Christianity vs Buddhism

[ChristineES]

I agree. However it becomes a problem that needs to be corrected when people start to agree with that reasoning. For example the man who killed his wife over the superbowl was let go because people assumed it was a viable reason and thought it was justified. If that happened then we need to do something. Agreed?

Of course. Even those who use religion as an excuse for something like murder should not get off because of it. I wish everyone saw it that way, but unfortunately, not all do.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Of course. Even those who use religion as an excuse for something like murder should not get off because of it. I wish everyone saw it that way, but unfortunately, not all do.

Yes. But we also need to look at things in a context where we replace "murder" with other things. Namely the most important issue the religious groups have blocked in America is Marriage Equality. And its considered "OK" to simply rig the laws against homosexuals based on religion. Same with abortion ect.

I don't think that your religious ideology or theology should be a legitimate excuse when stripping rights away from people. Thats where I get steamed. There are dozens of other issues but in America this is the most obvious.

 

[ChristineES]

Yes. But we also need to look at things in a context where we replace "murder" with other things. Namely the most important issue the religious groups have blocked in America is Marriage Equality. And its considered "OK" to simply rig the laws against homosexuals based on religion. Same with abortion, etc.

I don't think that your religious ideology or theology should be a legitimate excuse when stripping rights away from people. Thats where I get steamed. There are dozens of other issues but in America this is the most obvious.

There are some, like me, who believe that people who don't follow my faith shouldn't be forced to follow the teachings.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

There are some, like me, who believe that people who don't follow my faith shouldn't be forced to follow the teachings.

Agreed. I don't blame each and every Christian for this. I do have to argue the point that on a national level it is the religious (mostly Christian but supported by other religions as well) that has created this situation.

 

[nash8]

both followed correctly will make you a fine upstanding member of the community.

That is why there are good and bad in both.

Exactly, it all depends upon perspective.

That is the estimated death toll for all of WWII. Not the holocaust or just any one nation's death tolls. Its a lot.

Actually, according to the all knowing wiki, Stalin is attributed to anywhere from 40 million to 60 million deaths not including his involvement in WWII. 11 million is just in his mass murdering campaigns. The 40 to 60 million includes this, famines he intentionally started, and other such campaigns regardless of his military actions in WWII.

Either way it doesn't really matter. No one is killing in the name of Atheism or usnig atheism as an excuse to kill. Its like saying because Hitler was a Vegetarian he killed all those people.

The problem I have with this, is that you can't convincingly argue why anyone kills. Of course they can say it is in the name of suchandsuch, but what if they just use that is a means to rally people behind their cause, and their beliefs concerning the system actually have no bearing on their decisions to kill. Hell, what if Hitler's vegitarianism caused a nutrient defeciency in his mental proccessing that caused him to wan't to kill. Some evidence does show that meat eating is one of the key means of human intellgence development.

Even so I would argue that the reason's why Hitler killed was because of a unhealthy childhood. An anticlerical father with a devout Catholic as a mother. I honestly can't imagine a more unhealthy childhood environment then that.

DAD: It's ok to touch yourself because God doesn't exist.
MOM: God condemens you everytime you touch yourself.

That's enough to drive anyone mad in my opinion.

Agreed. I don't blame each and every Christian for this. I do have to argue the point that on a national level it is the religious (mostly Christian but supported by other religions as well) that has created this situation.

I argue that it's the republican's fault.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

The problem I have with this, is that you can't convincingly argue why anyone kills. Of course they can say it is in the name of suchandsuch, but what if they just use that is a means to rally people behind their cause, and their beliefs concerning the system actually have no bearing on their decisions to kill. Hell, what if Hitler's vegitarianism caused a nutrient defeciency in his mental proccessing that caused him to wan't to kill. Some evidence does show that meat eating is one of the key means of human intellgence development.

Even so I would argue that the reason's why Hitler killed was because of a unhealthy childhood. An anticlerical father with a devout Catholic as a mother. I honestly can't imagine a more unhealthy childhood environment then that.

DAD: It's ok to touch yourself because God doesn't exist.
MOM: God condemens you everytime you touch yourself.

That's enough to drive anyone mad in my opinion.

There are people who do things for an ideology with the ideology at center. Atheism isn't an ideology ergo you can't kill in the name of atheism. You can kill for your ideology and Atheism may contribute to your ideology in some way but it in of itself cannot be a "reason" for killing anyone.

A good example is I can't be motivated by my lack of belief in My Little Pony.

 

[nash8]

There are people who do things for an ideology with the ideology at center. Atheism isn't an ideology ergo you can't kill in the name of atheism. You can kill for your ideology and Atheism may contribute to your ideology in some way but it in of itself cannot be a "reason" for killing anyone.

A good example is I can't be motivated by my lack of belief in My Little Pony.

I dunno, I would argue that a lack of belief in My Little Pony can cause some serious ideological upheavel that would directly lead to mass murder.

Seriously though, I understand the point you are making, and I would have to agree with it on some level. Although I would argue that the lack of belief in something holding you responsible for your actions in whatever aspect, could lead to an ideological belief that lended itself toward violence.

Hell, if I didn't think there was something that would hold me responsible for my actions towards others, I would probably have slapped a lot more people lol.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Actually, Christianity, traditionally, lends itself more that you are saved by Jesus and/or God alone, and not by acts.

So by doing good acts in Christianity your are reaping rewards in heaven, and in doing good deeds in Buddhism it is one of the paths to attaining Nirvana (heaven by any other name). So essentially the acts of good deeds are self serving in the end in both religions from my perspective.

And from a neurochemical standpoint, being compassionate towards others is the definition of self serving in my opinion.
Understanding LOVE

Buddhism is a practice of which brings about realisation aka awakening. There is no attainment to be noted in mentioning of which nirvana applies as being a means to an end, so there is actually nothing attributed by way in which comparatively, a Christian seeks heaven. There remains no heaven for a Buddhist to enter nor any hell to flee.

It's true in which compassion can leave a feedback through cause and effect motivating one to continue by the feeling such acts can generate, yet even so, nothing remains guaranteed by compassionate action as opposed to guarantees made through biblical scriptures through a course of action leading to spiritual rewards.

 

[nash8]

Buddhism is a practice of which brings about realisation aka awakening. There is no attainment to be noted in mentioning of which nirvana applies as being a means to an end, so there is actually nothing attributed by way in which comparatively, a Christian seeks heaven. There remains no heaven for a Buddhist to enter nor any hell to flee.

I've argued this before that Nirvana is essentially uncaused, and it just happens, but under this then Buddhism would be pointless as a philosophy, because nothing contained within the philosophy would lead to Nirvana. Being a mass murderer would be just as likely to lead one to Nirvana as would the path of Buddhism.

And not all sects of Buddhism don't believe in the concpets of Heaven and Hell, I seem to recall some sects of Mayahana that hold the belief of Heaven, Hell, demons, and angels so to speak.

It's true in which compassion can leave a feedback through cause and effect motivating one to continue by the feeling such acts can generate, yet even so, nothing remains guaranteed by compassionate action as opposed to guarantees made through biblical scriptures through a course of action leading to spiritual rewards.

I would agree, there is much more of a contextual premise within Buddhism, rather than the gaurantee made by the Bible.

Even so, Christianity in it's modern, mainstream form doesn't neccesarily gaurantee anything by compassionate actions either. It actually says exactly the opposite, that your place in heaven is not gained by compassionate actions, but rather by the belief in Jesus Christ, whatever that means to each person.

However, I personally would argue that this is not the doctrine that Yehoshua taught himself, and that he was actually vehemently opposed to doctrines such that are attributed to him as they are today.

I would argue that Jesus would have been more akin to some of the more esoteric aspects of Tibettan Buddhism myself. Just my .02 cents.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I dunno, I would argue that a lack of belief in My Little Pony can cause some serious ideological upheavel that would directly lead to mass murder.

Seriously though, I understand the point you are making, and I would have to agree with it on some level. Although I would argue that the lack of belief in something holding you responsible for your actions in whatever aspect, could lead to an ideological belief that lended itself toward violence.

Hell, if I didn't think there was something that would hold me responsible for my actions towards others, I would probably have slapped a lot more people lol.

I get that. My understanding is that its not the lack of a belief in concequences that cause you to do something but the desire to do them in the first place that would be the fuel for your actions. But I guess I can see the way that lack of a belief can be a factor.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I've argued this before that Nirvana is essentially uncaused, and it just happens, but under this then Buddhism would be pointless as a philosophy, because nothing contained within the philosophy would lead to Nirvana. Being a mass murderer would be just as likely to lead one to Nirvana as would the path of Buddhism

The words of Charles Manson during a filmed prison interview, "I'm nobody".

Such a path is accessible because no real true seperation exists preventing anyone, even horrible murderers, from nirvana even if it it lasts nanoseconds and forgotten. I would forgo advising people however to seek out Manson as a Zen teacher though. ;O)

And not all sects of Buddhism don't believe in the concpets of Heaven and Hell, I seem to recall some sects of Mayahana that hold the belief of Heaven, Hell, demons, and angels so to speak.

Im not aware of any schools that approach such concepts literally. Heaven, hell, angels, and demons certainly do abound in Mayahana and yes, they are as real as it gets.

I would agree, there is much more of a contextual premise within Buddhism, rather than the gaurantee made by the Bible.

Even so, Christianity in it's modern, mainstream form doesn't neccesarily gaurantee anything by compassionate actions either. It actually says exactly the opposite, that your place in heaven is not gained by compassionate actions, but rather by the belief in Jesus Christ, whatever that means to each person.

However, I personally would argue that this is not the doctrine that Yehoshua taught himself, and that he was actually vehemently opposed to doctrines such that are attributed to him as they are today.

I would argue that Jesus would have been more akin to some of the more esoteric aspects of Tibettan Buddhism myself. Just my .02 cents.

Good enough. :0)

 

[nash8]

The words of Charles Manson during a filmed prison interview, "I'm nobody".

My personal conception is that Nirvana would be the idea "I'm everything". But if you add "I'm nothing", with "I'm everything", the result you would get would be "I'm everything".

Such a path is accessible because no real true seperation exists preventing anyone, even horrible murderers, from nirvana even if it it lasts nanoseconds and forgotten.

Indeed I agree. I just think Buddhism tries to provide a path where Nirvana is a constant rather than a fleeting thought.

I would forgo advising people however to seek out Manson as a Zen teacher though. ;O)

You couldn't of told me that before I got my book on Mansonian Zen practices.

Im not aware of any schools that approach such concepts literally. Heaven, hell, angels, and demons certainly do abound in Mayahana and yes, they are as real as it gets.

Is Mayahana not a school of Buddhism?

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Christianity or Buddhism, which is "better" for the individual and/or for mankind. Based on teachings, and the actual end results each ideology has manifested. Keeping in mind what Jesus once said: "By their fruits ye shall know them."

My thoughts:

I think Christianity breeds irresponsible people, at least emotionally and intellectually irresponsible.

Indeed- dogma breeds anti-intellectualism and a distrust of the senses, secular science and philosophy, and reason.

I also believe that Christianity makes people careless in the long term. Meaning that because Christianity teaches that Jesus will return "one day soon," why would "we" put in any effort to keeping nature clean from pollution, over exploitation, and so on when Jesus will just fix everything soon?

Again, very true; otherworldliness subordinates this world and this life, and all of its problems and goals, to this fictional realm.

I also think Christianity breeds hateful people, and a people who believe that have the only "Truth," and therefore everyone else are not as good as them... not "saved."

Given that its sacred scriptures discriminate against women and homosexuals, endorse slavery, glorify violence, and veritably ooze venom and resentiment, its teachings are as pernicious as its dogmatism and otherworldliness. Indeed "by their fruits shall you know them"- and Christianity does not have a very pretty track record.

I'd say that Buddhism is the better of the two.

A pretty safe bet.

 

[ChristineES]

Indeed- dogma breeds anti-intellectualism and a distrust of the senses, secular science and philosophy, and reason.


Again, very true; otherworldliness subordinates this world and this life, and all of its problems and goals, to this fictional realm.


Given that its sacred scriptures discriminate against women and homosexuals, endorse slavery, glorify violence, and veritably ooze venom and resentiment, its teachings are as pernicious as its dogmatism and otherworldliness. Indeed "by their fruits shall you know them"- and Christianity does not have a very pretty track record.


A pretty safe bet.

As a Christian, I believe you are being overly harsh to the followers of my faith. The vast majority of Christians I've known are very kindly people: They are not hateful towards gays or women. As for being anti-intellectual, I've never seen that in most of the Christians I've known.
I can't deny that there are a few that might follow in that kind of pattern and I won't, however.
People tend to generalize others, and it seems to be what people do with my faith nowadays (among others, of course)- not everyone, mind you, but a few.

 

[sojourner]

Indeed- dogma breeds anti-intellectualism and a distrust of the senses, secular science and philosophy, and reason.


Again, very true; otherworldliness subordinates this world and this life, and all of its problems and goals, to this fictional realm.


Given that its sacred scriptures discriminate against women and homosexuals, endorse slavery, glorify violence, and veritably ooze venom and resentiment, its teachings are as pernicious as its dogmatism and otherworldliness. Indeed "by their fruits shall you know them"- and Christianity does not have a very pretty track record.


A pretty safe bet.

This represents a very myopic, single-faceted, and superficial glance at an extremely diverse, complex, deep and sophisticated spirituality. It fails to take under consideration that any religion -- Xy included -- is a very human endeavor, imbedded in both the best and worst of human behavior and thought. That's because any religion worth its salt will involve all of us as whole human beings -- including our warts. Not a very mature way to assess any religion, imo.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

This represents a very myopic, single-faceted, and superficial glance at an extremely diverse, complex, deep and sophisticated spirituality.

Diverse? Sure. Deep and sophisticated? That's being awfully generous. In any case, short of writing a 200 page work on the subject, comparisons of Religion A vs. Religion B are bound to be somewhat "superficial" and not entirely representative of every aspect of a religion. However, that doesn't mean that what I said wasn't true, so far as it goes- and this is sort of a cop-out objection to my post anyways, as it allows you to object, without actually putting yourself out there in saying what exactly was wrong about it.

It fails to take under consideration that any religion -- Xy included -- is a very human endeavor, imbedded in both the best and worst of human behavior and thought. That's because any religion worth its salt will involve all of us as whole human beings -- including our warts. Not a very mature way to assess any religion, imo.

A red herring. The undesireable aspects I mentioned are not just all-too-human elements present in any religion or human endeavor generally, but traits peculiar to certain religions, or to Christianity.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

As a Christian, I believe you are being overly harsh to the followers of my faith. The vast majority of Christians I've known are very kindly people: They are not hateful towards gays or women. As for being anti-intellectual, I've never seen that in most of the Christians I've known.
I can't deny that there are a few that might follow in that kind of pattern and I won't, however.
People tend to generalize others, and it seems to be what people do with my faith nowadays (among others, of course)- not everyone, mind you, but a few.

My post was not talking about Christians per se, but the Christian faith- its scriptures, its traditions, its most well-known theorists, and so on. And there isn't a whole lot of room to dispute that Christianity is a dogmatic religion, that dogma easily disposes itself towards anti-intellectualism, that the Bible contains passages which are derogatory/prejudiced towards gays/women, or the Christianity has had many shameful moments throughout history.

 

[ChristineES]

My post was not talking about Christians per se, but the Christian faith- its scriptures, its traditions, its most well-known theorists, and so on. And there isn't a whole lot of room to dispute that Christianity is a dogmatic religion, that dogma easily disposes itself towards anti-intellectualism, that the Bible contains passages which are derogatory/prejudiced towards gays/women, or the Christianity has had many shameful moments throughout history.

I really resent people calling my faith anti-intellectual or even dogmatic. It is a very diverse religion and has done a lot of good. We all know that some people have used the faith's name to promote things that are less than desirable, but, for the most part, Christianity has also done a lot of good, as well. I resent people who keep saying otherwise.

As for the Bible, you are picking out a few verses out of God knows how many to prove your points. And it doesn't change the fact that most Christians I have known aren't derogatory towards anyone- not gays and not women. And Christianity isn't the only faith that uses the Bible.

Before you say anything, I know that you did not say all of these things. I always speak more generally and not personally to people. I quoted your post for reference and nothing more.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

I really resent people calling my faith anti-intellectual or even dogmatic.

Firstly, I think you're objecting to certain connotations of the word "dogmatic", that are not necessarily applicable- in the study of religion, a dogmatic religion is one that has dogmas; teachings that are authoritative, or are official positions. And that Christianity is a dogmatic religion is simply a matter of classification, and is a fact. Christianity has dogmas, not all religions do.

It is a very diverse religion and has done a lot of good.

I'm not denying that it is diverse, or has done some good- this just isn't relevant to what I am saying.

We all know that some people have used the faith's name to promote things that are less than desirable, but, for the most part, Christianity has also done a lot of good, as well. I resent people who keep saying otherwise.

I'm not. You seem to be having trouble triangulating what I am or am not saying.

As for the Bible, you are picking out a few verses out of God knows how many to prove your points. And it doesn't change the fact that most Christians I have known aren't derogatory towards anyone- not gays and not women. And Christianity isn't the only faith that uses the Bible.

I actually haven't cited any verses yet, but I guess you know which ones I have in mind. But that "most Christians aren't derogatory towards anyone" (and the "most" bit is arguable) is also irrelevant to what I've said; the Christian scriptures contain verses which discriminate against gays and women, thus laying a religious/scriptural basis for prejudice. In other words, homophobic Christians are not homophobic incidentally, it is supported by their religion. And" a few verses out of God knows how many" which provide a basis for hate and prejudice towards anyone are a few verses too many.

Before you say anything, I know that you did not say all of these things. I always speak more generally and not personally to people. I quoted your post for reference and nothing more.

Ok, but if you're responding to my post, what would things other people have said but I have not have to do with anything?

 

[ChristineES]

Ok, but if you're responding to my post, what would things other people have said but I have not have to do with anything?

This is the way I post. If I confused you, I apologize. Maybe I shouldn't have quoted you, but I thought if I said I was just using your post as a reference, you'd realize that. Your post only prompted a reply, not necessarily a reply directed at what you were saying. I quoted you just in case someone posted after you- I've done that in the past, not quoted anyone, and that just confused people- and they said so. That is all I was doing.

I am going to have to think of another method on doing that so I confuse no one.
(I don't bet on that happening, I am pretty scatterbrained on occasion)