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]

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]

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]

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]

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

(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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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?

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?

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]

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]

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