# Christianity VERSUS Buddhism!!



## Corporal Hicks

Firstly before I start this thread off I would like to state that I'm not pitting the two different belief systems off against each other but merely wish to notice their subtle differences strengths and beliefs and have a good debate with anybody who may wish to do so.

I will start it off by saying 'today, I had debate with somebody over their faith of Christianity' and what I have to say is that even though I have a deep respect for their faith and belief I could not believe how narrow minded this person was, or maybe their experience to the other cultures and beliefs there were around her.

Firstly I would have to say thats she blindly casts down any other religion, and even refuses to study or even open her mind a little (her personal choice I know) to anything else that is out there. The classic argument that I thought nobody uses came up also (much to my great surprise) "Its true because the bible says so", the fact that she could not see that in fact Jesus (Christ) may indeed have simply been a very gifted and talented man instead of the son of God, or the fact that he may not have been the son of God is something she could not even acknowledge let alone comprehend. Even as I tried to maintain a neutral ground she threw her own answers that everything is true because the bible says it is. 

She even got quite angry when I stated that the bible may have in fact been changed and altered by the men who wrote it and that in fact it could be taken symbolically and not literally.

Is that not a fallacy? I mistake in reasoning? 

The argument on her part for Christianity having hold over all other religions was that Jesus was the only one who performed miracles, and low and behold when I asked her how did she know that they were true and that they were performed she simply replied with the facts that its true because the bible says it is.

I then argued from the point of interpretation, she recently broke her ankle and much more recently a couple of people prayed for her ankle, she then said that her ankle felt so much better and she immediately said that 'that was God'. From here I tried to argue the point that in fact she may have interpreted it that way, and that in fact it may have been the power of her mind, but no, she was having none of it. I mean to respect her belief here but am that simply not blind following, blind following without proper questioning? Another friend of mine recently (a militant Christian) had a lump on the back of her head, and it disappeared after a certain number of days, now the doctors said that had a possibility of happening but she immediately said it was God and left it at that, including the fact that she got angry if anybody said or questioned her on it otherwise. 

I thought of a chapter that I had read recently stating that some Christians were like a flock of sheep, weak sheep that could not handle the pressures of life and therefore needed the concept of a God help them through life. I thought this was a bit harsh, but not only that it depicted a sad state of humanity if (IF) it was the truth.

Surely thats not right, at least what I have seen to see so far is that a lot of Christians seem to blindly follow their faith, merely because they have been brought up that way and simply no no difference. Now when compared to Buddhism you can see a distinct difference, 

Christianity seems to be hoping for salvation and that it will come to them from God or/Jesus and that there will be eternal life after that, whereas in Buddhism humans make the best out of their present life and aspire to be the person they wish to be and live a 'free' life. 

I know that Christianity is not all bad, as Buddhism has its weak points to and the fact that the idea of a God saving people, or bringing a meaning to peoples lives is a comfort for some. Or is it?

Could you not say that if people cannot accept what is right in their in front of them, and cannot sort out their own lives that they could be weak, this is the view of some atheists and I wonder if they have a point?

I dont know, maybe I'm biased here but I see Buddhism as showing people the way to perfecting and improving themselves morally and physically and trying to sort out the imperfections in their life as well as trying to eradicate the suffering they feel or may in fact cause (not that some Christians dont do this). 

Also with the fact that Buddhism actually points out what causes suffering and how to eradicate it as well as other issues in life, it goes deeper than Christianity which seems to state that suffering is a part of life and is a test of faith from God.

What about the glimpses of enlightenment? Would Christians perceive this as glimpses of God? I'm not saying they are wrong but I'm trying to put a perspective on the matter.

Now there are some Christians that I know, that I have some deep respect for, as they seem to have soul searched they and come back to Christianity as their basis and their belief.

In the end I know its down to personal choice, but maybe I'm biased being a practicing Buddhist but I just see it as a stronger belief system? 



I dont know, thoughts please? Give your perspective!

I really dont mean any offence to anybody of any religion here, just stating some views and ideas!

Kind Regards

C.H

P.s That post was toooo long! phew:whip:


----------



## Bob Hubbard

We've had some heated debates here in the past over the "its true because the bible says so" concept. The fact that much of the supposed "facts" of the bible are without outside proof is of no concern to them. Certain facts (such as the depiction of Jesus with a beard which under Hebrew law at the time indicated he was married) are ignored, as is the fact that there are numerous translations of the books, and not all translations are equal. I've had arguments that Catholics aren't really Christians, that one must be a member of a "born again" group to really be "saved", etc etc etc.
When asked to "Prove it", they fire back with "Proof is against Faith".  My opinion? Believe what you want, the Goddess will sort ya out after you pass beyond the veil. 

Each group will take an identical event and see it differently. Gods power/love, Natures beauty/power, power of the mind, etc.  Person is deathly ill.  Listens to nothing but old comedy. Is suddenly cured.  Was it god? A positive attitude? The body staging a major comeback?  All of the above?  I honestly don't know.  I'll find out when I leave this world. Until then, I will personally enjoy studying the various systems, and seeing what works for me, be it God, Goddess, animal, , phylosophy, totem or mineral.


----------



## Sapper6

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> We've had some heated debates here in the past over the "its true because the bible says so" concept. The fact that much of the supposed "facts" of the bible are without outside proof is of no concern to them. Certain facts (such as the depiction of Jesus with a beard which under Hebrew law at the time indicated he was married) are ignored, as is the fact that there are numerous translations of the books, and not all translations are equal. I've had arguments that Catholics aren't really Christians, that one must be a member of a "born again" group to really be "saved", etc etc etc.
> When asked to "Prove it", they fire back with "Proof is against Faith".  My opinion? Believe what you want, the Goddess will sort ya out after you pass beyond the veil.
> 
> Each group will take an identical event and see it differently. Gods power/love, Natures beauty/power, power of the mind, etc.  Person is deathly ill.  Listens to nothing but old comedy. Is suddenly cured.  Was it god? A positive attitude? The body staging a major comeback?  All of the above?  I honestly don't know.  I'll find out when I leave this world. Until then, I will personally enjoy studying the various systems, and seeing what works for me, be it God, Goddess, animal, , phylosophy, totem or mineral.



faith is the premise behind ANY religion, not just christianity.  followers of EVERY religion cannot possible prove ANYTHING as to why their following is superior to others.

and this topic won't merit much insight unless we have followers of BOTH religions adding their .02.  without that, all you have is perspective.

but then again, devout buddhists will swear to you that buddhism is not a religion to begin with.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

Very true.  I wish I could add more serious content, but my own path has only recently led me to study Zen, so I'm far from an expert. Buddhism is a remote part of my current studies.

I think part of it is is that Christianity (in all it's flavors) is classified a religion, where as Buddhism is a Philosophy.

Definitions:

Buddhism:
A philosophy/religion created by Siddhartha Gautama (Buddha) over 2500 years ago, founded on Hindu beliefs. There are two major divisions: Mahayana and Theravada, and many subdivisions (Ch'an, or Zen, Buddhism is not really one of these). Fundamentally, Buddhists believe that one must rise above desires, to reach a state of enlightenment. Buddha was idolized, and subsequently deified, but he never claimed to be anything more than a man.

also:
The religion based on the teachings of Siddhartha Gautama, known as Buddha. He refuted the idea of man's having an immortal soul and did not preach of any Supreme Deity. Instead he taught that man should seek freedom from greed, hatred and delusion, and enlightenment through realizing the Four Noble Truths and following the Eightfold Path. The Four Noble Truths are: the fact of suffering, the origin of suffering, the annihilation of suffering, and the Eightfold Path. The Eightfold Path comprises: Right Views, Right Aspirations, Right Speech, Right Conduct, Right Livelihood, Right Effort, Right Mindfulness and Right Meditation. Buddhism migrated out of India, the country of its origin, and now enjoys a following of roughly 300 million, mostly in Asia.



Christianity:
Christianity is a monotheistic religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth as presented in the New Testament writings of his early followers. It is the world's largest religion, with an estimated 2.1 billion followers, or about one-third of the world's population.

It shares with Judaism the books of the Hebrew Bible (all of which are incorporated in the Old Testament), and for this reason is sometimes called an Abrahamic religion.

Christianity encompasses numerous religious traditions that widely vary by culture, as well as many diverse beliefs and sects. It is usually represented as having divided into three main branches, over the past two millennia


----------



## Corporal Hicks

Sapper6 said:
			
		

> faith is the premise behind ANY religion, not just christianity. followers of EVERY religion cannot possible prove ANYTHING as to why their following is superior to others.
> 
> and this topic won't merit much insight unless we have followers of BOTH religions adding their .02. without that, all you have is perspective.
> 
> but then again, devout buddhists will swear to you that buddhism is not a religion to begin with.


So we can say, that humans all seem to want something, that we feel something is missing and something needs to fill a hole within/outside/around!
What we put (or try, even force) into the hole could be religion or a belief system.

I got to agree with you Bob with the fact I'm not going to care too much and wait to see after I did, until them I'm going to live life to the full, who knows!!!

Yeah would be nice to get some Christian perspectives on this!
Regards


----------



## ave_turuta

Hello Corporal Hicks!

 As others have already pointed out, I would start by considering the fact that Christianity is a monotheistic belief system that places extraordinary emphasis on the figure of an all-powerful, omnipotent entity, whereas Buddhism can be considered (although there are substantial differences amongst different cultures, but for simplification purposes here) more of a philosophy that focuses on individual development. Equally, Christianity originates from a cultural tradition that attached a specific importance to the idea of "revelation," whereas Buddhism does not take the concept of "revelation" into consideration. Herein lies the key difference: for a believer in any of the monotheistic religions, adherence to a set of tenets of the faith as a prerequisite for salvation is based on the interpretation and/or direct implementation of "revelation," i.e. God's direct speech to humankind; something that you don't find in Buddhism. It is the lack of adherence to the notion of revelation that makes Buddhism not a religion, but rather a system of thought/worldview/philosophy (in my view). Of course, tradition and cultural constructs may interfere in the form of commands to obedience, etc. etc. but whereas in Christianity, Judaism, or Islam these commands are justified textually through adherence to divine revelation, in Buddhist culture this is more tied to the notion of "tradition." 

 Personally, I am a strict rationalist atheist and secular humanist with no penchance for any kind of belief in the (in my opinion) non existing supranatural. I have found discussions with self-professed believers to be a total waste of time becuase (a) the arguments of a theist are circular and closed, given the fact that their belief is based on the acceptance of revelation, which in turn commands and justifies belief, and back again to where we started; and (b) I have difficulty conversing with people who seem to be of the view that in order for a human being to be moral and ethical, adherence to those texts is not only necessary for themselves, but for the whole of society. While I do find Buddhism to be closer to rational secular humanism, I am content with trying to understanding the world from my deeply entrenched ethical values and have not considered the need to adopt it as a way of living. 

 I would like to recommend the book by Daniel Harbour, "An intelligent guide to atheism," as well as any of zoologist Richard Dawkins' writings on the subject of Christianity and religion in general. 

   Respectfully, 
   A.T.


----------



## Sapper6

Corporal Hicks said:
			
		

> So we can say, that humans all seem to want something, that we feel something is missing and something needs to fill a hole within/outside/around!
> What we put (or try, even force) into the hole could be religion or a belief system.
> 
> I got to agree with you Bob with the fact I'm not going to care too much and wait to see after I did, until them I'm going to live life to the full, who knows!!!
> 
> Yeah would be nice to get some Christian perspectives on this!
> Regards



what you said echos entirely a specific scene in the movie "Contact", a screenplay for Carl Sagan's book of the same name.  the scene in particular has Jodie Foster's character and Matthew McConaughey's character discussing "why" we exist.  although i can't paraphrase exactly how it is said, that is what's stated.  any fan of Carl Sagan will know exactly what i'm talking about.  check it out, surely a movie not to displease.

there was a time in my life that i was practicing indepth the Nichiren buddhism of the Soka Gakkai International   .  i wouldn't say i was any better a human for doing this, rather than say, going to church every sunday.  it's all based on faith, regardless of the study.  if you don't truly believe it helps you in life, then it won't.  it's as simple as that.  regardless of how many Nam-myoho-renge-kyo you do in one day.  (aahhh, them were the days...)

 :asian:


----------



## Corporal Hicks

ave_turuta said:
			
		

> Hello Corporal Hicks!
> 
> As others have already pointed out, I would start by considering the fact that Christianity is a monotheistic belief system that places extraordinary emphasis on the figure of an all-powerful, omnipotent entity, whereas Buddhism can be considered (although there are substantial differences amongst different cultures, but for simplification purposes here) more of a philosophy that focuses on individual development. Equally, Christianity originates from a cultural tradition that attached a specific importance to the idea of "revelation," whereas Buddhism does not take the concept of "revelation" into consideration. Herein lies the key difference: for a believer in any of the monotheistic religions, adherence to a set of tenets of the faith as a prerequisite for salvation is based on the interpretation and/or direct implementation of "revelation," i.e. God's direct speech to humankind; something that you don't find in Buddhism. It is the lack of adherence to the notion of revelation that makes Buddhism not a religion, but rather a system of thought/worldview/philosophy (in my view). Of course, tradition and cultural constructs may interfere in the form of commands to obedience, etc. etc. but whereas in Christianity, Judaism, or Islam these commands are justified textually through adherence to divine revelation, in Buddhist culture this is more tied to the notion of "tradition."
> 
> Personally, I am a strict rationalist atheist and secular humanist with no penchance for any kind of belief in the (in my opinion) non existing supranatural. I have found discussions with self-professed believers to be a total waste of time becuase (a) the arguments of a theist are circular and closed, given the fact that their belief is based on the acceptance of revelation, which in turn commands and justifies belief, and back again to where we started; and (b) I have difficulty conversing with people who seem to be of the view that in order for a human being to be moral and ethical, adherence to those texts is not only necessary for themselves, but for the whole of society. While I do find Buddhism to be closer to rational secular humanism, I am content with trying to understanding the world from my deeply entrenched ethical values and have not considered the need to adopt it as a way of living.
> 
> I would like to recommend the book by Daniel Harbour, "An intelligent guide to atheism," as well as any of zoologist Richard Dawkins' writings on the subject of Christianity and religion in general.
> 
> Respectfully,
> A.T.


That was a really good post, thanks! And for the book references!
As I wrote in the above and have to agree with you there that



			
				ave_turuta said:
			
		

> (a) the arguments of a theist are circular and closed, given the fact that their belief is based on the acceptance of revelation, which in turn commands and justifies belief, and back again to where we started; and (b) I have difficulty conversing with people who seem to be of the view that in order for a human being to be moral and ethical, adherence to those texts is not only necessary for themselves, but for the whole of society.


Is something that I have personally come across quite alot. Especially it seems with those who have not looked elsewhere. To some degree I think there is insecurity in these people, they cannot (or will not) look outside of their owns views (under the assumstion that they can) for fear of something disproving or tackling what they believe, maybe one would consider it that they may fear they have wasted their time, and therefore do not want to risk the idea that they may indeed find answers elsewhere!!!!
I see that Buddhism has indeed taken a line with humanism and is closer towards it, as it seems to take make the best of humans, or courages them to take the best for themselves, though as a system of belief it still has the supernatural (and tradition as you say) idea of karma and re-becoming.

I heard somewhere that monotheistic religions were good for 'controlling the masses'. I have yet to read The Divinci Code but I will do so. Would you agree with this? 
Is there a decline in followers for Christianity?
Regards

Thanks for all the replies so far, been great!


----------



## Sapper6

Corporal Hicks said:
			
		

> So we can say, that humans all seem to want something, that we feel something is missing and something needs to fill a hole within/outside/around!
> What we put (or try, even force) into the hole could be religion or a belief system.



i had to research what you said even more, it was starting to bug the hell out of me.

the beleive this, you certainly concede to Occam's Razor, or Ockham's Razor.

_Occam's Razor (also spelt Ockham's Razor), is a principle attributed to the 14th-century English logician and Franciscan friar, William of Ockham. It forms the basis of methodological reductionism, also called the principle of parsimony or law of economy.

In its simplest form, Occam's Razor states that one should make no more assumptions than needed. Put into everyday language, it says

*The simplest explanation tends to be the correct one.* 

When multiple explanations are available for a phenomenon, the simplest version is preferred. For example, a charred tree on the ground could be caused by a landing alien ship or a lightning strike. According to Occam's Razor, the lightning strike is the preferred explanation as it requires the fewest assumptions._

so what's more likely: That a mysterious, all-powerful God created the Universe, and then decided not to leave a single evidence of his existence? Or that He simply doesn´t exist at all, and that we created Him, so that we wouldn't have to feel so small and lonely?

does this make sense?  sure it does; to someone who has nothing else to believe in.

again, it's all about faith, regardless of where it is directed.  without faith, religion doesn't exist.  buddhism is a little different.  in buddhism, youre not worshiping a specific entity or belief.  there are many involved.  after several years of practicing buddhism, i conceded that buddhism was a "religion" of self, yourself, personal happiness, etc.  not to mention, all the natural laws of the universe had to be respected: ie: don't kill, keep the earth clean, be nice, dont cheat on your wife, blah, blah, blah.  rather than going to hell (like the teachings of Christianity) you brought upon yourself bad "karma", or a negative energy that would affect you in the future.  perhaps an undesireableness in your next life.  your next life didn't necessarily mean "living creature" though.  it could be anything your nucleic energy manifested itself into after your physical body had exhausted it.  this was one interesting aspect of buddhism, to me anyway, that had involved the science behind belief.  take a look at the Theory of Relativity for more insight into this.  in short, stating that nucleic energy cannot be created from nothing, only harnessed and it's form of existence altered.  this was most interesting.  but once i devulged deeper into this aspect, i was no longer studying buddhism, but natural physics and science.


----------



## Sapper6

interesting quotes, all the words of Carl Sagan, a brilliant astronomer, physicist, writer, and philosopher.

Carl Sagan on religion:



> Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence
> 
> Such reports persist and proliferate because they sell. And they sell, I think, because there are so many of us who want so badly to be jolted out of our humdrum lives, to rekindle that sense of wonder we remember from childhood, and also, for a few of the stories, to be able, really and truly, to believe--in Someone older, smarter, and wiser who is looking out for us. Faith is clearly not enough for many people. They crave hard evidence, scientific proof. They long for the scientific seal of approval, but are unwilling to put up with the rigorous standards of evidence that impart credibility to that seal.
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> The idea that God is an oversized white male with a flowing beard who sits in the sky and tallies the fall of every sparrow is ludicrous. But if by God one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God. This God is emotionally unsatisfying... it does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe.*
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> The major religions on the Earth contradict each other left and rightYou can't all be correct. And what if all of you are wrong? It's a possibility, you know. You must care about the truth, right? Well, the way to winnow through all the differing contentions is to be skeptical. I'm not any more skeptical about your religious beliefs than I am about every new scientific idea I hear about. But in my line of work, they're called hypotheses, not inspiration and not revelation.
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> What I'm saying is, if God wanted to send us a message, and ancient writings were the only way he could think of doing it, he could have done a better job.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Anything you don't understand you attribute to God. God for you is where you sweep away all the mysteries of the world, all the challenges to our intelligence. You simply turn your mind off and say God did it.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> The question [Do you believe in God?] has a peculiar structure. If I say no, do I mean I'm convinced God doesn't exist, or do I mean I'm not convinced he does exist? Those are two very different questions.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> You see, the religious people -- most of them -- really think this planet is an experiment. That's what their beliefs come down to. Some god or other is always fixing and poking, messing around with tradesmen's wives, giving tablets on mountains, commanding you to mutilate your children, telling people what words they can say and what words they can't say, making people feel guilty about enjoying themselves, and like that. Why can't the gods leave well enough alone? All this intervention speaks of incompetence. If God didn't want Lot's wife to look back, why didn't he make her obedient, so she'd do what her husband told her? Or if he hadn't made Lot such a ********, maybe she would've listened to him more. If God is omnipotent and omniscient, why didn't he start the universe out in the first place so it would come out the way he wants? Why's he constantly repairing and complaining? No, there's one thing the Bible makes clear: The biblical God is a sloppy manufacturer. He's not good at design, he's not good at execution. He'd be out of business if there was any competition.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (When asked merely if they accept evolution, 45 percent of Americans say yes. The figure is 70 percent in China.) When the movie Jurassic Park was shown in Israel, it was condemned by some Orthodox rabbis because it accepted evolution and because it taught that dinosaurs lived a hundred million years ago--when, as is plainly stated at every Rosh Hashonhan and every Jewish wedding ceremony, the Universe is less than 6,000 years old.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> I would love to believe that when I die I will live again, that some thinking, feeling, remembering part of me will continue. But much as I want to believe that, and despite the ancient and worldwide cultural traditions that assert an afterlife, I know of nothing to suggest that it is more than wishful thinking. The world is so exquisite with so much love and moral depth, that there is no reason to deceive ourselves with pretty stories for which there's little good evidence. Far better it seems to me, in our vulnerability, is to look death in the eye and to be grateful every day for the brief but magnificent opportunity that life provides.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Life is but a momentary glimpse of the wonder of this astonishing universe, and it is sad to see so many dreaming it away on spiritual fantasy.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> One prominent American religion confidently predicted that the world would end in 1914. Well, 1914 has come and gone, and - whole the events of that year were certainly of some importance - the world did not, at least so far as I can see, seem to have ended. There are at least three responses that an organized religion can make in the face of such a failed and fundamental prophecy. They could have said, Oh, did we say '1914'? So sorry, we meant '2014'. A slight error in calculation. Hope you weren't inconvinenced in any way. But they did not. They could have said, Well, the world would have ended, except we prayed very hard and interceded with God so He spared the Earth. But they did not. Instead, the did something much more ingenious. They announced that the world had in fact ended in 1914, and if the rest of us hadn't noticed, that was our lookout. It is astonishing in the fact of such transparent evasions that this religion has any adherents at all. But religions are tough. Either they make no contentions which are subject to disproof or they quickly redesign doctrine after disproof. The fact that religions can be so shamelessly dishonest, so contemptuous of the intelligence of their adherents, and still flourish does not speak very well for the tough- mindedness of the believers. But it does indicate, if a demonstration was needed, that near the core of the religious experience is something remarkably resistant to rational inquiry.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------



just a few anyway, regardless of their relavance, interesting to say the least.


----------



## ave_turuta

Corporal Hicks said:
			
		

> That was a really good post, thanks! And for the book references!
> As I wrote in the above and have to agree with you there that
> 
> Is something that I have personally come across quite alot. Especially it seems with those who have not looked elsewhere. To some degree I think there is insecurity in these people, they cannot (or will not) look outside of their owns views (under the assumstion that they can) for fear of something disproving or tackling what they believe, maybe one would consider it that they may fear they have wasted their time, and therefore do not want to risk the idea that they may indeed find answers elsewhere!!!!
> I see that Buddhism has indeed taken a line with humanism and is closer towards it, as it seems to take make the best of humans, or courages them to take the best for themselves, though as a system of belief it still has the supernatural (and tradition as you say) idea of karma and re-becoming.
> 
> I heard somewhere that monotheistic religions were good for 'controlling the masses'. I have yet to read The Divinci Code but I will do so. Would you agree with this?
> Is there a decline in followers for Christianity?
> Regards
> 
> Thanks for all the replies so far, been great!


 Thank you in turn for your kind response, Corporal. I stand corrected on the title of the book, which is "An intelligent person's guide to atheism." It is fairly cheap (around $7) and a small treatise on the matter of how to confront the traditional arguments presented by theists against atheists: the point, the author argues, is not whether "God exists" or not. Since it cannot be proven nor disproven, it doesn't matter. The point the author is making is rather different. Theists often acuse atheists of lacking in morality and or ethical standards because of our no-adherence to the notion of salvation and the afterlife. They ask: how can you do any good if you don't believe in the afterlife? What, then, is the purpose of life? The question I ask to theists, is rather the opposite: do you really need to abide by a strict code presumably "revealed" by an entity of dubious existence to be a moral and ethical person? Does humanity truly need to abide by what today we consider to be irrational and whimsical commands (such as the many contained in all sacred monotheistic texts that call for the execution of adulterers or the execution of those people who work on Shabath, for instance) in order to create a more just and peaceful world? Is salvation truly the only incentive people have to do good??? If so, it is very, very sad. 

 I, on the other hand, prefer to believe that we as human beings have the intellectual ability to look beyond these things. My question to thesits, thus, is: why wait for paradise in the afterlife, when we live in such a wonderful world filled with people whom we can befriend, interact with, help or be helped by? Why not have paradise here and now, and strive for it? Isn't life worth it enough that we must invent secondary paradises because we have surrendered to the grimness of this existence? 

 Another recommendation is the Free Inquiry magazine, published by the Council for Secular Humanism. You can find some of their features here: 

http://www.secularhumanism.org/fi/

 And finally, I would like to add that while I do not feel the need to prove or disprove any of the theist claims regarding the existence of god, his role in human actions, etc. etc., I do however feel very strongly about other people imposing their particular beliefs in society as a whole. As a person in a lesbian relationship who has suffered extensively from religiously sponsored homophobia and discrimination, I have learnt that when it comes to showing love and compassion, Christians are very far from the ideal that they constantly preach. 

 As for your question regarding the growth of Christianity, I could not say with precision. It is likely that given the constant increase in populatin worldwide Christianity is growing, like all other religions, in absolute numbers, but I am not sure it is growing more than others. 

 Finally, with regards to "controlling the masses." German philosopher Karl Marx wrote once that "religion is the opium of the people." Marx, the originator of what sociologists call the "conflict perspective," argued that religion does serve as a mechanism for perpetuating the patterns of dominance and subordination in human groupings. For Marx, it was important to take into consideration the concept of alientation, i.e. the fact that people can become alienated from their own selves and put their trust in deities (rather than themselves) for ordaining the political, economic, and social order. Historically speaking, Marx argued, those groups that benefitted from existing social arrangements could find their privileges and position in society protected and perpetuated through adherence to religion. This, of course, is not exclusive to Christianity. Hinduism, for instance, promotes social hierarchization into the caste system and justifies this fact through the belief in reincarnation, thus encouraging people to "accept" their fate rather than do anything to change it. 

 From a sociological point of view, scholars like Peter Berger and others (see BErger's "The sacred canopy") have argued consistently in favor of the statement you make, i.e. that religion and particularly institutionalized religion has served throughout human history to construct and perpetuate hierarchical arrangements in human groups. Whether it is by separating people into believers vs. non-believers (putting the latter under the label of "non-believer = not-like-us = sub-human"), or whether through privileging a particular group of society versus another (priests vs. lay people, men over women, white vs. black, free vs. slave, etc. etc.) I think the fact is today most sociologists and serious scholars would agree with the assertion that religion is a powerful element in what you have termed "controlling the masses." Ultimately, I suscribe to the idea that in general terms, while spirituality can be an ally of human beings at the individual level (it makes you feel better, so to speak), institutionalized religion, because of its focus on the afterlife, blocks people from focusing on the here-and-now. I could write twenty more paragraphs on how insitutionalized religion has been used throughout human history to subordinate women to men, etc. etc., but I think I have made my point....  

  Thank you for posing such interesting questions. 

  My best regards, 
  A.T.


----------



## Feisty Mouse

About to head to bed, so this is a quick message ~

Christianity and Buddhism do not have to be set up against each other in conflict.  They are not identical, obviously, but there are some similarities in the way people are taught to behave.

Good read:  Living Buddha, Living Christ by monk Thich Nhat Hanh.  I recommend it.

Primary principles of loving your neighbor (meaning: anyone who happens to be there next to you, no matter who they are), showing compassion and selflessness, living for the next world/next life....  

Of course there are differences in time cycles, afterlife/rebirth, etc.


----------



## rutherford

Feisty Mouse, the more I look, the more I find similarities between all religions.  I think there's a basic fundamental truth to all of them and that each is just a cultural expression of the same truth.

Sapper6, the problem with the Razor is that it's really sharp tool often wielded by the ignorant.  Without complete knowledge of the system we're trying to describe, it's hard to know if we're cutting away something essential.  Sherlock Holmes has another way of describing its use, "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."  With something like religion, how do we know what's impossible?

Corporal Hicks, I hope you enjoyed your conversation.  My thought is that challenging somebody's religious convictions is usually a bad idea and that one should never enter into such a conversation for anything other than enjoyment.  If you or your conversational partner take anything else from the talk, consider it a gift and a sign of uncommon good luck.


----------



## tsdclaflin

Christianity versus Buddhism...hmm....

Buddhism is a philosophy that tries to improve the human condition.

Christianity is God reaching out to mankind to help him/her make this life better AND to offer him/her eternal life.

Although similarities can be made, they really can't be compared. To compare Christianity with any philosophy, you have to focus on the benefits of Christianity IN THIS LIFE which removes the most important part of Christianity which is the AFTER-life. As a Christian, I accept the Bible and the teachings of Jesus Christ by FAITH, not as a result of PROOF. I believe that Christianity is true because of my experience. However, it is not an irrational faith--for example, historians/archeologists continue making discoveries that support the historicity of the Bible. Scientists cannot disprove the Bible, though many of tried. Creation scientists have as much intellectual support for a Christian view as evolutionists do for theirs (albeit both require a "leap of faith" to accept).

Some Christians simply do not know how to defend their faith. Jesus Christ is God's son, just as He claimed to be. He was certainly not the only miracle-worker in history, but He, unlike anyone before or since, was sent by God to be the savior of mankind. God loves His creation (us) and wants us to spend eternity with Him. As a bonus, God helps us through this life, but God understands that human condition and knows that life will have pain and suffering. He promises us something better later.

Rev. Ken Claflin


----------



## lulflo

29 years old, reading the Bible for the first time, only thing I can say on this now is, if you are going to argue one side against the other, at least read up on the other side. I used to argue against the Bible all the time, but I haven't ever read it. So now I am about half way through the New Testament. Definetely suggest the reading to anyone to take what you can from it. If you feel the need to argue against it, at least you will know where the other side is coming from. Just for the record, Mom (and Dad who left when I was two) both Jewish, I never was a practicing Jew, more agnostic until my twenties, then somewhat into the idea of the Tao, now just confused and clear at the same time? Love everyone!

   Peace

   Farang - Larry


----------



## ave_turuta

lulflo said:
			
		

> if you are going to argue one side against the other, at least read up on the other side.


 I don´t assume you are referring to my post with this particular quote. Not only have I read the Bible in its entirety, but I am quite familiar also with the text of the Quran, the other basic text of monotheistic faith, as well as other "sacred" texts. It is part of my job as a historian and an educator to do so. 

 Peace, 
 A.T.


----------



## ave_turuta

tsdclaflin said:
			
		

> However, it is not an irrational faith--for example, historians/archeologists continue making discoveries that support the historicity of the Bible. Scientists cannot disprove the Bible, though many of tried.


  Sir, 

 I would like to ask that you provide evidence (either from academic sources, whether theological or scientific) that supports the above statement. In particular, I would like you to address the problematic fact that the Bible (and other so-called "revealed" texts) contain dozens if not hundreds of statements related to the fields of geology, biology, zoology, etc. etc. that have long been disproven by the scientific community, starting with but not limited to the fact that according to the Biblical narrative humanity springs off two beings created from dust or that the Earth is only 6,000 years old. 



			
				tsdclaflin said:
			
		

> Creation scientists have as much intellectual support for a Christian view as evolutionists do for theirs (albeit both require a "leap of faith" to accept).


 Again, I would like you to engage this debate philosophically. Your assertion that evolutionists require a "leap of faith" to support their arguments is, quite bluntly, and for lack of a better word, disingenious and dishonest. Evolutionism is a scientific theory based on the application of scientific rationalism to the complex task of trying to understand the funcioning of our world and the origins of life, a task based on the collection and analysis of scientifically measurable data. How does creationism compare to this effort? 



			
				tsdclaflin said:
			
		

> Some Christians simply do not know how to defend their faith.


  I find it surprising that you find Christianity needs to be "defended." From what exactly? 



			
				tsdclaflin said:
			
		

> Jesus Christ is God's son, just as He claimed to be. He was certainly not the only miracle-worker in history, but He, unlike anyone before or since, was sent by God to be the savior of mankind. God loves His creation (us) and wants us to spend eternity with Him. As a bonus, God helps us through this life, but God understands that human condition and knows that life will have pain and suffering. He promises us something better later.
> 
> Rev. Ken Claflin


 Once again, yours is a closed, self-contained, non-falsifiable, circular statement. I would like to ask you the following questions: 

  1. Is belief in a supreme deity a necessary prerequisite for being a moral and ethical individual? 

  2. Is belief in an afterlife a precondition for maintaining an ethical worldview, and if so, why? 

 3. Is salvation, in your understanding of the word, limited to individuals who profess their belief in the divinity of Jesus Christ, or can it also be extended to individiuals who do not profess such view? If faith is a prerequisite for salvation, where do other non-Christian self-professed believers stand in this path? Can they be saved? What do you make of the obvious incompatibility between systems of faith that predicate salvation only through adherence to their particular tenets? 


 4. Can you point to any instances where Christianity (and I speak of Christianity because it is the monotheistic system that is being referred to here) has been used to perpetrate inmoral and anti-ethical acts, such as 

 - the upholding and justification of woman's inferior status (legally as well as philosophically) in society since the onset of Christianity (and Judaism before that). I would particularly like you to address the importance of Pauline writings as well as the adoption of Aristotelian views on women as inferior beings by later Christian thinkers, such as Thomas Aquinas. 

 - the justification of the enslavement of one group of human beings by another, as sanctioned in numerous sections of the Old Testament and New 

 - the justification for the persecution, prosecution, and frequent execution of free-thinkers, scientists, and people who opposed the official doctrines of institutionalized Christian churches, whether Catholic, Calvinist, etc. I am referring to the well-known cases of Galileo, the Church's denial of the Copernican thesis, or the execution of Spanish scientist and thinker Miguel Servet, amongst others. 

 - the justification from a Christian point of view of the perpetuation of hatred and discrimination against particular groups of people, including but not limited to gay and lesbian individuals. 

 5. How do you explain the existence of evil in the world? Further, how do you explain the fact that evil acts can and in fact are frequently committed not only "in the name of God," but also under the direct guidance and inspiration of religiously sanctioned texts? 

 As a final comment, I find it particularly interesting how theists insist on pointing to god's "benevolence" as "proof" of his existence: omnipotence is considered a divine attribute, yet theists cannot satisfactorily explain why evil exists. If it does (so the reasoning goes), it is because (a) humans are flawed, or (b) a dark and obscure force (the Devil) messes up with the omnipotence character of the divine and thus interferes with humanity's goodness. Either way, god is praised for all the good while being liberated from any kind of responsibility when somethng goes awry. Nice deal!!! 

 I have already pointed out that in my opinion the crux of the matter is not whether god exists or not, since neither position can be proven or disproven. Rather, I am interested in discussing the abovementioned matters, which touch on more important issues such as whether faith in a particular deity and abiding to a particular set of religious dogma _is _a prerequisite for morality and ethics. 

Sincerely,
  A.T.


----------



## lulflo

Not referring to you Ave,

I was speaking to the person who started the thread, because I have, in the past, taken arguements without first obtaining the needed information from both sides, not that C.H. hasn't done so, but just a friendly suggestion if it had not been done.


----------



## Corporal Hicks

rutherford said:
			
		

> Corporal Hicks, I hope you enjoyed your conversation. My thought is that challenging somebody's religious convictions is usually a bad idea and that one should never enter into such a conversation for anything other than enjoyment. If you or your conversational partner take anything else from the talk, consider it a gift and a sign of uncommon good luck.


Please dont get me wrong, as I said at the start I am not here to pit the beliefs against each other, but I wanted to see their fundamental differences and I have realise through the posts, conflict that can arise simply from their ground roots and the way they have clashed.
I'm not here to flame, merely to discuss. I take your word though, I only challenge others religious convictions if they wish to have a discussion in the first place. By writing this I hope I have not offended anybody, for that was really not my point! Regards

Lulflo, the reason that I started the thread was so that I would understand the Christian viewpoint in a little more depth because so far I have come across the statements from people who seem to be very closed, who preach to me when I dont ask them to, and there have been very few who seem to have 'open minds' and have discussed it with me properly.
I admit that I have not studied the bible intensely, only doing it through choice of A-level studies, I will not proclaim that I have read it through, what I will say is that I tried to read it through personal choice, to try to understand but all I can say is that, it simply wasnt for me! Now instead of me firing my own viewpoint at others I wish to understand the Christian viewpoint from a deeper perspective.
I do not wish people to take offence on this thread or to openly flame each other, just to debate, I am aware however that discussing matters that are of great personal opinion to some makes this thread more vunerable to these factors.
Kind Regards


----------



## Corporal Hicks

tsdclaflin said:
			
		

> Christianity versus Buddhism...hmm....
> 
> Buddhism is a philosophy that tries to improve the human condition.
> 
> Christianity is God reaching out to mankind to help him/her make this life better AND to offer him/her eternal life.
> 
> Some Christians simply do not know how to defend their faith. Jesus Christ is God's son, just as He claimed to be. He was certainly not the only miracle-worker in history, but He, unlike anyone before or since, was sent by God to be the savior of mankind. God loves His creation (us) and wants us to spend eternity with Him. As a bonus, God helps us through this life, but God understands that human condition and knows that life will have pain and suffering. He promises us something better later.
> 
> Rev. Ken Claflin


Ok, tell me how you know that Jesus Christ was in fact God's Son? As he claimed to be as you say? 
If you reply with the answer that you believe it to be so through your faith! Tell me why you believe that particular aspect and not interprate it differently? Tell me what tells you inside that it is true? please, thats if you can?

"But He unllike anyone before or since, was sent by God to be the savior of mankind" How do I know that Muhammad was not correct?

"He promises su something better later" Why later? Why not now? Why do I have to wait for salvation? Why can I not live in the now? How do I truely really know that this world is simply just a test?
Can you tell me where the roots of your 'faith' come from?
Please please please, do not take offence! My kindest regards
C.h


----------



## Sapper6

Corporal Hicks said:
			
		

> Ok, tell me how you know that Jesus Christ was in fact God's Son? As he claimed to be as you say?
> If you reply with the answer that you believe it to be so through your faith! Tell me why you believe that particular aspect and not interprate it differently? Tell me what tells you inside that it is true? please, thats if you can?
> 
> "But He unllike anyone before or since, was sent by God to be the savior of mankind" How do I know that Muhammad was not correct?
> 
> "He promises su something better later" Why later? Why not now? Why do I have to wait for salvation? Why can I not live in the now? How do I truely really know that this world is simply just a test?
> Can you tell me where the roots of your 'faith' come from?
> Please please please, do not take offence! My kindest regards
> C.h



you cannot ask someone to prove something that is based on faith, it's impossible.  they believe it because, they believe it.  let's turn the tables here:

_do you love your parents?

if so, prove it._

you see what kind of feeling this type of question causes?  your instinct is to just say, "Because that's the way it is".  you cannot expect anything more, if you do, you'll be frustrated with disappointment.

i certainly hope this doesnt turn into a christian beliefs bashing.  i get the hint, not only from your post, that it's starting to make that turn.  let's not take it there.  if there are people that wish for more insight into religious beliefs, a martial arts forum is probably low on the list of places to look.  you're going to end up asking the wrong person about why they believe what they believe.  they are not going to offer the answer that you prefer or understand.  questions will fly and people are bound to be offended.


@ ave_turuta

i'm sorry that you've experienced an ugly side to christianity.  obviously these people do not represent the religion in it's best interest.  hypocrisy is everywhere, not limited by denomination.  i apologize for your experience.  i am a christian by faith and i was never raised to feel the way you've described.  i hope that life finds you well.  best wishes.


----------



## Tgace

How about Islam Vs. Buddhism? Oh I forgot, its not PC to bash on Islam.

*Tongue in cheek, but see my point?*


----------



## Corporal Hicks

Sapper6 said:
			
		

> you cannot ask someone to prove something that is based on faith, it's impossible. they believe it because, they believe it. let's turn the tables here:
> 
> _do you love your parents?_
> 
> _if so, prove it._
> 
> you see what kind of feeling this type of question causes? your instinct is to just say, "Because that's the way it is". you cannot expect anything more, if you do, you'll be frustrated with disappointment.
> 
> i certainly hope this doesnt turn into a christian beliefs bashing. i get the hint, not only from your post, that it's starting to make that turn. let's not take it there. if there are people that wish for more insight into religious beliefs, a martial arts forum is probably low on the list of places to look. you're going to end up asking the wrong person about why they believe what they believe. they are not going to offer the answer that you prefer or understand. questions will fly and people are bound to be offended.
> 
> .


My apologies and point taken, however is it not reasonable to ask those questions?
You ask me if I love my parents? Well firstly I would say that I love my parents through experience, how do I know that I love, I dont, but tell me first what love is? You ask me what love is,  I could say that love is merely the concept that I have been brought up to believe in, just as faith may be a concept within itself. Maybe if one wished to do so they could banish the idea of 'love' from their life?! I'm not bashing here, but I dont understand, why people would put their belief into something that they could have possibly never seen, never felt or if they have, simply do realise that what they feel and experience or whatever is open to their own interpretation? However I can question my love for my parents through my actions? Maybe love, or faith or any emotion is simply a part of our genetic makeup, a label to a chemical reaction? This is reductionism, this is occams razor! Fortunately I also appreciate your previous point,  and that reductionism too has its weaknesses, that fact sometimes, things can be reduced, too much!

This is a philosphical part of a Martial Arts forum, I do not see why I should not post such questions, if the moderators deem it unecessary or if it gets out of hand then by all means they should close the thread.
Do you not like the thread simply because it questions your belief? I hope that people have the capability to response in a curtious manner.  
Tell me why you think this thread is a threat? Yet others will openly challenge and pick my belief in Buddhism to bits and even disregard my feelings and opinions but when I comes to theirs they back behind a wall? 
 I would say that from being younger, Christianity was drilled into me, just like its being 'installed' into SOME young people today, the only thing I didnt get was answers, not philosphical answers, just answers. The only response I got, was, "that is because the way it is" and they told me that "when you experience something great and powerful, it will be God almighty, who has come to you through Jesus Christ and opened the door to eternal life!". Tell me why I should not question that it should be a Christian God that I am experiencing? Tell me why I should interpretate it that way?
Why thing that puzzled me, was why?
Not just why in the sense of the world around me is bought by a Christian God or any god?
But why are we asking the why question in the first place? Do you get that?
Why as why in the first place?
Regards


----------



## Corporal Hicks

Tgace said:
			
		

> How about Islam Vs. Buddhism? Oh I forgot, its not PC to bash on Islam.
> 
> *Tongue in cheek, but see my point?*


Ha, its not PC to bash (no wait, challenge, thats the word) anything these days! In fact saying that I've probably violated section 7 paragraph 4 of the Political correctness index, therefore resulting in a long term sentence of promoting racial hatred under the degree of formally presenting an statement that some would take offence to!!!
Yeah................anyway
Throw some questions about Buddhism, the table works either way!


----------



## Sapper6

your questions certainly don't offend me.  i understand faith, as it applies to me anyhow, i just wouldn't do it any justice in explaining it, that's all.  don't get me wrong, there is not a single thing wrong with this thread or where it exists.  i just hope you get the answers to your questions, to your liking, although my better judgment tells me otherwise.  it's a great topic!  but like someone had earlier stated, i think it's going to be hard to compare the two.  christianity is truly a religion of faith-based beliefs.  i can imagine each and every follower of Jesus Christ can cite endless situations they felt their faith has helped them get through a tough time.  to a non-believer, it may not be so clear.  there's always intellectual rationale that could explain such from a non-believer's POV.  to understand christianity, you must first understand the concept of faith.  here's a better example:

most of us all have a family physician right?  at one time, you never knew this person personally.  i knew him only as Dr. Smith.  you know he must know what he's talking about prfessionally because he has a paper diploma from med school hanging on his wall, he must be right?  but you haven't the slightest idea what his med school was like, or how it was run, his grades, did he pay attention during a certain block of instruction, did he barely slide by acedemically or did he achieve.   the mere fact that he has that diploma is proof enough for most people.  you know nothing of this person, yet you have the strongest faith in him that when you go to see him, he'll be able to help you medically, he will make you feel better.  you have utmost faith in him that he will diagnose your problem in a manner that won't have an adverse affect on your health.  you see him for a chest cold, he diagnoses you with bronchitis, but how do you know it isn't lung cancer?  you believe in his diagnosis right?  FYI, recent studies suggest that most cancers are misdiagnosed in it's early stages as something less-severe, mainly because their symptoms are relative to something more minor.  i imagine this analogy won't due this discussion any justice, but i certainly hope that it helped, even just a little.

i'm not threatened even the slightest by the topic or questions posed in this thread.  my beliefs run deeper than that.  i just hope the same for others, even yourself when others question your beliefs, and you just can't find the right words to express yourself.

at some point, i hope that we all are given the chance to have our questions answered.  i have many myself, many that the bible or any pastor of the christian faith just can't answer.  i hope that one day i get the chance, just like yourself, to have these things explained to me.

no two religions are RIGHT ON about anything.  they will contradict each other endlessly.  it's up to human beings to decide what gives them the best answer, what makes most sense to THEM.  i find it hilarious that atheists can say they have no religion, but even having no religion is a religion in itself.  it's the ideals you believe in that make this true.

all i'm saying is that if you ask the "wrong" person about a religious belief, they are going to give you only their personal interpretation of such.  it may never do the over-all belief justice.  all you get is that person's perspective.

i've seen instances where two southern baptist churches within 50 miles of each other had differing ideas on certain text of the bible.  if this can be the case, how can we expect that 30 million followers of the christian faith will agree and say the same thing either?  we just cannot.

in time, i hope to know.  until then, hakuna matata... :idunno:


----------



## ave_turuta

Sapper6 said:
			
		

> here's a better example:
> 
> most of us all have a family physician right? at one time, you never knew this person personally. i knew him only as Dr. Smith. you know he must know what he's talking about prfessionally because he has a paper diploma from med school hanging on his wall, he must be right? but you haven't the slightest idea what his med school was like, or how it was run, his grades, did he pay attention during a certain block of instruction, did he barely slide by acedemically or did he achieve. the mere fact that he has that diploma is proof enough for most people. you know nothing of this person, yet you have the strongest faith in him that when you go to see him, he'll be able to help you medically, he will make you feel better. you have utmost faith in him that he will diagnose your problem in a manner that won't have an adverse affect on your health.


 Again, this is a rather misguided example! You are talking about two different concepts: one is "faith," (i.e. belief in something without evidence to prove or disprove any of your claims) and "trust." The example regarding the doctor refers to TRUST, not faith!!!! The dictionary defines faith as "*2 a *(1) *:* belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) *:* belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion *b *(1) *:* firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) *:* complete trust
*3* *:* something that is believed especially with strong conviction; _especially_ *:* a system of religious beliefs." 

    None of these definitions can be applied to your example, which is especfically related to the notion of "trust," i.e. "*1 a* *:* assured reliance on the character, ability, strength, or truth of someone or something." (according to Merriam Webster dictionary). As a side note: I do not have "faith" in my doctor. My doctor is a human being who has been trained in a the medical discipline; medicine is not an exact science (it's not mathematics), and hence the room for error and misjudgement is always there. As a patient, you have the obligation to be aware of this fact: you can put your ****trust**** in a particular doctor or hospital (either because they have been properly acredited, because their methods have been proven to work on people with similar sypmtoms, etc. etc.) but that is different from having blind faith in their "powers." 

 Finally: even though my questions were not addressed to you, since you are a self-proclaimed Christian, I would really like you to address some of the issues I raised regarding faith and ethical behavior. Equally, in response to your statement, I'll say the following: I know there are varying and conflicting interpretations within each and every one of the religions we are talking about (there is a progressive branch of Christianity just as there is in Judaism and an emergent - albeit still weak one - within Islam too). However, my problem with these currents is very simple: you need to practice mental gymanstics to get around the fact that the revealed texts that conform the basis of your belief effectively sanction practices that go against most of our modern values: from genocide, to slavery, to the prescription of execution for practices such as adultery or homosexuality. How do you reconcile this fact? If the revelaed text is indeed God's message to humanity, is it a relative message (i.e. contingent and specific only for a particular time in human history) or a universal one? If universal, what do you do with these "problematic" texts that prescribe inhumane and genocidal practices under the guise of religious moralism??? My problem is not the Bible (in fact, one of my favorite readings is The Book of Ruth, which I consider to be one of the most beautiful stories ever told): my problem is the people who think the Bible should become the measuring stick according to which our society should be organized. It is, after all, one of the reasons why my partner and I (both highly educated women, college-level professors and lecturers) are leaving this country in search of more open spaces where we can freely develop our intellectual abilities and live our lives in a non discriminatory environment, away from the psychotic attacks of the various strands of religious fundamentalism (whether Christian, Jewish, or Muslim) that are afflicting this country. My partner is an American citizen; I came to this country eight years ago attracted by what it had to offer. Eight years later, the disillusionment brought about by the unstoppable advance of the religious right and its insistence of imposing a rigid, doctrinal view of how society should be organized (we used to live in Virginia, which passed one of the most discriminatory laws against same-sex couples, even ****banning**** hospital medical healthcare directives for same-sex couples!!!) has forced us to make the painful decision of finding another place to live in. 

    Anyway: thank you for engaging in this debate! 

    Peace, 
    A.T.


----------



## ave_turuta

Tgace said:
			
		

> How about Islam Vs. Buddhism? Oh I forgot, its not PC to bash on Islam.
> 
> *Tongue in cheek, but see my point?*


 I don't think Corporal Hicks meant to single out Christianity from other religions. My opinion is, in mentioning Christianity, he was just probably taking into account the fact that a majority of this board's users would be most familair with the Christian tradition. 

 Regardless: if you read his and my messages, you will realize that the questions raised apply to ****any**** religious system, not Christianity in particular. 

 Peace, 
 A.T.


----------



## ave_turuta

lulflo said:
			
		

> Not referring to you Ave,
> 
> I was speaking to the person who started the thread, because I have, in the past, taken arguements without first obtaining the needed information from both sides, not that C.H. hasn't done so, but just a friendly suggestion if it had not been done.


 Cool! No problem. I agree with you on that particular statement. 

 Peace, 
 A.T.


----------



## Cruentus

Just some general info:

There are 2 basic branches of Buddhism - 

Theravada: Focused on meditation and centering prayer; believes Buddha is a teacher and inspirer who reached nirvana. Zen falls into this category, although it is a spin-off and not exactly the same.

Mahayana: Involves more rituals and petitionary prayer. Believes Buddha to be the savior, similar to Jesus. Some sects throughout history have involved other dieties as well, usually influenced by Hinduism.

Badly Translated Kalama Sutra: _Buddhas Charter of free inquiry

1. Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it.

2. Do not believe in traditions simply because they have been handed down for many generations.

3. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many.

4. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books.

5. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders.

6. But when, after observation and understanding, you find anything that agrees with reason, and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all._
Generally speaking, many Buddhists who are Zen or Theravada do not claim to follow a religion nor are concerned with religious matters because religious matters lead to arguements about future and past things and possibilities. A Zen Buddhist is mainly concerned with being in the now, not in the past things or the possibilities.

I'll leave you with a story:

_There were several wise men arguing over the validity of one anothers beliefs. Each swore that they were correct and that the others were wrong. The arguements began to turn violent, so they sought the wisdom of the Buddha. 

The Buddha told them the story of a king who brought several blind men into his court. Next, he would bring in an elephant and ask each man to touch the elephant. One man touched the elephants leg, and swore that it was a large pillar. Another touched the elephants side and knew, without a shadow of a doubt, that he was touching a wall. And so on.

He then relayed to them that worrying about matters that you can't fully perceive only causes unneccecary suffering within yourself._

Note: Not getting into the discussion really, just offering the info. Anyone interested in "my take" can call me.

Paul


----------



## Corporal Hicks

ave_turuta said:
			
		

> I don't think Corporal Hicks meant to single out Christianity from other religions. My opinion is, in mentioning Christianity, he was just probably taking into account the fact that a majority of this board's users would be most familair with the Christian tradition.
> 
> Regardless: if you read his and my messages, you will realize that the questions raised apply to ****any**** religious system, not Christianity in particular.
> 
> Peace,
> A.T.


Indeed, I was mainly under the assumption (probably a poor one at that) that another majority of religious believers on here would in fact be Christian or that others here as Ave_turuta said would be most familar with the Christian tradition. I'm not singleing out Christianity for the purpose of attacking its roots, I chose it because its the one that I come into contact the most with in my society, and therefore can be of greater revelance in discussions outside of this forum.
Kind Regards


----------



## Corporal Hicks

Sapper6 said:
			
		

> your questions certainly don't offend me. i understand faith, as it applies to me anyhow, i just wouldn't do it any justice in explaining it, that's all. don't get me wrong, there is not a single thing wrong with this thread or where it exists. i just hope you get the answers to your questions, to your liking, although my better judgment tells me otherwise. it's a great topic! but like someone had earlier stated, i think it's going to be hard to compare the two. christianity is truly a religion of faith-based beliefs. i can imagine each and every follower of Jesus Christ can cite endless situations they felt their faith has helped them get through a tough time. to a non-believer, it may not be so clear. there's always intellectual rationale that could explain such from a non-believer's POV. to understand christianity, you must first understand the concept of faith. here's a better example:
> 
> at some point, i hope that we all are given the chance to have our questions answered. i have many myself, many that the bible or any pastor of the christian faith just can't answer. i hope that one day i get the chance, just like yourself, to have these things explained to me.
> 
> no two religions are RIGHT ON about anything. they will contradict each other endlessly. it's up to human beings to decide what gives them the best answer, what makes most sense to THEM. i find it hilarious that atheists can say they have no religion, but even having no religion is a religion in itself. it's the ideals you believe in that make this true.


Great post! Thanks for the reply.
I just thought though about your last statement that atheists have a religion of no religion. I used to think that but that statement just made me think again. Is that entirelly accurate?
Surely the fact you have no religion is a not actually a religion? Because you have no beliefs, or the belief that there is in fact no God. Buddhism would not consider itself a religion more of a Philsophy but that fact that there may be agnositic and aethists in Buddhism would mean that statement comes towards the assumption that infact they are religious. Or maybe I have just written this over a quibble of words!!!!

But what I like about your post is that you have shown to me that in fact there are some answers that yourself are unsure of and that you do understand that others have different POV's under circumstances which others in the Christian faith would label simply as God! In that I respect your open-mindnesses! Kindest Regards


----------



## Tgace

I think he means its their "religon" in the sense that many of them seem to take it as a quest to belittle, debate, debase and ridicule people who do espouse a faith. Mention you are religious or that you believe in Christ and wait for the stream of "prove it" posts.


----------



## ave_turuta

Tgace said:
			
		

> I think he means its their "religon" in the sense that many of them seem to take it as a quest to belittle, debate, debase and ridicule people who do espouse a faith. Mention you are religious or that you believe in Christ and wait for the stream of "prove it" posts.


 Please provide evidence that either the Corporal or myself have in any way or instance taken this thread as "a quest to belittle, ...., debase and ridicule people who do espouse a faith." To debate, yes: to ridicule, absolutely not. Your accusation is unfair and dishonest. 

 Peace, 
 A.T.


----------



## ave_turuta

Corporal Hicks said:
			
		

> G
> I just thought though about your last statement that atheists have a religion of no religion.


 This is a favorite accusation of theists against atheism. It simply does not hold the water: atheism is an intellectual position, or "worldview" if you wish. The goal of the atheist is not to prove or disprove the "existence" (or lack thereof) of a supreme deity, but rather to apply reason, rather than blind faith, to the way we see our world. One of the consequences of this, most naturally, is the denial of belief systems that in our view are both irrational and contradictory. 

 I understand why people want to believe in _something_. I really do. Death is a scary place for many. Fortunately, it is not for myself. I have become accustomed to the idea that my life needs to be lived here and now, and once it's over, hey, it's over!!! While faith at the personal level can have a positive impact on the person, I am of the opinion that institutionalized religion is one of the most damaging ideologies for the good of human societies. The crusades, September 11th, and all the horrific acts and crimes that human beings commit against one another in the name of some obscure deity is a pathetic demonstration of the utterly destructive power of institutionalized religions. And I really don't care if we're talking about Christianity, Islam, or some obscure religious system that justifies the superiority of a particular group of people over others simply by virtue of adherence to a certain set of fixed principles (dogma). Religious texts have been constantly used to perpetrate horrific crimes against humanity, from genocide to genital mutilation to justifying the beating of women or their subordination to men, to justifying the execution of homosexual people, to whatever horrific crime you wish to think about. When believers defend their system of faith, they conveniently gloss over the fact that their belief system has indeed provided justification for all sorts of terrfying events. 19 bast***** killed 3,000 souls on September 11th; different bast**** of a different faith killed 8,000 souls in the Bosnian town of Srebrenica in 1996; different religions (the first Muslim, the second Orthodox Christian), same crap. I am denied basic rights every single day in this country because of the pressures of fundamentalist Christians who seem to think that their way of living is _the only moral _way. Excuse me if I am angry at how religious people utilize their sacred texts to put down others and discriminate against them! It seems to me like there is no shortage of religiously inspired horror in today's world. 

 Still: I would still appreciate it if a believer could answer _some _of the questions I posed above! 

 Peace, 
 A.T.


----------



## ave_turuta

Tgace said:
			
		

> I think he means its their "religon" in the sense that many of them seem to take it as a quest to belittle, debate, debase and ridicule people who do espouse a faith. Mention you are religious or that you believe in Christ and wait for the stream of "prove it" posts.


 On the other hand, I ask you to read my post and locate the instance where I have asked someone to "prove" their belief. In fact, my questions have been rather specific and I have explicitly stated that my goal is not to prove or disprove the existence of a deity, but rather to discuss an entirely different set of questions which you are conveniently ignoring. 

 Peace, 
 A.T.


----------



## Sapper6

@ ave_turuta

faith is not confined to religion.  your definition of faith states otherwise, regardless of your source, i don't agree.

you did state "





> "trust," i.e. "1 a : assured reliance on the character, ability, strength, or truth of someone or something."


 .

could this not be "faith" as well?  i certainly think so.  christian followers have assured reliance on the fact that Christ was the son of God and the bible speaks the truth.  they can either "trust" the bible is truthful, or have "faith" the bible is truthful.  it's all the same.  



> However, my problem with these currents is very simple: you need to practice mental gymanstics to get around the fact that the revealed texts that conform the basis of your belief effectively sanction practices that go against most of our modern values: from genocide, to slavery, to the prescription of execution for practices such as adultery or homosexuality. How do you reconcile this fact?



i don't.  you're asking me to explain these things?  i cannot.  do these things represent me as a christian believer?  no they do not.  should you be held accountable for the actions of past homosexuals that commited haneous acts or crimes?  of course not, so how can you expect me to as well?



> 1. Is belief in a supreme deity a necessary prerequisite for being a moral and ethical individual?


no it is not.  



> 2. Is belief in an afterlife a precondition for maintaining an ethical worldview, and if so, why?


again, no.



> 3. Is salvation, in your understanding of the word, limited to individuals who profess their belief in the divinity of Jesus Christ, or can it also be extended to individiuals who do not profess such view? If faith is a prerequisite for salvation, where do other non-Christian self-professed believers stand in this path? Can they be saved? What do you make of the obvious incompatibility between systems of faith that predicate salvation only through adherence to their particular tenets?


in the christian belief, yes.  can others find this path?  of course, only if they accept the words of Christ as written in the New Testament, based on faith, alone.  the incompatibility?  ahh, not everyone can be right.  i agree with you.  please note one of my previous statements:



> *no two religions are RIGHT ON about anything. they will contradict each other endlessly. it's up to human beings to decide what gives them the best answer, what makes most sense to THEM*.



what other questions do you have?  i have a feeling you possess a strong dislike for christians in general because of the way you've been treated by some in the past.  please do not.


----------



## ave_turuta

Sapper6 said:
			
		

> what other questions do you have? i have a feeling you possess a strong dislike for christians in general because of the way you've been treated by some in the past. please do not.


 Thank you for responding. 

 As for my "strong dislike for Christians," let me assure you that I simply possess a strong dislike for people who use irrational means to oppress others. Since I live in the United States and a majority of the people acting to deny me basic rights happen to be Christians (with a significant number of Jews and Muslims closely behind), and since these rights are being denied to me on the basis of the application of the tenets of the Christian faith and other institutionalized monotheistic beliefs, yes, I do have a strong hostility to this particular worldview. On the other hand, my partner lived in Saudi Arabia for 8 years (the most fundamentalist country in teh entire world): our opinion of Islam is equally negative. The difference between myself and a self-professed Christian who attempts to impose her/his values on the whole of society is as follows: in my imagined society, there is room for both of us. In theirs, there is only room for them. While I do recognize your right to worship as you deem appropriate, I do not understand why your faith must prevail in matters of public legality or when it comes to organizing society along the principles of justice and respect for human rights. Unfortunately, I see many of the features of a theocratic state being shaped today in the United States of America. And that is precisely why I am abandoning my life here and getting the hell out: because I am scared of what these self-appotined guardians of "morality" are doing. 

 Peace, 
 A.T.


----------



## ave_turuta

Sapper6 said:
			
		

> @ ave_turuta
> 
> faith is not confined to religion.  your definition of faith states otherwise, regardless of your source, i don't agree.
> 
> you did state " .
> 
> could this not be "faith" as well? i certainly think so. christian followers have assured reliance on the fact that Christ was the son of God and the bible speaks the truth. they can either "trust" the bible is truthful, or have "faith" the bible is truthful. it's all the same.
> 
> 
> 
> i don't. you're asking me to explain these things? i cannot. do these things represent me as a christian believer? no they do not. should you be held accountable for the actions of past homosexuals that commited haneous acts or crimes? of course not, so how can you expect me to as well?
> 
> 
> no it is not.
> 
> 
> again, no.
> 
> 
> in the christian belief, yes. can others find this path? of course, only if they accept the words of Christ as written in the New Testament, based on faith, alone. the incompatibility? ahh, not everyone can be right. i agree with you. please note one of my previous statements:
> 
> 
> 
> what other questions do you have? i have a feeling you possess a strong dislike for christians in general because of the way you've been treated by some in the past. please do not.


 I will not quibble over the meaning of words (I was trained as a linguist, so this is all too familiar to me), but basically, no: trust and faith are different matters. Again, mental gymnastics are required on your part to justify your point. 

 One more question: if faith is nos a prerequisite for salvation, what is the point of "believing" in a system that imposes severe restrictions on you as well as others, and dictates subordination and oppression as a means for salvation? Secondly, your answers are contradictory: if only one path is "right," then how can you be moral/ethical if not following the "right" path?? ?? As for your comments on homosexuals: you are well aware that your comparison is problematic. Homosexuals (just as heterosexuals, white or black people) do not commit crimes because they are homosexual, heterosexual, white, or black. They commit crimes because they're individuals. However: when a crime is committed _in the name of a particular belief system_ (whether it is Christianity, Islam, or whatever it is) yes, I do think people who suscribe to that worldview must be able to explain why these things happen. That is, why a system of faith that presumably speaks of goodness, benevolence, and salvation, is used to perpetrate injustices and horrific crimes against fellow human beings. _It is not my duty to explain it: I am not a believer_!!! People in the US have been demanding that Muslims condemn terrorism in the name of Islam, but I don't see Christians stepping up to the plate and condemning the barbaric acts committed by self-professed Christians, whether it is the bombing of Oklahoma, or the bombing of Planned Parenthood clinics. It seems to me as if there was a double standard when it comes to matters of "faith." 

  Peace, 
  A.T.


----------



## Sapper6

i agree with you on most points.  yours is a human liberty issue.  i understand that.  it's an endless debate.  like i said before, i hope you find the happiness you desire, be it in the United States of America, or elsewhere.  the way i see it, gay and lesbians are gaining more ground in this country everyday and will continue to do so, while christians are actually losing, IMO.  the USA isn't so bad, is it?

i'd like to hear more buddhist input in this thread.  shall we?


----------



## Sapper6

> ...but I don't see Christians stepping up to the plate and condemning the barbaric acts committed by self-professed Christians, whether it is the bombing of Oklahoma, or the bombing of Planned Parenthood clinics. It seems to me as if there was a double standard when it comes to matters of "faith."



perhaps you're not looking in the right places then.  what you see and what you hear are two entirely different things.  the acts of a few cannot possibly be a direct representation of a group as a whole.  you hold the entire christian faith accountable for the acts of some, as you quoted above, or you're simply stating that christians condone this activity simply because you don't "hear" them criticize these actions.  

as for mental gymnastics, there's no need for that.  mine is a matter of perspective.  you couldn't possibly understand this, nor my personal faith, nor my beliefs.  i hope that you find the answers you are looking for.  i can never make you see it the way i see it, you must concede that.  this debate is one of many that will continue on until we die.  will both sides ever receive the answers they desire?  perhaps not.  maybe someday you will.  i really doubt that day will take place on martialtalk.com.

wishing you well in your journey :asian:


----------



## Corporal Hicks

Sapper6 said:
			
		

> i agree with you on most points. yours is a human liberty issue. i understand that. it's an endless debate. like i said before, i hope you find the happiness you desire, be it in the United States of America, or elsewhere. the way i see it, gay and lesbians are gaining more ground in this country everyday and will continue to do so, while christians are actually losing, IMO. the USA isn't so bad, is it?
> 
> i'd like to hear more buddhist input in this thread. shall we?


Yes so would I! My own viewpoints on Buddhism that I may state may be incorrect since I have only being studing and praticing the philosphy of Buddhism for about a month, but I'm trying so correct me if I'm wrong.
As for Buddhism, there are extremists too, their motives, that I dont know, since a matter of opinion, and the feeding of the ego or the pressure of another culture attacking a Buddhist viewpoint should not trouble (in theory) a Buddhist.
Unlike Christianity I see that Buddhism trys to tackle the problem behind suffering, you know maybe I'm wrong but Buddhism tells you to look for the source and eradicate it whereas in Christianity you are only activity changing your actions, that doesnt stop the feelings in the first place, I see Christians as waiting for salvation and Buddists seeking it, and for those who do, finding it. In essence I see Christianity trying to (and they do) deal with the symptoms i.e. anger, resentment, hatred, sin etc but the difference being that Buddhism actually goes deeper, into the source of this hatred and teaches you how to eradicate not only the symptoms but the source from it arose. 
Whereas a Christian may turn around and take offence to somebody throwing their opinion against them and their religion and try to not response (and maybe the dont respond), I see that a Buddhist would not even 'care' if thats the right word, because the opinion thrown at them had nothing to 'hit' no 'ego' or if there is an 'ego' it is under complete control.
Maybe I'm wrong, I see Christians struggling with their minds yet Buddhist taking control and rising above their minds, and I know that I'm obviously being biased here, putting all Christians and all Buddhists into a same catergory, but thats what I see from the teaching, thats why I've chosen Buddhism instead of Christianity even though I was brought up a Christian!

On the topic of human liberty I believe it was the Buddha who revolutionised a particular Indian society where it was divided in four classes, the Brahman, Kshatriya, Vaisya and Sudra classes, and he though that the eternal Buddha would not want this so he equalised the classes, giving everybody the chance to be enlightened. Maybe you can use this idea of equality to apply to certain topics. I dont personally see why Buddhist should have a problem with certain issues, i.e. gay and lesbian rights, or maybe I'm wrong?

Regards

P.s. thanks for keeping the topic debatable!


----------



## ave_turuta

Sapper6 said:
			
		

> perhaps you're not looking in the right places then. what you see and what you hear are two entirely different things. the acts of a few cannot possibly be a direct representation of a group as a whole. you hold the entire christian faith accountable for the acts of some, as you quoted above, or you're simply stating that christians condone this activity simply because you don't "hear" them criticize these actions.


 I think my previous posts make my position very clear: 

 Theists (particularly believers of monotheistic religions) affirm that faith is a substantial part of their lives and a significant component of their ethical worldview. Simultaneously, Christianity and Islam, for instance, claim that salvation in the afterlife can only come (as per their interpretation of the revelaed texts that give sustenance to their beliefs) through adherence to a particular dogma. At the same time, these same texts, while containing positive messages, also contain prescriptions that legitimize all the atrocities abovementioned. Thus, I am not saying all Christians condone atrocities: I am merely pointing out the contradiction implicit in adhering to a belief system that is blatantly contradictory and that prescribes both goodness while at the same time justifies (doctrinally and dogmatically speaking) the subrodination of others. 

 Peace to you too, 
 A.T.


----------



## Tgace

ave_turuta said:
			
		

> Please provide evidence that either the Corporal or myself have in any way or instance taken this thread as "a quest to belittle, ...., debase and ridicule people who do espouse a faith." To debate, yes: to ridicule, absolutely not. Your accusation is unfair and dishonest.
> 
> Peace,
> A.T.


Well, as I didnt accuse YOU of any "wrongdoing" I dont know why you are getting so defensive. Did I attack your "religon"? Making sweeping statements about Christians is OK (like  "they dont seem to want to stand up against the Oklahoma bombings") but saying Atheists are obsessive about attacking religion at every opportunity is not?


----------



## Cryozombie

ave_turuta said:
			
		

> I will not quibble over the meaning of words (I was trained as a linguist, so this is all too familiar to me), but basically, no: trust and faith are different matters. .


Yet... you use a dictonary definition to prove your point that says they are the same thing:




			
				ave_turuta said:
			
		

> The dictionary defines faith as... (2) *:* complete trust.


Its ok, tho, as the educated person you have been so quick to point out you are in your numerous posts in this thread, I will have FAITH (i.e. Complete trust) that you understand the difference between EDUCATION and INTELIGENCE and therefore I will not point them out to you.


----------



## ave_turuta

Technopunk said:
			
		

> Yet... you use a dictonary definition to prove your point that says they are the same thing:
> 
> 
> Its ok, tho, as the educated person you have been so quick to point out you are in your numerous posts in this thread, I will have FAITH (i.e. Complete trust) that you understand the difference between EDUCATION and INTELIGENCE and therefore I will not point them out to you.


 And I have complete trust in that you will not take things out of context (please re-read my post and explanation of the difference between both words, responding to an example which was ) and keep this dialogue as civilized as it has been until now. No, "faith" and "trust" are different matters, semantically and otherwise (or do we need to play sylogism games such as "God is good" / "All tall men are good" = "All tall men are God"????? to prove that no, they are not the same thing??) 

 Now, I have complete trust you will not engage me any further unless you have something else to say directly related to the topic at hand, in a more respectful and less sarcastic tone, since you do not know me and I have been rather respectful up to this point in this particular discussion. Since you seem to imply that I am somehow not an intelligent human being, I wonder why you would humble yourself to my level of stupidity and engage me in this otherwise very interesting conversation. 

  Thank you.


----------



## ave_turuta

Tgace said:
			
		

> Well, as I didnt accuse YOU of any "wrongdoing" I dont know why you are getting so defensive. Did I attack your "religon"? Making sweeping statements about Christians is OK (like "they dont seem to want to stand up against the Oklahoma bombings") but saying Atheists are obsessive about attacking religion at every opportunity is not?


 As in my previous answer, again: since you (a) do not seem interested in debating in a serious and respectful manner; and (b) are intentionally and repeatedly misconstruing and misrepresenting my arguments, I will cease to engage you in this debate. The first act of defensiveness came precisely from you, who accused Corporal Hicks of specifically targeting Christianity and "forgetting" about Islam, when in fact it was clear from his original post that he was referring to Christianity because it is the majority belief in the environment he is talking about, period, but in fact his comments applied to any theistic position, whether Christian, Jewish, or Muslim. I have ****not**** (I repeat this because it seems somwhat hard to get across) "ridiculed" Christians, not have I made "sweeping statements" about them, but rather comments based on my experience living as a foreigner in this country for 8 long years. Again, I challenge you to show me which instances justify your accusations. Once again: the debate had been civil until now; given your hostility to maintaining a civic and intellecually engaging debate (regardless of where you stand), I would much rather withdraw before writing something I might later regret. 

  Thank you.


----------



## Cryozombie

ave_turuta said:
			
		

> Now, I have complete trust you will not engage me any further unless you have something else to say directly related to the topic at hand, in a more respectful and less sarcastic tone, since you do not know me and I have been rather respectful up to this point in this particular discussion. Since you seem to imply that I am somehow not an intelligent human being, I wonder why you would humble yourself to my level of stupidity and engage me in this otherwise very interesting conversation.
> 
> Thank you.


Fair enough, however I feel compelled to point out since my response was a quote from your own post I believe it did relate, and _RESPECT_, which you are so quick to underline, is not given it is earned... and it is somthing you will not earn quickly from me if you continue to emphasise how much education you have had as your reasoning that you know better than others.


----------



## Shizen Shigoku

Well it seems Ave is educated enough to know the difference between "trust" and "complete trust," and knows which one is more similar to the concept of "faith." - The dictionary definition did not state "faith = trust" . . . 

Anyway, arguing semantics is only a red herring to draw away from the original discussion.

Back on topic.

All I can say about the differences between Buddhism and Christianity (or other theistic belief systems), is that Buddhism more closely resembles science. The Kalama Sutta, for example, is much like the scientific method. Religious faith, it seems, depends on deliberately disregarding evidence (data) as collected by our senses, and instead proscribes a worldview / belief system / set of behaviors that contradicts the way things really are (as best as we can understand them through repeated exposure to sensory information).

It is this refusal to accept reality that characterizes faiths such as Christianity, in contrast to the philosophy of seeking the truth that characterizes Buddhism.

That, combined with the religious tenet of proselytization, makes religious believers abhorrent to those who see knowledge of truth and reality as good things.


----------



## Cryozombie

Oh... Ouch... you really... got me there, big guy.

:shrug:

Off _that_ subject for a moment, 

It amazes me how quick people are to catagorize that all Christains are closed minded, out to steal your rights, and rape your sons, with no regard to the "proof" science laid out before them proving that they are wrong...

It's like saying All Musims are terrorists, all buddists Immolate themselves when they are upset etc...

The actions of the "radical" or "fundamentalist" factions are not neccessary the actions of the group as a whole... but of course in order to cite how "evil" they are, naturaly they have to use those beliefs... often the same people who will stand up and scream if someone does that to another group...


----------



## Tgace

Hmmm..Corpral Hicks and myself are on pretty good terms with each other on most topics. As my posts were accepted and responded to by him in the manner in which I intended I believe its you Ave who are tainting what you read with your personal opinions. When people turn an attack on an opinion or topic into an attack on themselves I believe its a sign of....well something. If you can step back and see the context in which the post that offends you so much was framed you will see that Sapper6 stated that "Atheism is the Atheists religion". Corpral hicks asked how that was so and I posted my opinion on that. If you dont like it, fine.

I respect everybodys beliefs, but IMO many Atheists are as zealous about eliminating religion in public life as the other side is about spreading it. Heres an Atheist and I happen to agree with what he is saying here about that topic 100%.

http://www.suspensionofdisbelief.blog-city.com/this_started_reasonable.htm


----------



## Tgace

http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Buddhism_and_Christianity/id/9322



> Buddhism and Christianity: Jesus and Buddha as Brothers
> By Thich Nhat Hanh
> 
> The dialogue between Buddhism and Christianity has not gone very far, in my opinion, because we have not been able to set up a solid ground for such dialogue. This is a reflection of the present situation.
> 
> Buddhists believe in reincarnation, the possibility for human beings to live several lives. In Buddhist circles, we do not use the work incarnation very much: we use the word rebirth. After you die, you can be reborn and can have another life.
> 
> In Christianity, your life is unique, your only chance for salvation. If you spoil it, then you will never get salvation. You have only one life.
> 
> Buddhism teaches that there is non-self, anatta. Christianity clearly teaches that a Christian is a personalist. Not only are you a person, self, but God is a person, and He has a self.
> 
> The Buddhist teaching of emptiness and no substance sounds like the teaching of no being.
> 
> Christianity speaks of being, of existence. The teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas speaks of the philosophy of being, la philisophie de l'etre, the confirmation that the world is.
> 
> There is compassion and loving-kindness in Buddhism, which many Christians believe to be different from the charity and love in Christianity. Charity has two aspects: your love directed to God, and your love directed to humankind. You have to learn how to love your enemy. Our Christian friends have a tendency to remind us that the motivation of love is different for Christians and Buddhists. There are theologians who say that Buddhists practice compassion just because they want liberation; that Buddhists don't really care about the suffering of people and other living beings; that they are only motivated by the desire to be liberated. In Christianity, your love is grounded in God. You love God, and because God said that you must love your neighbor, so you love your neighbor. Your love of your neighbor springs from the ground of your love of God.
> 
> Many people, especially in Christian circles, say that there are things in common between Christianity and Buddhism. But many find that the philosophical foundations of Christianity and Buddhism are quite different. Buddhism teaches rebirth, many lives. Christianity teaches that only this one life is available to you. Buddhism teaches that there is no self, but in Christianity there is a real self. Buddhism teaches emptiness, no substance, while Christianity confirms the fact of existence. If the philosophical ground is so different, the practice of compassion and loving kindness in Buddhism and of charity and love in Christianity is different. All that seems to be a very superficial way of seeing. If we have time and if we practice our own tradition well enough and deeply enough, we will see that these issues are not real.
> 
> First of all, there are many forms of Buddhism, many ways of understanding Buddhism. If you have one hundred people practicing Buddhism, you may have one hundred forms of Buddhism. The same is true in Christianity. If there are one hundred thousand people practicing Christianity, there may be one hundred thousand ways of understanding Christianity.
> 
> In Plum Village, where many people from different religious backgrounds come to practice, it is not difficult to see that sometimes a Buddhist recognizes a Christian as being more Buddhist than another Buddhist. I see a Buddhist, but the way he understands Buddhism is quite different from the way I do. However, when I look at a Christian, I see that the way he understands Christianity and practices love and charity is closer to the way I practice them than this man who is called a Buddhist.
> 
> The same thing is true in Christianity. From time to time, you feel that you are very far away from your Christian brother. You feel that the brother who practices in the Buddhist tradition is much closer to you as a Christian. So Buddhism is not Buddhism and Christianity is not Christianity. There are many forms of Buddhism and many ways of understanding Buddhism. There are many ways of understanding Christianity. Therefore, let us forget the idea that Christianity must be like this, and that Buddhism can only be like that.
> 
> We don't want to say that Buddhism is a kind of Christianity and Christianity is a kind of Buddhism. A mango can not be an orange. I cannot accept the fact that a mango is an orange. They are two different things. Vive la difference. But when you look deeply into the mango and into the orange, you see that although they are different they are both fruits. If you analyze the mango and the orange deeply enough, you will see small elements are in both, like the sunshine, the clouds, the sugar, and the acid. If you spend time looking deeply enough, you will discover that the only difference between them lies in the degree, in the emphasis. At first you see the difference between the orange and the mango. But if you look a little deeper, you discover many things in common. In the orange you find acid and sugar which is in the mango too. Even two oranges taste different; one can be very sour and one can be very sweet.


----------



## Tgace

http://watthai.net/talon/wheel/wheel16_1.htm

Very good comparison essay.



> Though Buddhism and Christianity differ from each other in their respective views about world and self, about the meaning of life and man's ultimate destiny, yet they agree again in the ultimate postulates of all religious life. For both religions proclaim man's responsibility for his actions and the freedom of moral choice; both teach retribution for all deeds, and believe in the perfectibility of the individual. "You must be perfect as your Father in Heaven is perfect" (//Matth.// 5, 48), says Jesus. And the Buddha summarizes the essence of his ethics in the words: "To shun all evil, to practice what is good, to cleanse one's own heart: that is the teaching of the Enlightened Ones."


----------



## ave_turuta

Technopunk said:
			
		

> Fair enough, however I feel compelled to point out since my response was a quote from your own post I believe it did relate, and _RESPECT_, which you are so quick to underline, is not given it is earned... and it is somthing you will not earn quickly from me if you continue to emphasise how much education you have had as your reasoning that you know better than others.


 Once again: please re-read my original post. I talked of myself as an educated person in a particular context in order to make a specific point: that, very sadly, and even though I came to this country 8 years ago in search of opportunities (especifically, I came here to obtain my Ph.D. in an American university), I find myself having to leave because of the enormous pressures brought about by a social and political environment that is becoming more and more stifling and repressive to me as a lesbian woman.  I, as an educator, have given a lot to this country (I think): so far, I have taught over 400 students in 6 different courses, for what??? I now feel like this country is kicking me in my butt and sending me home with no apologies. Not to speak of my partner, who is an American. 

 I happen to not be the kind of person so imply in your post (i.e. someone who simply disregards other people's opinions because they lack formal education, for instance). I am 28 years old; I come from a poor family: both my mom and dad are salaried laborers in northern Spain (my mom worked as a cleaning lady until a year go, my dad continues with his job). None of them went beyond elementary school education, and I happen to be the first person in my extended family to have the opportunity to go to college, for which I am beyond grateful. I have met a lot of snobs in my life: people who brag about their position (whether it is professors, lawyers, doctors) and disregarded me as just the daughter of a poor cleaning maid, so I think I know something about respect and what it means. My parents, though formally uneducated by American standards, are the two persons who have taught me the essential lessons in life: their lack of formal higher education means nothing to me. They taught me to value family ties, education, and above all, to respect others regardless of their achievements or position in life. So no: I do not think respect is "earned." I have not disrespected ***anyone*** in any of my posts; I understand the internet is not the best of means to fully communicate our expressions, but I fear you have unjustly misrepresented both my words and my intentions. I referred to myself as an educated person in a very limited context in order to illustrate a particular example: the rest, you've imagined yourself. 

 I've had a very tough life, and yes: it is very sad that after coming here on a scholarship and having almost finished a Ph.D., I can no longer stay in this country because if my partner falls ill again (as she has in the past) her family has the right to interfere in our affairs and even bar me from being by her side in her hospital bed. Why???? Because it seems that our love for each other, partnership, and mutual respect, is a huge threat to Western civilization as we know it, and laws need to be passed to "protect" society from us. Laws that, allow me to remind you, are enacted by self-professed Christians who consciously build their political discourse on what the Bible, not the Constitution, says. So yes: allow me to be angry if, after 8 years of ***very*** hard work, I see myself selling all my things (my bed, my TV set, my bookshelves) and packing all my life in two suitcases back to Spain because these self-appointed guardians of morality (who, once again, are very openly proud of being Christian) have decided that neither I nor my partner (law-abiding, tax-paying individuals) have no right to live our lives in peace and tranquility, with the protection that we deserve. 

 And darn it! Yes I am angry!!! The day theists admit that their worldview and their insistence on imposing on others their values is indeed causing a lot of pain to a lot of folks, will be the day when I will think differently about them. I am a staunch secularist, yes; and, while I do respect people worshipping in private and public spaces as they wish, I certainly oppose their proselitizing and imposing what I and many others consider to be irrational, antiquated, and damaging ideas to people who happen not to share those beliefs. 

 So, while I am glad to continue our discussion, (a) do not misrepresent my words; and (b) try to show respect even if you find it difficult. 

 A.T.


----------



## Tgace

While I truly emphasize with your situation. How is your sexuality related to you having to leave the country? As far as I know sexuality has nothing to do with immigration law.


----------



## Flatlander

ave_turuta said:
			
		

> And darn it! Yes I am angry!!! The day theists admit that their worldview and their insistence on imposing on others their values is indeed causing a lot of pain to a lot of folks, will be the day when I will think differently about them. I am a staunch secularist, yes; and, while I do respect people worshipping in private and public spaces as they wish, I certainly oppose their proselitizing and imposing what I and many others consider to be irrational, antiquated, and damaging ideas to people who happen not to share those beliefs.
> 
> So, while I am glad to continue our discussion, (a) do not misrepresent my words; and (b) try to show respect even if you find it difficult.
> 
> A.T.


Apparently, you are suffering, which is unfortunate.  

 I believe that the majority of your dialogue in this thread isn't really topical. In reading your posts, it seems as though you are not interested in discussing the similarities or differences between Buddhism and Christianity, rather, your intent seems to be to attack the Christian viewpoint. Presumably, this is due to the treatment that you have received by people you perceive to have been motivated by their religeous beliefs. This, however, is not the topic that I believe Corporal Hicks had intended to explore here.  :asian:

  I encourage you to peruse these threads, which you may find to be an interesting read:

Ten Commandments...."Rules" or "Continuum?" for living.

Should the 10 commandments be allowed in gov't buildings?

mar·riage

Proof of a Higher Power

Christian Reconstructionism 

The Historical Jesus.


----------



## ave_turuta

Flatlander said:
			
		

> Apparently, you are suffering, which is unfortunate.
> 
> I believe that the majority of your dialogue in this thread isn't really topical. In reading your posts, it seems as though you are not interested in discussing the similarities or differences between Buddhism and Christianity, rather, your intent seems to be to attack the Christian viewpoint.


 With all due respect, if you follow the thread you will see that (a) I did address the question Corporal Hicks was raising; and (b) then argued other points related to the responses that were offered to his initial question, particularly in regards to the Rev.'s posting. I was especifically responding to the claims contained in the Reverend's message and asked for clarification on the points he made. After which, others joined in the debate. As for my "attacking" the Christian viewpoint, I will not respond since I have done it on numerous occasions before. 

 Buddhism and Christianity have more substantial differences than they have similarities, the former being closer to a philosophical system of thought, the latter a monotheistic belief system that revolves around the idea of salvation through belief in a particular deity, a key element that is absent in Buddhism. Secondly: Buddhism does not rely on the notion of "revelation," which is the key component of how Christian beliefs took shape and were compiled. So, even if they share common ground on common sensical things (do not harm your neighbor, do not kill, do not steal, etc. etc.) they are very different things. 

   A.T.


----------



## ave_turuta

Tgace said:
			
		

> While I truly emphasize with your situation. How is your sexuality related to you having to leave the country? As far as I know sexuality has nothing to do with immigration law.


 *Off-topic*: Unfortunately US law only grants full immigration rights to married spouses. Since the federal government does not recognize our union and my visa is of a limited nature, I cannot apply for permanent residency. Of course it is related to immigration laws. In addition: I am not just leaving because of that (my visa is not expiring yet), but because of the difficulty of living a ***normal*** life when laws do not protect you. 

 A.T.


----------



## Tgace

Ahh Ok.


----------



## Tgace

I still like this section though.



> In Plum Village, where many people from different religious backgrounds come to practice, it is not difficult to see that sometimes a Buddhist recognizes a Christian as being more Buddhist than another Buddhist. I see a Buddhist, but the way he understands Buddhism is quite different from the way I do. However, when I look at a Christian, I see that the way he understands Christianity and practices love and charity is closer to the way I practice them than this man who is called a Buddhist.
> 
> The same thing is true in Christianity. From time to time, you feel that you are very far away from your Christian brother. You feel that the brother who practices in the Buddhist tradition is much closer to you as a Christian. So Buddhism is not Buddhism and Christianity is not Christianity. There are many forms of Buddhism and many ways of understanding Buddhism. *There are many ways of understanding Christianity. Therefore, let us forget the idea that Christianity must be like this, and that Buddhism can only be like that.*


----------



## Pale Rider

I have read through all (or the majority) of the posts made in comparison between religions. The only thing that I have to ask is that which would be the wiser of the two decisions 1) To believe that there isn't a Heaven or Hell all of your life and when you die finding out that there is or 2) to believe that there is a Heaven and Hell and finding out that there isn't? 

 Since all religions are man-made regardless of how a person believes we have look at the driving force of Christianity and that isn't religion, but salvation. Those that believe in Christianity realizes that life here on this planet is but a short time, and they prepare themselves for the life to come. It isn't "narrow-minded" for Christians to not look at other religions - for it is against their religion to do so. They understand and interpret the Bible clearly when it states _Thou shalt have no other gods before me_, and other scriptures such as _try these spirits to see if they are of me_....

 Christians realize that belief is the strongest part of their religion, so if other religions are brought into the equation then where is their Christian beliefs? They may not be able to provide any answers into explaining why they believe the way they do, but realizing that with the "whole armour of God" they will be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.

 Again this is all about personal beliefs. Things I don't mention about in Martial Arts forums as it has been determined to be a very touchy subject.

 All in my opinion.


----------



## ave_turuta

Bertrand Russell once stated: "Fear is the main source of superstition, and one of the main sources of cruelty. To conquer fear is the beginning of wisdom." He also wrote: "Thought is subversive and revolutionary, destructive and terrible, Thought is merciless to privilege, established institutions, and comfortable habit. Thought is great and swift and free."

  Are you saying that theism makes sense because it is the only safe way to "save our pretty as****"??? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 That is, "I believe, just in case...."??? Sounds a little bizarre to me: to suscribe to a worldview that prescribes the subordination of many in favor of a few (non-believers vs. believers) just for fear of what may happen to you in an imaginary afterlife?? Hmmmmm..... The idea of a "eternal punishment" in a place called "hell" is by no means universal. While I have no problem with people believing this, it seems to me that the philosophical approach favored by Buddhism is much closer to positive rationalism than the views espoused by monotheistic religious systems. 

 As I said before: if you fear death, then believing in an afterlife where you can make up for this life's mistakes kind of makes sense. Just don't try to impose your beliefs and their accompanying legalistic, restrictive, and often oppressive dogmatic prescriptions on those of us who are pretty content with trying to make the best of our lives in this world, here and now, and making of this earth the paradise you can only see in the afterlife. Peace, justice, equality, goodness... should not be restricted (imho) to an afterlife that apparently not everybody will get to enjoy. I am, after all, a proponent of equal opportunity access to paradise, right here on this earth. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  Peace,

  A.T.


----------



## Shizen Shigoku

*Pale Rider: "The only thing that I have to ask is that which would be the wiser of the two decisions 1) To believe that there isn't a Heaven or Hell all of your life and when you die finding out that there is or 2) to believe that there is a Heaven and Hell and finding out that there isn't?"*

Sounds like Pascal's Wager - which to me seems at the least a flimsy and spiritually bankrupt reason for believing in something. Option one requires at least the assumption that something could exist for which there is no evidence whether belief is involved or not. Option two accepts that such really does not exist, yet irrational belief is still given to it. Neither are intellectually honest.

If I had to answer, and was truly restricted to those two choices (which in reality I am not), then I would say that option one is the most wise.

Try this argument: http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/nogod/pascal.htm
or for a shorter version: http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/arguments.html#pascal


*"It isn't "narrow-minded" for Christians to not look at other religions - for it is against their religion to do so."*

So it is not the 'narrow-mindedness' of _Christians_, but rather the narrow-mindedness of _Christianity_. Still guilty by association if you ask me.

I think the reason why discussing belief is so touchy is because people become very defensive when asked 'why' they believe. The only reason they would feel threatened by such questions is because they can't adequettely answer them and they know it. All arguments / defenses then reduce to tautologies, as logic cannot be applied to irrationality.

I should probably bow out of this discussion as I am so obviously biased - I'll just end up bashing as I have such distate for religions.
I'm not buddhist either, but the philosophy does make more sense.

Carry on without me.


----------



## MisterMike

Buddhists believe in the "after-life" and Karma. So they do good in this life so as to come back as something a little better than a gnat in the next life. Looks like there's more reason for being a good person than just because it's a cool "philosophy."

And they have quite a bit of their own little dogma and ceremonies as well...depends on which of the hundreds of sects you choose to look at.


----------



## Corporal Hicks

Pale Rider said:
			
		

> I have read through all (or the majority) of the posts made in comparison between religions. The only thing that I have to ask is that which would be the wiser of the two decisions 1) To believe that there isn't a Heaven or Hell all of your life and when you die finding out that there is or 2) to believe that there is a Heaven and Hell and finding out that there isn't?


That is I believe to come from the assumption that there is a heaven and a hell and that you believe in it! When making those decisions you have prior knowledge, knowledge that is in fact from a Christian background, so what about the people who know nothing of Christianity then? Those who live out in poor or isolated countries? 
Do they go to hell because they no nothing of heaven and hell? Or of the Christian faith? Hardly that of an all knowing all powerful, all loving and fair God? Hey thats just my personal opinion but that creates a problem does it not?



			
				Pale Rider said:
			
		

> Since all religions are man-made regardless of how a person believes we have look at the driving force of Christianity and that isn't religion, but salvation. Those that believe in Christianity realizes that life here on this planet is but a short time, and they prepare themselves for the life to come. It isn't "narrow-minded" for Christians to not look at other religions - for it is against their religion to do so. They understand and interpret the Bible clearly when it states _Thou shalt have no other gods before me_, and other scriptures such as _try these spirits to see if they are of me_....
> 
> Christians realize that belief is the strongest part of their religion, so if other religions are brought into the equation then where is their Christian beliefs? They may not be able to provide any answers into explaining why they believe the way they do, but realizing that with the "whole armour of God" they will be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.
> 
> All in my opinion.


Is it not wise to question your belief? To understand, feel and be guided by your experience and belief towards that of Christ than to be a puppet who merely follows the teachings of others.
It reminds me of a saying, who's more foolish? the fool, or the fool who follows him? (lol, under the assumption it is a he!) 
Btw thats not saying that Christians are fools I'm just trying to make a point that some people blindly follow others, and thats not just rescricted to Christianity but all faiths and beliefs!!

I was going to make another point, and discussed it with a Christian friend tonight, who has a very open mind (bless her) and is one of the very few people around me who is willing (and open enough) to talk about her faith, and we came to the point that as I just said before,
It is more important that people explore and experience for themselves what their faith has to offer, and maybe feel that they have infact felt God or Jesus or Allah inside them and choose to follow that faith than to have somebody dictate to them from a book about strict rules and regulations and how they should do this and should do that and not explore it themselves.

I've personally found that it is easier to talk to those who have experienced 'something' and for them to provide answers from their hearts than those who I talk to who merely get very defensive because they dont have answers and therefore recite something from their head as told or as read.

To realise, is greater than to understand (in my opinion). Whatever you realise is open to your interpretation and the way you percieve it!

Just some thoughts!
Kind Regards, thanks again for keeping the tone nice!


----------



## Corporal Hicks

Tgace said:
			
		

> Hmmm..Corpral Hicks and myself are on pretty good terms with each other on most topics. As my posts were accepted and responded to by him in the manner in which I intended!


Ah it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy! Lol, just kidding!


----------



## Tgace

Kind of an interesting bit that I found surfing on this topic...

http://www.chesterton.org/gkc/theologian/buddh_christ.htm



> fighting in China? Fighting has never been a habit strictly confined to Christians; nor have wars been entirely unknown outside Christendom. It may be that certain hermits or holy men, both eastern and western, have individually abandoned war. But we are not talking about abandoning war, but about abolishing war. In what sense have Christians failed, in which Buddhists have not equally failed? In what respect is Buddhism, which has looked on at all the Asiatic fighting for four thousand years, any more successful than Christianity, that has barely looked on for two thousand? I do not think the thing is any real discredit either to Buddhism or Christianity, for anybody who is really "enlightened" about history and human nature. But if we are to be told about ten times a week by every newspaper and noisy talker that Christianity has failed to do anything because it has failed to stop fighting, what are we to say of the chances of the Chinese gentleman of stopping it in Europe with a new religion, when he could not stop it in Asia with an old one? At a guess, I should say that a Christian appeal for peace would often have been much nearer to practical politics than the metaphysical enlightenment of the Buddhist. Without putting very much money on the chances of either, I should say there would have been something rather more remotely resembling a chance for a Franciscan saint influencing the policy of Richard Coeur de Lion than of a Buddhist monk (with his mind full of Nirvana) stopping the march of Genghis Khan. But that is a minor guess, and does not matter. The obvious point is that, if Christianity is to be called a failure because it has not abolished war, Buddhism can hardly be a certain and solid guarantee that we shall abolish war. *The truth is, of course, that all such talk of abolishing this and that, among the recurrent misunderstandings and temptations of mankind, shows an essential ignorance of the very nature of mankind. It does not allow for the hundred inconsistencies, dilemmas, desperate remedies, and divided allegiances of men. A man may be in every way a good man and a true believer, and yet be in a false position.* Indeed, the military gentleman who wrote the letter about Buddhism and War need not look far for such an example. By his own standards, he is himself inconsistent in being a Christian soldier; and even more inconsistent since he seems to be a Buddhist soldier.


And this was written in 1929


----------



## BlackCatBonz

so, a belief in god may not grant you entrance to the "kingdom of heaven", but not believing in him and being an all around nice guy will get you a ticket in?

christianity versus buddhism, or christianity and buddhism comparisons are like comparing oranges and liver......both may be edible, but one is refreshing and the other leaves you with a queasy feeling and bad aftertaste.


----------



## Tgace

That all depends on the tastes and preferences of the eater does it not? And "tastes" are only superficial impressions. Which has more nutritional value?

IMO, you cant really compare any religion on a "VS" basis. Its the practitioner, not the practice thats important. Much as its the fighter, not the art thats important in surviving a street fight.


----------



## Flatlander

Tgace said:
			
		

> That all depends on the tastes and preferences of the eater does it not? And "tastes" are only superficial impressions. Which has more nutritional value?
> 
> IMO, you cant really compare any religion on a "VS" basis. Its the practitioner, not the practice thats important. Much as its the fighter, not the art thats important in surviving a street fight.


Oh, Tom, you clever cat. Nicely played. :asian:


----------



## BlackCatBonz

Tgace said:
			
		

> That all depends on the tastes and preferences of the eater does it not? And "tastes" are only superficial impressions. Which has more nutritional value?
> 
> IMO, you cant really compare any religion on a "VS" basis. Its the practitioner, not the practice thats important. Much as its the fighter, not the art thats important in surviving a street fight.


well seeing as how i am the eater......


----------



## searcher

Just a little POV from what I have read in the previous posts.   In my Church we are told to question what our pastor teaches, but we do not question the Bible.   Others can say that we blindly follow, but we only follow where our Lord leads us.   I know that I will be flamed for my thoughts on the subject and I have been pondering whather or not to post on this discussion.    I guess what I would like to say is for the Christians that might post here.   My opinion is don't.    To try and give what you have experienced or to witness to those who have made up their minds is beyond our control.   It is best to pray for these people and leave it up to God to help them.    I take my faith very seriously, as I am sure most of you do also, so I will not get into a squabble over religions.    I don't consider myself to be narrow-minded, but our teachings are that the road to salvation is narrow.    I can only tell you that I have something in my life greater than all of the universe and that is Grace, purchased with a blood sacrifice.    

I thought I would chime in on an earlier discussion of the authenticity of the Bible and the words therin.   The Roman historian Tacitus makes reference to Christ and the early Church in his writings.   He was a pagan and non-believer that wrote about how Christians were wrongfully persecuted by Nero and have continued to be by others in history.

Thank you for letting me ramble on.   Hope it makes sense to anybody reading.


----------



## BlackCatBonz

so if we as a people chose not to question other books that were written in the past where would be be?


----------



## Tgace

I dont believe he said "other people" couldnt question the Bible. Only that he didnt.


----------



## BlackCatBonz

he said :In my Church we are told to question what our pastor teaches, but we do not question the Bible.


----------



## Tgace

Right..which is his choice. He didnt say you couldnt question it.


----------



## searcher

Tgace said:
			
		

> Right..which is his choice. He didnt say you couldnt question it.


That is exactly what I said.   We have people come in all of the time and question the Bible, but we as believers don't do it.   We do however study and research it to get a deeper understanding.   At current we are studying the book of Romans.    We cover other things in our SS classes and Bible studies like the Humanist Manifesto, and other religions.


----------



## Corporal Hicks

Pale Rider said:
			
		

> I have read through all (or the majority) of the posts made in comparison between religions. The only thing that I have to ask is that which would be the wiser of the two decisions 1) To believe that there isn't a Heaven or Hell all of your life and when you die finding out that there is or 2) to believe that there is a Heaven and Hell and finding out that there isn't?


When making those decisions you have prior knowledge, knowledge that is in fact from a Christian background, so what about the people who know nothing of Christianity then? Those who live out in poor or/and isolated countries? 
Do they go to hell because they no nothing of heaven and hell? Or of the Christian faith? 
Hardly that of an all knowing all powerful, all loving and fair God? Hey thats just my personal opinion but that creates a problem does it not?

Yo, anybody going to answer that?


----------



## Corporal Hicks

searcher said:
			
		

> our teachings are that the road to salvation is narrow.


Ok, I'm respecting your views and your religion so dont take the question incorrectly, but on the purpose of interest, now narrow is that road?
Do non-believers have any 'chance' of salvation? 
That is incase Christians are correct and I'm standing waiting to be judged!  



			
				searcher said:
			
		

> I thought I would chime in on an earlier discussion of the authenticity of the Bible and the words therin. The Roman historian Tacitus makes reference to Christ and the early Church in his writings. He was a pagan and non-believer that wrote about how Christians were wrongfully persecuted by Nero and have continued to be by others in history.
> 
> Thank you for letting me ramble on. Hope it makes sense to anybody reading.


What type of authenticity? Sorry I misunderstand this part of your post? Are you referring that Tacitus stated the bible is correct or what because they were wrongly persecuted?

Great posts btw!
Regards


----------



## searcher

Corporal Hicks said:
			
		

> When making those decisions you have prior knowledge, knowledge that is in fact from a Christian background, so what about the people who know nothing of Christianity then? Those who live out in poor or/and isolated countries?
> Do they go to hell because they no nothing of heaven and hell? Or of the Christian faith?
> Hardly that of an all knowing all powerful, all loving and fair God? Hey thats just my personal opinion but that creates a problem does it not?
> 
> Yo, anybody going to answer that?


I have asked this question myself and I will give you the answer that was given to me. The bible states that there is enough in creation for everyone to be saved(Rom. 1:20). If they truly know nothing of the gospel or have no way of understanding then they are held un-accountable in the eyes of GOD, but I would not hold your breathe. This would include children and who have not heard the Gospel, plus those mentally incapable of understanding the Gospel 

Remember that God does not hate anybody. He hates the sin, not the sinner. The fact that they(non-believers) go to hell is because of THEIR rejection of God, not because He wants to send them there.


----------



## searcher

Corporal Hicks said:
			
		

> Ok, I'm respecting your views and your religion so dont take the question incorrectly, but on the purpose of interest, now narrow is that road?
> Do non-believers have any 'chance' of salvation?
> That is incase Christians are correct and I'm standing waiting to be judged!


 
The Bible says that "Few there are that find it."   I would have to say that means it is pretty narrow.

Non-believers have a chance as long as they are still alive and capable of making decisions.   The chance they have is to repent and turn away from their past and turning to the saving grace that is freely offered through the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.   I would not put it off though.   The Bible also says that there is no guarentee of tomorrow.


----------



## lulflo

I was listening to the letter to the Hebrews from Paul today and heard an interesting definition of Faith.

      Faith is being sure of your hopes and the certainty of what is not seen.  

 I had some kind of epiphany today (and for those who don't know me, let me assure you that I respect all others beliefs and opinions, I post not to argue or offend, but to ponder and participate).

 It seems that this lifetime of the flesh is of little consequence. This is a theme found in Buddhism and Christianity. In Christianity, attachment to "the world of the flesh" is essentially futile because it is said that you should be able to give up your worldly possesions in order to enter the kingdom of God. I believe that Buddhism also professes that having no attachment is a key to enlightenment (based on my observations of Buddhism so far anyway).

 Anyway this epiphany I had... I essentially realized that there is no reason to submit to temptation because I am only here on earth for a short time. I came into the world with nothing and will leave this world with nothing. What I have gained in this world will not be mine when I leave and so there is no reason to attempt to acquire any more than I have. There is no reason to be mean or malicious or selfish or to be upset that others don't understand me or like me. If I can recognize within myself all that I have just by living, there is no reason to be unhappy. I can maintain my body optimally without any effort on my part because my body is with me at all times and should not be neglected or overindulged (this is tricky when one submits to temptation). If I continually worry about the past or about what I will obtain in the future or about others' thoughts, opinions, etc or what "society" thinks, I will be constantly attached to these things. The real test is to maintain my spirit and be present enough to realize when I have gone astray from it. 

  Let the testing begin!

      Farang - Larry


----------



## heretic888

Oh, dear.

Its always disheartening to see the Myth of Monolithism being perpetuated whenever Christianity, Buddhism, or any other world religion is being discussed (particularly when they are compared). Rather than going into a long drawn-out explanation, I shall copy-and-paste the long drawn-out explanations I gave elsewhere:



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> I would suggest _Mysticism: Christian and Buddhist_ by D. T. Suzuki as a good starting point on understanding a more ecumenical view between Christianity and Buddhism. Another very interesting text, which I found useful as an adolescent, is _A Taste of Water: Christianity Through Taoist-Buddhist Eyes_, by Chwen Lee and Thomas Hand.
> 
> Perhaps before reporting what "Christianity" is really about, it would help to consult the writings and teachings of many of the faith's great saints and mystics --- Athenagoras of Athens, Theophilus of Antioch, Minucius Felix of Africa, Clement of Alexandria, Origen of Alexandria, Augustine of Hippo, Denys the Areopagite, Boethius, Johannes Eckhart, Dante, Jacob Boehme, John of the Cross, Teresa of Avila, Hildegarde of Bingen, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, Paul Tillich, Thomas Merton, Thomas Keating, and so on.
> 
> The emerging body of wisdom tells a very different story than what most people are used to...
> 
> Hrmmm. Suddenly, Adlous Huxley's "perennial philosophy" comes to mind.





			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> Well, I should bring three major points on this:
> 
> 1) Not every Buddhist meditates. In fact, the vast majority don't. Anyone whose spent any duration of time in east Asia can attest to this. Likewise, not every Christian practices hesychasm, contemplative prayer, monastic meditation, or one of the many centuries-old Christian practices. That doesn't change the fact that they're still there. It also doesn't change the fact that most of the individuals historically recognized as "saints" or "sages" in the Christian faith(s) have been people that do just these practices.
> 
> 2) It should also be mentioned that many of the ideas and concepts espoused by the individuals I cited above are also to be found, here and there, within the Bible (New Testament, to by exact). They just aren't openly taught or emphasized. As but one example, the Gospel of John, Galatians, 1 Corinthians, Thessalonians, Ephesians, and the Revelation of John are all _loaded_ with Platonic and Gnostic imagery, terminology, and symbolism --- I mean, the _Logos_, anyone??
> 
> 3) Also, its not so much as I'm saying that anyone is "wrong" per se. Rather, that there is more to the faith that what people commonly ascribe to it. In several of the authentic Pauline letters, the author is very adamant about this point --- drawing sharp delineations between "psychic" and "pneumatic" Christians. Again, very Platonic.
> 
> This all, of course, ties directly with the perennial philosophy elucidated by Adlous Huxley (and others). For some sources dealing with harmonizing Christianity with the perennialist position, see:
> 
> http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/gthursby/mys/prenphil.htm
> http://www.religioperennis.org/ChristianT.html
> http://theologytoday.ptsem.edu/jul1...ticscorner1.htm
> 
> At this point I also feel I should bring up a few wrinkles concerning a few misconceptions concerning both Christianity and Buddhism:
> 
> 1) The notion that Emptiness, or _shunyata_, is somehow "complete nothingness" or a "rejection of fullness" is quite silly if you are even vaguely familiar with Mahayana Buddhism. Not to mention "negative theology" as a whole. For what its worth, a similar concept is found in many currents of Christianity --- such as the "dazzling darkness" of St. Gregory of Nyssa and St. Dionysius, the "great cloud of unknowing" of St. John of the Cross, the "ineffable Godhead" of Meister Eckhart, or the "Abyss" of Jacob Boehme.
> 
> 2) The notion that the "Christian God" is finite, limited, and rationally "knowable" seems rather odd to me. Both what I was taught as a child and the Christian theology I have read during my life always lead me to the conception that God is "transcendent", "ineffable", "indescribable" and "beyond" human reason or conceptualization. Huh, silly me.
> 
> 3) I think one of the arguments used to make Buddhism more compatible with Chrisitanity was to "Judaize" the Dharma. That seems rather odd to me. Forsaking one's family, friends and possessions to follow "the Way", viewing "the Law" as instrumental or temporary, embracing a life of celibacy and abstinence, or consuming the flesh and blood of a Godman to achieve "immortal life" don't sound particularly "Judaic" to me --- Platonic, Mithraic, and Pythagorean, sure. But, Judaic? Naw.
> 
> Meh. That's enough of my rambling for now. Tah tah.



Just something to think about.


----------



## heretic888

Hrmmmm.... for some reason, my post didn't update the thread.


----------



## Seabrook

Corporal Hicks said:
			
		

> The argument on her part for Christianity having hold over all other religions was that Jesus was the only one who performed miracles
> 
> 
> I am a Christian. Jesus was not the only person in the Bible who could perform what we would consider "miracles".
> 
> 
> I thought of a chapter that I had read recently stating that some Christians were like a flock of sheep, weak sheep that could not handle the pressures of life and therefore needed the concept of a God help them through life.
> 
> 
> That is bogus. Christians who read, believe, and act on the Bible believe they can accomplish more in life and can do all things through Christ who gives them strength. Fear is tossed out, in place of power, conviction, and determination.
> 
> 
> Christianity seems to be hoping for salvation and that it will come to them from God or/Jesus and that there will be eternal life after that,whereas in Buddhism humans make the best out of their present life and aspire to be the person they wish to be and live a 'free' life.
> 
> 
> We aren't hoping for salvation. Once we have accepted Jesus into our heart, we are saved. There is plenty of scientific evidence for the crucifixion, Jesus' death, and RESURRECTION.
> 
> 
> I know that Christianity is not all bad
> 
> 
> What is "bad" about Christianity? Please refer specifically to the faith and the Bible.
> 
> 
> I dont know, maybe I'm biased here but I see Buddhism as showing people the way to perfecting and improving themselves morally and physically and trying to sort out the imperfections in their life as well as trying to eradicate the suffering they feel or may in fact cause.
> 
> 
> Perfecting is a big word. Do you know someone who is perfect.
> 
> 
> Also with the fact that Buddhism actually points out what causes suffering and how to eradicate it as well as other issues in life, it goes deeper than Christianity which seems to state that suffering is a part of life and is a test of faith from God.
> 
> 
> Where did you come up with this theory? Yes, there are times when God will test us (but He will never give us more that we cannot handle), but in a lot of cases, suffering is caused by human beings by our own pride and free will.
> 
> 
> Kind Regards
> 
> C.H
> 
> P.s That post was toooo long! phew:whip:


 
Please see my comments to your statements and questions above.


Jamie Seabrook
www.seabrook.gotkenpo.com


----------



## Seabrook

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> The fact that much of the supposed "facts" of the bible are without outside proof is of no concern to them.


 
Hi Bob, 

That is completely false.

Sorry.

Jamie Seabrook
www.seabrook.gotkenpo.com


----------



## heretic888

Seabrook said:
			
		

> That is completely false.


 
Hi Jamie,

It is completely true.

Sorry.

Heretic888

P.S.: Ain't just-so platitudes a grand thing??


----------



## Bob Hubbard

Seabrook said:
			
		

> Hi Bob,
> 
> That is completely false.
> 
> Sorry.
> 
> Jamie Seabrook
> www.seabrook.gotkenpo.com


With respect,

Without using the Christian Bible:
- Prove Jesus's existence.
--- Acceptable information would be records kept by the Romans, the personal accounts of verified existing individuals, or verified lineages.
--- The works of Josephus has been debunked as unreliable and compromised. (Previous discussions from hell)

Much of the stories (The Flood, The Virgin Birth, etc) are extremely similar to earlier stories from other religions.

The Apostles writings show a distinct lack of familiarity with the geography of the area, and the customs of the people.

See http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=10609 (or do a search for Jesus here and look for the really bloody long threads. LOL) for more info.

The lack of proof does not negate faith IMO.
It simply means, we have no proof. 
Remember, Troy was a myth for centuries as well....


----------



## Seabrook

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> With respect,
> 
> Without using the Christian Bible:
> - Prove Jesus's existence.
> --- Acceptable information would be records kept by the Romans, the personal accounts of verified existing individuals, or verified lineages.
> --- The works of Josephus has been debunked as unreliable and compromised. (Previous discussions from hell)
> 
> Much of the stories (The Flood, The Virgin Birth, etc) are extremely similar to earlier stories from other religions.
> 
> The Apostles writings show a distinct lack of familiarity with the geography of the area, and the customs of the people.
> 
> See http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=10609 (or do a search for Jesus here and look for the really bloody long threads. LOL) for more info.
> 
> The lack of proof does not negate faith IMO.
> It simply means, we have no proof.
> Remember, Troy was a myth for centuries as well....


 
Ok. But please understand, I don't want to turn this into a keyboard war, I simply want to declare what I believe to be truth. BTW - Bob, I like you, my friend, and respect you very much. 

Here are some interesting points from Lee Strobel's book, The Case For Easter, whom by the way, did not believe in Jesus' claims until he investiagted the evidence thoroughly. 

Let's start with the medical evidence.

Roman floggings usually consisted of a minimum of 39 lashes
The soldier would use a whip of braided leather thongs with metal balls woven into them

The whip also had pieces of sharpe bone which would cut the flesh severely

The back would be so shredded that part of the spine was sometimes exposed by the deep cuts

The whipping would have gone all the way from the shoulders down the back, the butocks, and the back of the legs

Jesus would have been in serious to critical condition even before the nails were driven through his wrists and feet

*Historians are unanimous that Jesus survived the beating that day and went on to the cross*

The Romans were experts in killing people  that was their job. They knew without a doubt when a person was dead. The spear settled the issue once and for all.

Jesus payed the death penalty that we deserve because of our rebellion against God. That was his whole mission in coming to earth.

*Dr. William D. Edwards published an aricle in JAMA (high impact medical journal, highly cited) in 1986, and concluded, "Clearly, the weight of the historical and medical evidence indicates that Jesus was dead before the wound to his side was inflicted"*
The evidence of the missing body:

Jesus was seen dead, and then he was seen alive once more
Mark is generally considered to be the earliest gospel

Jesus was buried in the tomb

Jesus tomb was guarded and even the Jews agree to this

The evidence is firm that the tomb was found empty

Women who were friends and followers of Jesus discovered the empty tomb.

*When you understand the role of women in 1st century Jewish society, whats really extraordinary is that this empty tomb story should feature women as the discoverers of the empty tomb in the first place. This shows that the gospel writers faithfully recorded what happened, even if it was embarrassing*

Women were on a very low rung of the social ladder in 1st century Palestine
*The disciples had no motive to steal the body and then die for a lie, and certainly the Jewish authorities wouldnt have removed the body*
The evidence of the appearances:
<U>​
</U>
Did Jesus die on the cross? Yes.
Did Jesus appear later to people? Yes.

Christ appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve

After that, he appeared to more than 500 people at the same time

After that, he appeared to James, then to all the apostles

He also appeared to Paul

*The earliest Christians didnt just endorse Jesus teachings; they were convinced they had seen him alive after his crucifixion. Thats what changed their lives and started the church*

According to church tradition, Mark was a companion of the eyewitness Peter

*The 1 Corinthians 15 creed predates any of the gospels, and makes huge claims about the appearances. In fact, the claim involving the biggest number (5000 people at once) goes back to the earliest source!*
<U>Conclusion

​
</U>​

*The disciples proclaimed the resurrection to their deaths for one reason alone: they knew it to be true*

*If Jesus really is the Son of God, then your eternity hinges on how you respond to him. As Jesus said in John 8:24, "If you do not believe that I am the one I claim to be, you will indeed die in your sins."*


Jamie Seabrook
www.seabrook.gotkenpo.com


----------



## Shizen Shigoku

So . . . where's the evidence?


----------



## Bob Hubbard

Jamie,
 I do respect your beliefs. Several of my closest friends are Christians, and we've had long, sometimes heated, sometimes in-depth discussions of things. (I think at one time I owned 5 different, well read bibles.)

My only point is, that there is no evidence, outside the bible, of his existance. There is only material that has so far, been disproven.

Some examples:
- We have proof that Julius Ceasar lived. There are numerous historical records, monuments, campaigns, tales from other cultures, etc.
- We have proof that Troy existed. The ruins have been found. 
- We have proof that Mohammed existed. We have his decendants, his tomb, and historical records.
- We have proof that Plato existed. We have his writings, and other 3rd party accounts, as well as historical records.

Where Jesus is concerned, we have nothing outside the Bible.

But as I said, a lack of proof does not negate beliefs.  So, let's look at some side-thoughts:

- Is is likely that 4-12 guys could come up with a hoax that would hold up for 2 milenium? I doubt it.

- Someone wrote those gospels, the letters, etc. There's obviously a missing part to them. (The responses, the initial contacts, etc). 

- Lack of physical remains is not proof of non-existance.

- Lack of ruins is not proof of non-existance.

- Much of the history of the region lies buried under the sand. There are classified satelite photos that indicate ancient roads, and ruins in the Mid East.

- The locations of Sodom and Gammorah are believed to have been found, with evidence of nuclear attack.  


So, my desire is, not to 'debunk' beliefs, but to expand historical knowledge. Are there any reliable sources? Most that I've seen have been debunked. But, debunking a source, doesn't in itself debunk a belief.


Course, sometime in the next 75 years, I'll get my own answer.
Anyone advise me on the SPF factor I'll need?


----------



## heretic888

Bob,

One of the major arguments for the existence of a historical Jesus of Nazareth --- which Jamie's post also seems to rely heavily upon --- is the notion of Christianity spreading like magical wildfire during the first two centuries CE, based on eyewitness experience and conviction of his supposed disciples. Thus, it is argued, Jesus _had_ to have existed and _had_ to have appeared to others after an apparent execution because, very simply, there would be _no other way_ to explain the existence of Christianity.

This, of course, also all rests on the same series of self-confirming ideological structures for which there is also no corroborating evidence. We have no evidence that "the Twelve" even existed, nor do we have any reason to believe that Christianity has its origins in the first century. The notion that Christianity began in the first century among a handful of devout apostles is, again, an assumption that rests upon the Biblical narrative. We have no more reason to believe these presuppositions than we do to believe Jesus exists. 

Ergo, this is the same old circular logic that so much of Biblical apologism rests upon: 

"The Bible is the inerrant Word of God. Why, you ask? Because the Bible says its the inerrant Word of God, of course." 

Likewise, with Jesus: 

"The apostles, based on their eyewitness experience of the resurrected Jesus, went out and spread the Gospel throughout the Mediterranean. Why, you ask? Because the Bible says they did so, of course."

Its all part of the same self-confirmatory paradigm. Saying the apostles went out, spread the Word, risked their lives, died as martyrs, and so on rests just as much on the Biblical story as anything that can said of "Jesus Christ". And, like Jesus, we have no corroborating historical evidence to validate that these individuals did any such things. In fact, Christians and Christianity aren't even mentioned by Roman historians until roughly 110 to 120 CE --- well into the second century.

The idea that proto-Christian elements were littered throughout the Mediterranean prior to the first century is not any radical or bizarre claim. Let's read Philo's description (circa 15 CE) of the Alexandrian Therapeutae, who so closely resembled later Christians that the Church historian Eusebius (circa 300 CE) mistakenly claimed them to be the first followers of Christ. Let's read the existing fragments of the pre-Christian _Books of Enoch_, whom feature a supernatural Redeemer figure that is described as the "Son of Man", "Lamb of God", "God's Word", who has come to save the world from sin and destruction. And, of course, let's not forget the testimony of early third century Christian philosophers like Minucius Felix of Africa, who flatly denies that he and his brethren worship "an executed criminal" or an "accursed piece of wood" (instead, their "Christianity" was a Platonic philosophy based on the figure of the Logos).

All of the available evidence points us to the fact that the literalist Christianity we all know and loathe has its origins in late second to early third century Rome, in the hands of proto-Catholic apologists like Irenaeus (circa 190 CE) and Tertullian (circa 210 CE).

Laterz.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

See, thats kinda my point. There is no real "proof" yet, it had to have come from somewhere.  Lets look for a moment...the Popes.  Wasn't one of the 12 the 1st pope? Is there a tomb?  How did Christianity survive the fall of the Roman world? 

Some see my questions as an attack...they are Far from it. I'd honestly like to know.


----------



## heretic888

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> See, thats kinda my point. There is no real "proof" yet, it had to have come from somewhere.


 
In all likelihood, the earliest elements of "Christianity" as we would call it most likely have their origins in Alexandria, Egypt. There are many subtle hints in the Gospel narrative of this, such as with the Lord coming "out of Egypt".

When one looks at the documented history, you see that "Christianity" of one form or another was most widespread and pervasive in Egypt and surrounding nations like Asia Minor, Syria, and so on. By contrast, it is virtually unheard of in Judaea (where Jesus and his Apostles supposedly preached in the first place).

St. Clement of Alexandria also ties the authoring of various gospels attributed to Mark in Alexandria. 



			
				Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> Lets look for a moment...the Popes. Wasn't one of the 12 the 1st pope?


 
According to Church tradition, St. Peter was the first pope.



			
				Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> Is there a tomb?


 
Probably. 

But, the thing is, there are a lot of historical "relics" and "tombs" that have been bandied about by the Church at one time or another. The wife of Emperor Constantine claimed to have found a piece of the cross that Jesus was crucified upon, which has subsequently been proven to be a fake. Likewise, many charlatans throughout Church history claimed to have the "bones" of St. Peter or St. Paul (they were usually the bones of farm animals), and so on. Then, of course, there's the infamous "Shroud of Turin" (almost universally believed by experts to be a creation of the 14th century).

So, you have to take such claims with a very hefty grain of salt.



			
				Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> How did Christianity survive the fall of the Roman world?


 
Most likely because Christianity was not restricted to Rome.

Laterz.


----------



## 7starmantis

I'm not saying Christianity or Buddhism is correct or right or true, but this latest discussion brings up a question.

Why must there be "proof" of either religions accuracy? And if there is "proof" does would it really make or break those who believe in said religion?

7sm


----------



## Southwell

Bob,if your looking for proof of Jesus and his existence outside of the Holy Bible,then just turn to the Qur'an (3:42-47). Why would another religion mention him in there Holy book if he didn't exist ? Being a Christian I've had many people who have never read the Bible argue if the Bible is the word of God. Have you read the Bible ? Bob if you haven't then with all do respect I suggest you do so before investing in any SPF factor. Blessings Scott


----------



## 7starmantis

I think he stated he has read it several times.

7sm


----------



## heretic888

7starmantis said:
			
		

> Why must there be "proof" of either religions accuracy?


 
This isn't about religious or spiritual authenticity, its about historical accuracy. And, as far as I'm concerned, the two don't have any direct relationship whatsoever (whether positive or negative). 



			
				7starmantis said:
			
		

> And if there is "proof" does would it really make or break those who believe in said religion?


 
I leave that up to the individual practitioner.

Laterz.


----------



## heretic888

Southwell said:
			
		

> Bob,if your looking for proof of Jesus and his existence outside of the Holy Bible,then just turn to the Qur'an (3:42-47). Why would another religion mention him in there Holy book if he didn't exist ?


 
Probably because it was written around five or six centuries into the Common Era. 

It also flatly contradicts the Christian Bible in regards to certain details of Jesus' life. For example, in the Koran, Jesus didn't really die on the cross, he merely "appeared" to. 



			
				Southwell said:
			
		

> Being a Christian I've had many people who have never read the Bible argue if the Bible is the word of God. Have you read the Bible ?


 
Yup.

Also, I should mention that it is a logical fallacy to imply that the opposition only believes what they do because they haven't read/listened/experienced X. In fact, this is a very common ploy in politics.

Laterz.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

I've read several different bibles. I've read parts of the Talmud (sp?), the Qur'an, the works of Og Mandino, CS Lewis, and a few others I can't recall. I spent 2 years hanging out with my high school bible club (great chess players), a year attending 1 of their churches, and have had continuous contact with some majorly devout believers, and the associated discussions.  I had the pastor of 1 church comment to me that it's a pity I wasn't a member as I knew scripture better than half his congregation.  But, I'm like Thomas, I want proof.  And, I'm not saying this in a malicious manner. I have no desire to break anyones beliefs. Many times, I ask questions that I already have an answer to. I'm looking for a different one, or the same one, or a path to a new question.

My own current path has lead me from the Episcopal church, to agnostism, to atheism, to Satanism, to Born Again Christianity, to agnostism, to Naturalism, to Wicca, to Paganism, to Taoism, to Zen, to Hinduism.  Each stop has answered and created more questions, opened more paths and continued to widen my view of the universe we live in.

So I ask questions, seek data, and along the way, continue to modify my knowledge base.   

Understanding the historical or scientific aspects of things need not destroy faith.  I know scientifically that there are no magical properties to my silver ankh, or my quartz crystals. But, they give me comfort none the less. 
And that, in the end, is what I believe religion is, a means to guide you and comfort you in times of need.


----------



## Seabrook

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> Some examples:
> - We have proof that Julius Ceasar lived. There are numerous historical records, monuments, campaigns, tales from other cultures, etc.
> - We have proof that Troy existed. The ruins have been found.
> - We have proof that Mohammed existed. We have his decendants, his tomb, and historical records.
> - We have proof that Plato existed. We have his writings, and other 3rd party accounts, as well as historical records.
> 
> Where Jesus is concerned, we have nothing outside the Bible.


 
Really? 

Josephus wrote about Jesus and was born in 37 AD, a few years after Jesus' time. Josephus' writings offer the earliest references to Jesus outside of the Bible. 

Here is a quote (that hasn't been changed) from his earliest writings:

At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus, and his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon their loyalty to him. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive. Accordingly they believed that he was the Messiah, concerning whom the Prophets have recounted wonders.

I also came across this recently:

http://www.bede.org.uk/Josephus.htm

*What Josephus Tells Us*
What is the significance of Josephus' references to Jesus? Josephus provides valuable, independent confirmation of the existence, life, and ministry of Jesus of Nazareth. Leading scholar Luke T. Johnson offers the following opinion:
Stripped of its obvious Christian accretions, the passage tells us a number of important things about Jesus, from the perspective of a first-century Jewish historian . . . . Jesus was both a teacher and a wonder-worker, that he got into trouble with some of the leaders of the Jews, that he was executed under the prefect Pontius Pilate, and that his followers continued to exist at the time of Josephus' writing.​(Luke T. Johnson, _The Real Jesus_, pages 113-14).
F.F. Bruce breaks it down thus:
We have therefore very good reason for believing that Josephus did make reference to Jesus, bearing witness to (a) His date, (b) His reputation as a wonder-worker, (c) His being the brother of James, (d) His crucifixion under Pilate at the information of Jewish rulers, (e) His messianic claim, (f) His being the founder of the tribe of Christians, and probably, (g) the belief in His rising from the dead.​(F.F. Bruce, _op. cit._, page 112).
In summary, Josephus confirms the accuracy of the Canonical Gospels (and Acts) in the following recollections:
 The time frame that the Gospels place Jesus in,
 Jesus had a reputation for teaching wisdom,
 Jesus was believed to have performed miracles,
 Jesus had a brother named James,
 Some Jewish leaders were involved with Jesus' execution,
 Pilate was Prefect and had Jesus executed,
 Jesus was executed by crucifixion,
 Jesus was known as a messianic figure,
 Jesus was the founder of Christianity,
 Acts' portrayal of James as the leader of the Jerusalem Church is confirmed,
 The existence of early Jewish persecution of Christians in Jerusalem, and,
 That the early Christians reported that Jesus was raised from the dead as foretold by the Jewish prophets (based on Eisler's reconstruction and Mason's comments on linguistic similarities).

Jamie Seabrook
www.seabrook.gotkenpo.com
​


----------



## heretic888

Jamie,

I hate to break this to you, but the so-called _Testimonium Flavius_ is almost universally regarded by scholars as a Christian forgery. Some scholars, such as those you have cited, seem to believe there was an original reference to Jesus that was later "edited" by Christian writers (to make Josephus' claims more grandiose and devout), but the truth is there is no real evidence for this claim. It rests on _a priori_ presuppositions about both the existence of Jesus Christ, as well as the biographical details of his life.

This passage, nor anything even similar to it, is ever referenced by Church fathers (such as, say, Origen of Alexandria, who directly quotes Josephus in his surviving works) prior to the 5th century CE. In addition, the passage is grammatically "awkward" in that if you remove it from the text, the preceding and succeeding passages (which have nothing to do with Jesus or the Christians) "flow" much more naturally between one another.

Even _if_ we assume that there was an original reference to Jesus that later become exaggerated (and that's a big _if_ here), Josephus wrote his history of the Jews around 100 CE and does not draw upon any apparent primary sources (no references or citations for his information). This puts his information more than a _full lifetime_ removed from the purported events in question. As such, his descriptions of Jesus Christ are, at best, little more than word-of-mouth information that somebody _may_ have heard from their grandparents. This is hardly a rock-hard historical source here.

Sorry, but I remain unconvinced.

Laterz.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

Josephus's writings, and much of the historical aspects of the existance or non-existance of Jesus has been discussed in depth before.  The conclusion is that Josephus's writings were tampered with after his death to reflect then-current church needs, and as such cannot be considered a reliable reference source.


The Bible, Hell, and Other Topics of Casual Delight
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=27201&highlight=Josephus

Newsweek Poll: Majority of Americans Believe the Bible to be Historically Accurate
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=19988&highlight=Josephus

Ten Commandments...."Rules" or "Continuum?" for living. 
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=18325&highlight=Josephus

God
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=5653&highlight=Josephus

Bible proven by Fulfilled Prophecies
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=17247&highlight=Josephus

Judeo-Christian wackiness
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=14450&highlight=Josephus

The Historical Jesus.
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=10609&highlight=Josephus


----------



## Seabrook

It doesn't look like I can convince you guys.

All I can do is try.


No hard feelings.


Jamie Seabrook
www.seabrook.gotkenpo.com


----------



## Bob Hubbard

Jamie,
  Can I be convinced that Christianity is the only way? No.
  Can I be convinced that it is based on actual people, actual events, etc? Sure, with accurate data. We just haven't found it yet.
  Am I open to more information? Always.
  Does a lack of evidence mean it's wrong? Nope.  Like I said, Troy was a fable, until someone found the city, all on the strength of a song. 

Never a hard feeling on my end.  I ask so that I might learn. And, I drive my friends crazy with some of these discussions.


----------



## heretic888

Seabrook said:
			
		

> It doesn't look like I can convince you guys.
> 
> All I can do is try.
> 
> 
> No hard feelings.
> 
> 
> Jamie Seabrook
> www.seabrook.gotkenpo.com


 
Jamie,

No hard feelings at all. 

We can respectfully agree to disagree. 

Laterz.


----------



## heretic888

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> Jamie,
> Can I be convinced that Christianity is the only way? No.
> Can I be convinced that it is based on actual people, actual events, etc? Sure, with accurate data. We just haven't found it yet.
> Am I open to more information? Always.
> Does a lack of evidence mean it's wrong? Nope. Like I said, Troy was a fable, until someone found the city, all on the strength of a song.
> 
> Never a hard feeling on my end. I ask so that I might learn. And, I drive my friends crazy with some of these discussions.


 
Bob,

For me, personally, the primary issue is that there _should_ be more substantial evidence of the historical existence of Jesus Christ, as well as his biographical details. The truth is it's simply not there. Not yet, anyway.

The earliest Christian writings we have are the letters attributed to Paul --- with the qualification that at least some of them are forgeries written centuries after Paul died and the purportedly "authentic" ones have at least partially been altered by later Church scribes --- and not only is he conspiscuously silent about the details of Christ's life, but the details he does give are often at conflict with those of the later Gospel narrative. For example, in Galatians, Paul says Jesus appeared before the Twelve after the resurrection. However, in the Gospel narrative, the "Twelve" no longer existed as Judas Iscariot had commited suicide. Likewise, Paul complains that "we do not even know how we should pray", apparently ignorant of the Gospel dictum of the Lord's Prayer.

Early Church fathers are quite vague concerning the details of Christ's life. We don't see anything resembling a full biography akin to what is written in the Gospels until sometime between 120 and 140 CE. For that matter, "Christians" are not even mentioned by Roman historians until sometime between 110 and 120 CE. When we do hear about Christianity in some detail, it is most widespread in areas like Egypt, Syria, Asia Minor, and Rome. It is almost unheard of in Israel, its supposed nation of origin. Likewise, the vast majority of early Christians seem to have leaning toward some form of Gnosticism or Docetism. They are, for the most part, not the Literalists we think of with traditional Church doctrine.

The fact that that are several proto-Christian elements in the Hellenistic world prior to the first century --- such as the practices of the Alexandrian _Therapeutae_ (whom Church historian Eusebius mistakenly believed to be the first followers of Christ) and the popularity of Jewish intertestamental works like the _Books of Enoch_ (which has a similar Divine Redeemer that is the Son of God) --- as well as the popularity of Gnosticism/Docetism and the prevalence of "Christianity" in places like Egypt and Syria, give logical credence to the claim that the figure of "Jesus Christ" was, originally, a spiritual archetype for these individuals. Not a historical teacher.

Now, personally, it won't shatter my world if it turns out there was a historical "Jesus Christ". What I take from Christianity is largely derived from mystical treatises, such as those from St. Dionysius, St. Gregory, St. John of the Cross, Meister Eckhart, and so on. Most of the other stuff is of only minimal concern to me, just a passing interest that doesn't directly impact my life. If it turns out there really was a first century mystical Jewish teacher called "Jesus of Nazareth" who figured himself after the perennial figure of Osiris-Dionysus, then so be it. It doesn't change the spiritual authenticity of Christian mysticism, which is really all I am personally concerned with.

Laterz.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

And that brings up another point. Even if the historical fact turns out to be that Christianity as a whole is little more than a blending of various older stories, cultural characteristics, myths, and renaming of people, would it invalidate the messages contained within, or the feelings of confidence, security etc that deep believers have?  I don't think so.  I think that it is but 1 window, into a deeper universe. I'm personally trying to see through as many windows as I can before I rejoin the universe (or get reincarnated as a cat.)


----------



## heretic888

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> And that brings up another point. Even if the historical fact turns out to be that Christianity as a whole is little more than a blending of various older stories, cultural characteristics, myths, and renaming of people, would it invalidate the messages contained within, or the feelings of confidence, security etc that deep believers have? I don't think so. I think that it is but 1 window, into a deeper universe. I'm personally trying to see through as many windows as I can before I rejoin the universe (or get reincarnated as a cat.)


 
Bob,

On a similar note, I personally don't believe a historical Siddartha Gautama existed, either, for much the same reasons as a historical Jesus Christ. That doesn't stop me from drawing heavily on Buddhist teachings for my own personal understanding of philosophy and spirituality. Nor does it impact the authenticity of Buddhist meditative practice.

It is exactly as I said before: historical accuracy and spiritual authenticity  have _nothing_ to do with one another.

Laterz.


----------



## Cryozombie

You know what I think...

(not that anyone cares)

You can base your "beliefs" and "understanding" on what you have read, been taught, been raised to believe, or on cold statistics and "factual" science...

or you can develop an understanding of the universe around you thru personal experiences and your "feelings" of connection to your diety...

In the end, its only gonna matter to you... either you are dust, a cow, or you stand before the creator and explain yourself.

Personally... I dont give 2... cents... about the proof... I have seen enough personal "proof" in my life to validate my belief in god and Christianity, and to draw me out of a deep seated HATRED of christians and my life as a Satanist (the Levay type, not the goat sacrificing type) to become a believer.  Dont care what you think or believe, until you start telling ME what to believe... then I might come back atcha.  I wont preach and convert and tell you you are wrong... thats not why i was placed on this earth.


----------



## Bester

Whatever works for you baby, whatever works.

I leave you with some words of true wisdom:

I'm completely in favor of the separation of Church and State. My idea is that these two institutions screw us up enough on their own, so both of them together is certain death. 

# Religion convinced the world that there's an invisible man in the sky who watches everything you do. And there's 10 things he doesn't want you to do or else you'll go to a burning place with a lake of fire until the end of eternity. But he loves you! ...And he needs money! He's all powerful, but he can't handle money!

This is a lttle prayer dedicated to the separation of church and state. I guess if they are going to force those kids to pray in schools they might as well have a nice prayer like this: Our Father who art in heaven, and to the republic for which it stands, thy kingdom come, one nation indivisible as in heaven, give us this day as we forgive those who so proudly we hail. Crown thy good into temptation but deliver us from the twilight's last gleaming. Amen and Awomen.


----------



## Cryozombie

Bester said:
			
		

> # Religion convinced the world that there's an invisible man in the sky who watches everything you do. And there's 10 things he doesn't want you to do or else you'll go to a burning place with a lake of fire until the end of eternity. But he loves you! ...And he needs money! He's all powerful, but he can't handle money!



Thanks, George.


----------



## heretic888

Technopunk,

One should be wary of the self-referential fallacy: the notion that an experience inherently proves its own validity. Any experience, no matter how sublime or life-changing, may unknowingly be suspect to the biases and presuppositions of the observer (whether they be personal or cultural). It is circular logic to believe something is true merely because it references itself (whether this be phenomenology or text).

That is why something like peer review and communal confirmation is absolutely essential. Even in the world's great spiritual traditions, mystical or contemplative practice takes place within communities (such as the Buddhist _sangha_) of those that share your pursuits. They constantly act as a buffer and a grounding force to ensure you're not flying off into dangerous territory. Even in experientially-based religions like Zen, your experiences and insights (_kensho_) are constantly confirmed and checked against a knowledgeable instructor (or, sometimes, group of seekers).

Keep that in mind.

Laterz.


----------



## heretic888

Bester,

No one on this thread has argued for --- or even brought up --- the collapse of the Separation of Church and State. I'm afraid this is just polemic on your part and does not contribute to the discussion at hand.

Laterz.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

Besters closing comments seem to be drawn from George Carlin.
I recognize the last bit as being from a recent concert.


----------



## BlackCatBonz

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Bester,
> 
> No one on this thread has argued for --- or even brought up --- the collapse of the Separation of Church and State. I'm afraid this is just polemic on your part and does not contribute to the discussion at hand.
> 
> Laterz.


 
:rofl: hahahahaha


----------



## Cryozombie

heretic888 said:
			
		

> One should be wary of the self-referential fallacy: the notion that an experience inherently proves its own validity. Any experience, no matter how sublime or life-changing, may unknowingly be suspect to the biases and presuppositions of the observer (whether they be personal or cultural). It is circular logic to believe something is true merely because it references itself (whether this be phenomenology or text).


 
*Shrug*

Like I said, we all have our own reasons for believing what we do.

I figure it dont hurt me none to believe the way I do, and the fact I am not pushing it on others, well, that means I am not hurting anyone else.  When I die, if I am nothing, it wont matter anyhow... if I stand before MY god, I will probably have a lot of explaining to do... if I stand before someone elses... Im prolly screwed... So whadda do?

Again, *shrug*


----------



## Bob Hubbard

Well, it depends on the god in question.  I mean, in some circles, you're screwed regardless of what you do, unless you're on "the list". In others, you can buy a "get outta hell free" pass at the last minute. Some go on what you did, others on what you tried to do, and some, just look at your overall score and reincarnate you accordingly. 

I'm coming back as a cat. It's only fair. I work 7 days a week, haven't had a real sleep in years....cats work 5 minutes a month, sleep 12 hours a day.  I mean, it's only fair.  Thats it, I want to reincarnate as Garfield!


----------



## 7starmantis

If we are talking about "God" and dieties....

Can the created understand the creator? Regardless of who that creator is believed to be.

7sm


----------



## Seabrook

Bester said:
			
		

> Religion convinced the world that there's an invisible man in the sky who watches everything you do. And there's 10 things he doesn't want you to do or else you'll go to a burning place with a lake of fire until the end of eternity. But he loves you! ...And he needs money! He's all powerful, but he can't handle money!


 
The Bible states that God has already given us sufficient evidence of His existence. 

Romans 1:20 - "For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse."

The truth is that God's love endures forever. But that same God of love, also has a zero tolerance for sin. In fact, the Bible says that when Jesus became sin on the cross, it pleased the Father to punish His Son. In referring to sin, the Bible states

"The soul that sinneth shall surely die" (Ezekiel 18:20)
"The wages of sin is death" (Romans 6:23)
"The way of the transgressor is hard" (Proverbs 13:15)
The truth is that Gods wrath is our choice  its not what God wants but what we demand. And by rejecting Jesus' substitutionary death at Calvary for the salvation of our sins, we turn our backs to God. 

However, accepting God's gift of salvation, admitting our wrongdoings, confessing Jesus as Saviour, and trusting in Him, changes everything, and you now get to live FOREVER with HIM.  

*Read these passages:*

*Jeremiah 29:11* "For I know the plans I have for you,' says the Lord. 'They are plans for good and not for disaster, to give you a future and a hope." 

*Hebrews 13:5b* 
"God has said, 'I will never fail you. I will never forsake you.'"

*Romans 10:13* "Anyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." 


Jamie Seabrook
www.seabrook.gotkenpo.com


----------



## Cryozombie

Seabrook said:
			
		

> The Bible states that God has already given us sufficient evidence of His existence.


 
That argument doesnt hold water here... these heathens dont belive the bible... therefore any "proof" it shows... isn't.

I know these guys... God could appear in the sky and smite 90% of the population, and they would still have an excuse why that isnt "scientifically confirmable" anyhow... so... yeah.  MMM. Science.



> Religion: "In the beginning there was nothing. From nothing, god created the heavens and the earth"
> 
> Science: "In the Beginning there was nothing. That nothing exploded and the universe created itself"
> 
> hmm. Sound... about the same to me, except ONE has a god, the other happend for no reason. But thats what SMART folk believe.
> 
> Ok... well, lets look at another example.
> 
> Religion: "The Earth was devoid of life, so god created the creatures of the earth, and eventually, man."
> 
> Science: "The Earth was devoid of life, but life spontaniously created itself, in the form of self replicating protein, which eventually turned into humans, and about a trillion other lifeforms"
> 
> Um. Again... same? Except for God and the Happened for no reason thing?
> 
> This "Scientific" evidence is astounding! What does it all say? "WE HAVE NO ****ING CLUE, BUT I SWEAR IT WASNT GOD!"



*Please Note This Entire Post is Tounge In Cheek and not to be taken too seriously*


----------



## Bob Hubbard

The problem with pointing at the Christian Bible and saying "See, its all there. Its Proof!" is that there are several other religions, with equally good books, that say something different.

How come 
" Before the heavens and the earth came into existence, all was a chaos, unimaginably limitless and without definite shape or form. Eon followed eon: then, lo! out of this boundless, shapeless mass something light and transparent rose up and formed the heaven. This was the Plain of High Heaven, in which materialized a deity called Ame-no-Minaka-Nushi-no-Mikoto (the Deity-of-the-August-Center-of-Heaven). Next the heavens gave birth to a deity named Takami-Musubi-no-Mikoto (the High-August-Producing-Wondrous-Deity), followed by a third called Kammi-Musubi-no-Mikoto (the Divine-Producing-Wondrous-Deity). These three divine beings are called the Three Creating Deities.

In the meantime what was heavy and opaque in the void gradually precipitated and became the earth, but it had taken an immeasurably long time before it condensed sufficiently to form solid ground. In its earliest stages, for millions and millions of years, the earth may be said to have resembled oil floating, medusa-like, upon the face of the waters. Suddenly like the sprouting up of a reed, a pair of immortals were born from its bosom. These were the Deity Umashi-Ashi-Kahibi-Hikoji-no-Mikoto (the Pleasant-Reed-Shoot-Prince-Elder-Deity) and the Deity Ame-no-Tokotachi-no-Mikoto (The Heavenly-Eternally-Standing-Deity). . ."

and

"One day the Great Spirit collected swirls of dust from the four directions in order to create the Comanche people. These people formed from the earth had the strength of mighty storms. Unfortunately, a shape-shifting demon was also created and began to torment the people. The Great Spirit cast the demon into a bottomless pit. To seek revenge the demon took refuge in the fangs and stingers of poisonous creatures and continues to harm people every chance it gets."

and

"In the beginning were only Tepeu and Gucumatz. These two sat together and thought, and whatever they thought came into being. They thought earth, and there it was. They thought mountains, and so there were. They thought trees, and sky, and animals. Each came into being. Because none of these creatures could praise them, they formed more advanced beings of clay. Because the clay beings fell apart when wet, they made beings out of wood; however, the wooden beings caused trouble on the earth. The Gods sent a great flood to wipe out these beings, so that they could start over. With the help of Mountain Lion, Coyote, Parrot, and Crow they fashioned four new beings. These four beings performed well and are the ancestors of the Quiché."

are wrong, yet

"Genesis
1:1In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 1:2Now the earth was formless and empty. Darkness was on the surface of the deep. Gods Spirit was hovering over the surface of the waters.

1:3God said, Let there be light, and there was light. 
1:4God saw the light, and saw that it was good. God divided the light from the darkness.
1:5God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. There was evening and there was morning, one day.
1:6God said, Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. 
1:7God made the expanse, and divided the waters which were under the expanse from the waters which were above the expanse, and it was so.
1:8God called the expanse sky. There was evening and there was morning, a second day. "

Is right?  

Why are Christans the only ones who can be right, while the Japanese, Comanche, Aztecs and Mayans are wrong?


----------



## Cryozombie

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> Why are Christans the only ones who can be right, while the Japanese, Comanche, Aztecs and Mayans are wrong?


 
Cuz we beat them all at war, and History is written by the Victors, duh.  Our God obviously is the correct one, because we won.  If theirs was... they would have.

Im gonna shut up now, Im in that mood, and people might take me seriously.


----------



## BlackCatBonz

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> Why are Christans the only ones who can be right, while the Japanese, Comanche, Aztecs and Mayans are wrong?


 
i dunno.....i still find it funny that christians worship the jewish god.
the god in the old testament wouldnt give a rat's behind about non-jewish people.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

Technopunk said:
			
		

> Cuz we beat them all at war, and History is written by the Victors, duh.  Our God obviously is the correct one, because we won.  If theirs was... they would have.
> 
> Im gonna shut up now, Im in that mood, and people might take me seriously.


I think Carlin did a bit on this concept once.... 

I know, I know....back on the pile of kindling you heathen.
Well, at least the ladies won't be able to deny, I'm hot stuff! 
:rofl:


----------



## 7starmantis

BlackCatBonz said:
			
		

> i dunno.....i still find it funny that christians worship the jewish god.
> the god in the old testament wouldnt give a rat's behind about non-jewish people.



Thats coming from a misunderstanding of the old testament...but thats a whole different discussion.

7sm


----------



## Bester

Technopunk said:
			
		

> Thanks, George.


I like Carlin. Since I've joined him in praying to Joe, I've seen more of my prayers answered. It might simply be that while God is busy trying to help all these sports teams, helping Mary with her lame boyfriend, Jack get home from his latest 1 nighter undetected by the wife, and trying to decide which of the million "please let me win the lottery" requests he gets every hour, Joe is in relatively low demand and can give more personalized service.

Joe Bless you all.


----------



## BlackCatBonz

7starmantis said:
			
		

> Thats coming from a misunderstanding of the old testament...but thats a whole different discussion.
> 
> 7sm


 
start a new thread!


----------



## heretic888

Technopunk said:
			
		

> I know these guys... God could appear in the sky and smite 90% of the population, and they would still have an excuse why that isnt "scientifically confirmable" anyhow... so... yeah. MMM. Science.


 
Y'know, I was thinking just the same thing about why Biblical fundamentalists give excuses about the evidence for evolutionary theory. Personally, I missed the 19th century "the Devil created fossils to trick you!" arguments. Diabolical mimicry, it's called.

Heh. Funny, that.  

Laterz.


----------

