity could be seen as a valid alternative only if it were compatible with NEP but obviously it does not follow it in many places. It even has major difficulties with the Four Noble Truths. Declaring Christianity as an equal path would simply destroy the very core of Buddhism. However, from Buddhism perspective Christianity might not be such a bad thing: although it won't bring it followers to Nirvana it might somehow improve their Karma. Speaking about Nirvana, many Christian beliefs would be major obstacles on the way to it, making it impossible for a Christian to achieve at the end.

Different forms of Buddhism. Your talking very strict forms above.

No, not really. I'm talking about the very foundation of Buddhism shared by all its branches.

monosharp wrote: »

His Holiness the Dalai Lama has said that it is wonderful that so many different religions exist in the world. Just as one food will not appeal to everybody, one religion or one set of beliefs will not satisfy everyone's needs. Therefore, it is extremely beneficial that a variety of different religions is available from which to choose. He welcomes and rejoices at this.

His Holiness the Dalai-Lama can say to the outer world whatever he likes but it won't change the nature of Lamaism.

monosharp wrote: »

Buddhist views of Jesus differ, since Jesus is not mentioned in any Buddhist text. Some Buddhists, including Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th Dalai Lama[61] regard Jesus as a bodhisattva who dedicated his life to the welfare of human beings. Both Jesus and Buddha advocated radical alterations in the common religious practices of the day. There are occasional similarities in language, such as the use of the common metaphor of a line of blind men to refer to religious authorities with whom they disagreed (DN 13.15, Matthew 15:14). Some believe there is a particularly close affinity between Buddhism (or Eastern spiritual thought generally) and the doctrine of Gnostic texts such as The Gospel of Thomas[62]

The 14th century Zen master Gasan Joseki indicated that the Gospels were written by an enlightened being:

"And why take ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow. They toil not, neither do they spin, and yet I say unto you that even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these...Take therefore no thought for the morrow, for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself."

Gasan said: "Whoever uttered those words I consider an enlightened man."

So what's the point? If we make a Bodhisattva out of Christ, pick few quotes from the Bible that support Buddhism (or at least won't contradict it) while ignoring the rest of the Scriptures then yes, I absolutely agree with you, that would be fine from Buddhists perspective. The only questions is what it all has to do with Christianity?

Slav

Wicknight wrote: »

Since when has it being arrogant to expect an omnipotent god if he exists to communicate in a fashion a bit more logical and believable than a set of religious stories from ancient middle eastern farmers that are largely indistinguishable from every other religious story ancient humans imagined in early civilisation?

Do you consider 21st century western world people to be somehow superior to the ancient middle eastern farmers? What was OK for them is not good enough for such a bright being that did his/her leaving cert and maybe even got a university degree?

And yes, the Bible stories ARE very different from other religious stories of that times.

Zombrex

Slav wrote: »

Do you consider 21st century western world people to be somehow superior to the ancient middle eastern farmers?

Yes, vastly so in terms of education and exposure to information and ideas

Slav wrote: »

What was OK for them is not good enough for such a bright being that did his/her leaving cert and maybe even got a university degree?

Again yes because we (21st century modern western world people) know how religious ideas can form easily in the human mind particularly in cases where a person has little exposure to education and ideas.

It would be, to me at least, puzzling that an omniscient god would choose to convey his message to humanity in a way that is almost indistinguishable from all the other mythological and supernatural ramblings of ancient man. That God, in his infinite wisdom, would decide that the best time to reach out to humanity was in a time when the world was awash with ancient humans inventing and cultivating stories of gods and goddesses, and that the best way to do it was through prophets in a time when people pretending to be prophets from every other religion were a dime a dozen.

It would be like a prophet being told to right down a story from a god about a boy wizard who is an orphan being sent to a school for wizards the day after Harry Potter is published. That would show some very bad timing on the part of the god in question.

Slav wrote: »

And yes, the Bible stories ARE very different from other religious stories of that times.

Your definition of "very different" might be a bit different to mine. :pac:

In fact so much has been made of the similarities of the Bible stories and stories in other religious that some Christians use this itself as evidence that it must all be true and come from a similar source in ancient times, playing the card of the unlikelihood of different civilisation making up similar stories.

monosharp

Slav wrote: »

Well, that's the problem. Christianity will not give enlightenment. And therefore it cannot be seen by Buddhism as the right path.

Why do you think Christianity will not give enlightenment ?

We don't really know what Gautama said as all the sources we have now are not that old. But still it's not relevant because we're talking about modern Buddhism.

Just as we don't really know what Jesus said as all the sources we have now are not that old.

Slav

Wicknight wrote: »

Slav wrote: »

Do you consider 21st century western world people to be somehow superior to the ancient middle eastern farmers?

Yes, vastly so in terms of education and exposure to information and ideas

Much greater access to information is a characteristic of the modern society and not of human beings. It's certainly one of the greatest things ever happened to our civilisation but I doubt it's changed us (unfortunately) somehow. Maybe it will in the future.

Wicknight wrote: »

Slav wrote: »

What was OK for them is not good enough for such a bright being that did his/her leaving cert and maybe even got a university degree?

Again yes because we (21st century modern western world people) know how religious ideas can form easily in the human mind particularly in cases where a person has little exposure to education and ideas.

Good to see such level of confidence!
To be honest, I'm not so optimistic about the abilities of the leaving cert holders though on the other hand I'm not so pessimistic about the abilities of ancient farmers.

Wicknight wrote: »

Slav wrote: »

And yes, the Bible stories ARE very different from other religious stories of that times.

Your definition of "very different" might be a bit different to mine. :pac:

No, I believe yours and mine understanding of "very different" are the same. I think you are just a bit overexcited by the fact that taking the Mickey out of Baptists can get you big lulz. That leaves you no space to see the Bible at least as a one of the most important cultural artefact that explains many things in ancient and even modern history. You don't need to be a theist to understand what issues the authors were trying to address (though I must admit it requires some knowledge of philosophy and ancient religions, particularly different forms of paganism) and what makes their stories different from the similar ones of their neighbours.

Slav

monosharp wrote: »

Why do you think Christianity will not give enlightenment ?

Why should it? Its objectives are quite the opposite to enlightenment in its Buddhist understanding: that state is exactly what Christianity is trying to avoid. Same what we might call 'enlightenment' in its Christian interpretation is exactly what is NOT enlightenment in Buddhism.

monosharp wrote: »

Just as we don't really know what Jesus said as all the sources we have now are not that old.

Jesus is certainly older then the Christian scriptures but comparing to the story of Gautama that gap is so small that it can be safely ignored.
For this matter comparing Jesus with Socrates will be more accurate. But again this issue is irrelevant to our discussion. I thought that we are comparing religions in its modern state and not how authentic they are, right?

monosharp

Slav wrote: »

Why should it? Its objectives are quite the opposite to enlightenment in its Buddhist understanding: that state is exactly what Christianity is trying to avoid. Same what we might call 'enlightenment' in its Christian interpretation is exactly what is NOT enlightenment in Buddhism.

I hope you don't know what enlightenment is buddhism is. Or are you advocating ignorance as the goal of been a christian ?

philologos

kelly1 wrote: »

The fact is that God hasn't concretely revealed Himself to most people. Very few are lucky enough to have had experiences of God which leave no room for doubt.

I've heard that 1.6 billion people have never heard the Gospel of Jesus Christ even once in their lives. Most of these people live in India, the Islamic world, and in the Buddhist world. I never thought it was ever that many.

kelly1

Wicknight wrote: »

The OP has a genuine question, can you answer it without first assuming something that the OP hasn't already accepted (ie the Bible).

Of course I could say that God is mean for hiding Himself from us but what would that achieve? Do you want me to say that God mustn't exist because MS has had no personal experience of Him?

The OP wants God to reveal Himself "In an undeniable fashion, in concrete terms." But I'm saying that God hasn't done so for the vast majority of us humans although I believe He has done to chosen individuals. We have to deal with this fact and take it from there.

So the OP must decide either that God doesn't exist or accept that God has revealed Himself in a manner of His own choosing, assuming He's a good God.
Because like I said a good God wouldn't keep Himself hidden from the entire human race.

Am I still missing your point?

Zombrex

Slav wrote: »

It's certainly one of the greatest things ever happened to our civilisation but I doubt it's changed us (unfortunately) somehow. Maybe it will in the future.

What do you mean by changed us?

Slav wrote: »

Good to see such level of confidence!
To be honest, I'm not so optimistic about the abilities of the leaving cert holders though on the other hand I'm not so pessimistic about the abilities of ancient farmers.

Well of course not, you follow a religion where it is necessary to accept the writings of these people as fact and reject modern arguments as to why you shouldn't. :P

But when you say you are not so pessimistic about the abilities of ancient farmers does that mean you accept, or are open to accepting, all the thousands of other religions of the time that detail gods and prophets and divine events, or just the Abrahamic ones?

Slav wrote: »

No, I believe yours and mine understanding of "very different" are the same. I think you are just a bit overexcited by the fact that taking the Mickey out of Baptists can get you big lulz

Mickey out of Baptists?I have absolutely no idea what that is supposed to be referring to?

My point was that the Bible is a collection of stories about a supernatural god who, time to time, communicated to humans through great supernatural events or through prophets. Most religions, particularly ancient Western religions, follow a similar pattern and structures. The stories are similar, the god is similar, the prophets are similar etc etc. It is odd to me that God would choose a similar manner to communicate with humans.

You shouldn't confuse the fact that you believe your religion is actually true with thinking that this some how makes the structure of the stories unique some how.

Slav

monosharp wrote: »

you don't know what enlightenment is buddhism is.

I would be very interested to know what brought you to this conclusion.

Zombrex

kelly1 wrote: »

Of course I could say that God is mean for hiding Himself from us but what would that achieve?

That isn't the issue.

The issue is how likely it is that the Bible is actually how an omnipotent deity would choose to reveal himself, rather than simply a book invented by humans describing a god that doesn't actually exist (ie God may exist but not be the god described in the Bible, in the same way you believe God exists but is not Zeus as described by the Greeks).

You asked the OP that if we assume God exists is it not logical to assume he would communicate and reveal himself to humans, and the OP responded saying yes but not through the writings of men (ie the Bible)

Your response was basically Who are you to say how God should reveal himself to humans. Which is simply avoiding the question. You might as well say who are you to say it makes sense that a god would reveal himself, and everyone is back at square one

Given that you and the OP are both using your judgement to determine that if a god existed it is likely he would wish to communicate with humans you should also be able to use your judgement to determine what is a likely (or unlikely) way he would choose to do this. After all plenty of documents claim to be revelations from God.

Assume for a minute that God (or a god) exists but that it has not yet been established that the Bible is actually how he has revealed himself.

Is it likely than an omnipotent, omniscient, deity would choose to reveal himself in the manner of the Bible?

Does it not make more sense that if such a god wished to reveal himself to humanity he would reveal himself in, as the OP puts it, "an undeniable fashion, in concrete terms", rather than through the writings of men. And that such a position would call into serious question how likely it is that the Bible is the revelation from God it claims to be.

That is the question. If God wouldn't choose to reveal himself through the writings of men, if such an act makes no sense as an act of an all powerful deity, then the Bible cannot be a revelation from God.

It shouldn't be a hard one for a Christian to answer because at some point you guys must have rationalised that yes actually it does make a lot of sense that this is how a deity would choose to reveal himself.

So just explain to the OP the rational of why God would choose this way to reveal himself.

Slav

Wicknight wrote: »

Well of course not, you follow a religion where it is necessary to accept the writings of these people as fact and reject modern arguments as to why you shouldn't. :P

I would be very much interested in the modern arguments. I must have missed them.

Wicknight wrote: »

But when you say you are not so pessimistic about the abilities of ancient farmers does that mean you accept, or are open to accepting, all the thousands of other religions of the time that detail gods and prophets and divine events, or just the Abrahamic ones?

I'm not talking about religions at all.

Wicknight wrote: »

You shouldn't confuse the fact that you believe your religion is actually true with thinking that this some how makes the structure of the stories unique some how.

No, I'm taking very atheistic position when I'm talking about uniqueness of the early Judaic scriptures.

philologos

Wicknight: is your only argument that the New Testament is old? Just because something is old doesn't mean that it cannot be:
1) Useful in modern society.
or
2) True

Zombrex

Slav wrote: »

I would be very much interested in the modern arguments. I must have missed them.

Pop over to the A&A forum. If you are feeling particularly brave (or sure of yourself), start at thread with the title "I believe it is perfectly reasonable to believe in God and the Bible"

You won't have to wait long

Slav wrote: »

I'm not talking about religions at all.

Ok ... what are you talking about?

Slav wrote: »

No, I'm taking very atheistic position when I'm talking about uniqueness of the early Judaic scriptures.

Can you point out something that is unique to early Judaic mythology?