Christianity vs Buddhism

[Twilight Hue]

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".

"I'm nobody". Subtlety of it all. Durn it. ;0)

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

I think everyone wrestles with consistency. Once Nirvana manifests, it's gone. Just like the thought of Nirvana itself. So much for thought and the application. But for the sake of the thread, it's a bit off topic.

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



Is Mayahana not a school of Buddhism?

Mayahana is a major branch of which there are schools. I think any theistic nuances that are present mainly lie with the practitioner themselves, involving a hybrid version such as Christian Zen or other or is simply the view of there being gods, angels, demons as being something other than manifestations of thought.

 

[sojourner]

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.

Yes, I did. You're drawing very general conclusions about the whole religion, based upon a couple of very narrow (and not universally-held) facets of that religion. "So far as it goes" is the only wholly truthful thing you've said thus far. "So far as it goes," in this particular case, is roughly equivalent to 2 inches on a trip of 5000 miles. It's irresponsible and useless as a real argument.

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.

If this is really what you think, then you don't know enough about human behavior or Xy to have a viable dog in this fight.

 

[sojourner]

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.

It can be -- and any times, parts of it are. But not Xy as a whole. The development of the dogma takes a great deal of intellectualism, actually. The bible only contains those things because they are particulars to an ancient culture. The bible's overarching theme champions the cause of the outcast, the powerless, the downtrodden, and those in need. And it's not "prejudiced toward gays," unless you're reading it wrong.
Humanity, itself, has many shameful moments irrespective of Xy. So, there's actually a whole lot of room for dispute that Xy or the bible are what you claim they are. Thanks for proving my prior point.

 

[sojourner]

Christianity has dogmas

Not all of it. Therefore, your statement is incorrect.

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

You deny it when you neglect to at least give its diversity a nod in your assessment of it.

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

You seem to be moving the goalposts.

the Christian scriptures contain verses which discriminate against gays and women,

No, they don't. Unless you're reading ancient, Semitic law and superimposing it onto post-modern, American society. Which is intellectually irresponsible.

 

[ChristineES]

Not all of it. Therefore, your statement is incorrect.

You deny it when you neglect to at least give its diversity a nod in your assessment of it.

You seem to be moving the goalposts.

No, they don't. Unless you're reading ancient, Semitic law and superimposing it onto post-modern, American society. Which is intellectually irresponsible.

Thanks, Sojourner. You've explained it better than I was able to.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

You're drawing very general conclusions about the whole religion, based upon a couple of very narrow (and not universally-held) facets of that religion.

This is simply nonsense; the diversity of a religion isn't a bar to generically characterizing that religion, the only error is if this is taken to be exhaustive; if your presupposition is that my comments were intended to be exhaustive, that's your error, not mine. And speaking generally of Christianity, its certainly true that Christianity is a dogmatic religion (and its not very contentious to point out that dogma easily lends itself towards anti-intellectualism- also note how I never said all Christianity was anti-intellectual). It is also a simple fact that Christianity is otherworldly- it posits an afterlife (and that otherworldliness devalues this world is also not a stretch). It is also a fact that the Bible contains verses which are negative or derogatory towards homosexuals and women.

If this is really what you think, then you don't know enough about human behavior or Xy to have a viable dog in this fight.

"If you don't agree with me, then you're too ignorant to disagree with me". Needless to say, this is a very, very poor argument you've just made. In any case, the fact that not every religion is dogmatic, otherworldly, prejudiced, and pernicious, like Christianity, demonstrates that these are not just all-too-human aspects common to all human institutions, but are aspects of historical Christianity. Even if we grant you that Christianity's extremely bloody history (the Inquisition, witch-burnings, complacency towards human rights issues like the Holocaust, etc.) is such an all-too-human element (which is far from obvious, since not all religions boast a similarly checkered past), there is plenty that is ugly about Christianity, such that the verdict to the OP's question is more or less a foregone conclusion.

And when we remember that Christianity's doctrines are false as well as pernicious, the matter's pretty open and shut.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Not all of it. Therefore, your statement is incorrect.

An irrelevant objection. There are some versions of football that are not a contact sport, but it is certainly accurate to say in general that football is a contact sport. And Christianity is considered a dogmatic religion, because not just orthodox Christianity, but the vast majority of varieties and offshoots of Christianity are dogmatic.

This claim is simply dishonest or ignorant. (and, if we were to take your suggestion here to its logical conclusion, we could never generalize about anything whatsoever, and most discourse, including comparative studies of religion, would be illicit)

You deny it when you neglect to at least give its diversity a nod in your assessment of it.

No, that doesn't follow. I'm not obligated to talk about its diversity if its diversity is irrelevant to what I do want to talk about.

You seem to be moving the goalposts.

A vacuous claim. Say where and how.

No, they don't.

Bologna. Lev 18 and 20, Sodom and Gomorrah, Roman 1, Mathew 8, Luke 7... And that's just homosexuality; if we were going to discuss scripture and historical Christianity's jaundiced views towards women, we'd be here all day. Once again, this is either basic ignorance or blatant dishonesty; either you're unfamiliar with your own scriptures, or you're willing to intentionally lie about their contents.

 

[sojourner]

the diversity of a religion isn't a bar to generically characterizing that religion, the only error is if this is taken to be exhaustive;

You are taking it to be exhaustive, though.

if your presupposition is that my comments were intended to be exhaustive, that's your error, not mine.

When you opine that "Christianity is..." that is an exhaustive statement. It can only be inexhaustive if you had said, "parts of Xy," or "one facet of Xy is that..."

speaking generally of Christianity, its certainly true that Christianity is a dogmatic religion

Again, not all of Xy is dogmatic. The generalization attempts to speak exhaustively of Xy as being "dogmatic," when, clearly, there are facets of it that are patently not dogmatic. So, no. It's not true that "Xy is a dogmatic religion." It is true that parts of Xy are dogmatic, or even that much of Xy is dogmatic. But Xy is not dogmatic.

its not very contentious to point out that dogma easily lends itself towards anti-intellectualism

Have you read all the dogma? It requires a LOT of intellectualism to formulate such dogma -- and to understand it thoroughly. It's not the dogma, itself that fosters "anti-intellectualism," it's the blind adherence to the dogma without taking the time to fully understand it.

It is also a simple fact that Christianity is otherworldly- it posits an afterlife (and that otherworldliness devalues this world is also not a stretch)

Yes, it posits an afterlife, but it also patently focuses on this life by advocating for justice for the outcast, powerless and poverty-stricken, by placing love of one's neighbor as the ground of all the Law, by making hospitality to those in need a priority, and by elevating the basics of the earth -- bread -- as the portal to unity with God and with each other.

It is also a fact that the Bible contains verses which are negative or derogatory towards homosexuals and women.

No, it isn't. In the view of the biblical authors, there was no such thing as homosexuality. And the societal view of women is culturally -- not spiritually -- based and, therefore, need not concern post-moderns.

the fact that not every religion is dogmatic, otherworldly, prejudiced, and pernicious, like Christianity, demonstrates that these are not just all-too-human aspects common to all human institutions, but are aspects of historical Christianity.

You've failed, as yet, to prove the "fact" that Xy is dogmatic, otherworldly, prejudiced, or pernicious. These are conclusions you've put out there as "fact," but, as I've shown, are not fact. They are opinion not supported by a proper accounting of the religion's scope of theology, presentation, spiritual depth, transformational potential, multivalency, or mythical dimension.

You've arrived at these opinions through only the most surface and cursory glance at some bible passages and historical circumstances, not taking into account the historic, theological, literary, or cultural contexts. Talk about anti-intellectualism!

Even if we grant you that Christianity's extremely bloody history (the Inquisition, witch-burnings, complacency towards human rights issues like the Holocaust, etc.) is such an all-too-human element (which is far from obvious, since not all religions boast a similarly checkered past), there is plenty that is ugly about Christianity, such that the verdict to the OP's question is more or less a foregone conclusion.

Not all religions became so bound up in political power. Therefore, it's not the nature of the religion, itself, but the "corruption" of political power that caused the ugliness. It was the imperialization of Xy that has proved ugly -- and imperialization is a patently human factor. Any system -- religious or otherwise -- that becomes empowered by the state becomes ugly in very similar ways.

It's only a "foregone conclusion" when the context and other factors are ignored in favor of simply hoping to flame the religion.

And when we remember that Christianity's doctrines are false as well as pernicious, the matter's pretty open and shut.

You haven't shown that the doctrines are false. You're on pretty shaky evidential ground here. You haven't demonstrated anything but the most rudimentary understanding of what Xy is, and it has rendered your argument embarrassingly thin. My conclusion with regard to your not having a dog in this fight stands, until you can demonstrate a better understanding.

An irrelevant objection. There are some versions of football that are not a contact sport, but it is certainly accurate to say in general that football is a contact sport. And Christianity is considered a dogmatic religion, because not just orthodox Christianity, but the vast majority of varieties and offshoots of Christianity are dogmatic.

We're not just talking about denominations here. We're also talking theology, praxis, understandings, spiritual formation, etc. There is plenty about Xy that isn't dogmatic. The very nature of the multivalency of theology suggests that dogma has very little influence in its formulation. Indeed, it's theology that drives dogma, not the other way round. We can make dogmatic statements about certain highlighted facets of theological thought, but that in no way makes "the religion" dogma-driven.

Love isn't dogma. And love lies at the foundation of the impetus of Xtian praxis. Sharing bread isn't dogma. And sharing is also a foundation of Xy. Social justice isn't dogma, and is what defines Xy culturally. Building relationships isn't dogma, and is the impetus for forming the church.

You'll simply have to do much, much better than you have been doing, if you want to support your claims. Xy isn't a "dogmatic religion." It's a relational religion. It does contain a lot of dogma that has been politically enforced, but that's just the most visible and loudest aspect of Xy in the world. It doesn't mean that Xy is a "dogmatic religion," especially in light of the fact that the foundations of Xy are not dogmatic in nature.

This claim is simply dishonest or ignorant. (and, if we were to take your suggestion here to its logical conclusion, we could never generalize about anything whatsoever, and most discourse, including comparative studies of religion, would be illicit)

See above. We can generalize about Xy -- just not about the wrong things that aren't general to Xy. You're generalizing the wrong things.

No, that doesn't follow. I'm not obligated to talk about its diversity if its diversity is irrelevant to what I do want to talk about.

Oh, so when discussing humanity in general, we don't have to take into consideration all races and cultures -- just the white American ones? And then make general claims based only on white Americans? When we discuss music in general, we don't have to take into consideration rock bands and bluegrass, or any vocal or choral music -- just string quartets? And then make general claims based only on Haydn's string quartets?
I see.

Xy's diversity is not irrelevant to the discussion of it.

Lev 18 and 20, Sodom and Gomorrah, Roman 1, Mathew 8, Luke 7... And that's just homosexuality;

Nope. These are statements against what is perceived in that particular time and place to be acts that are "unnatural," not against homosexuality as an orientation or an identity. And Sodom and Gomorrah is railing against the inhospitality -- not the homosexuality. As I said above: if you don't understand this, you just don't have a dog in this fight.

this is either basic ignorance or blatant dishonesty; either you're unfamiliar with your own scriptures, or you're willing to intentionally lie about their contents.

Thank you for proving my statement above once again. You just don't have enough of an understanding of what's actually going on in the bible to make these kinds of judgments. It's you -- not me -- who is "unfamiliar," and that's causing you to posit untruths about them.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

You are taking it to be exhaustive, though.

Cite where I've said that then.

When you opine that "Christianity is..." that is an exhaustive statement.

No, its a general statement. Like the football example, exceptions don't invalidate a general statement unless one is actually claiming that it is exhaustive. I have not.

Again, not all of Xy is dogmatic.

That's fine. Christianity, as a religion, is a dogmatic religion, as a matter of classification. This is because it typically has dogmas, or official teachings, and that's what "dogmatic" means here. This is a simple fact.

Have you read all the dogma? It requires a LOT of intellectualism to formulate such dogma -- and to understand it thoroughly. It's not the dogma, itself that fosters "anti-intellectualism," it's the blind adherence to the dogma without taking the time to fully understand it.

Dogma, as such, easily lends itself to anti-intellectualism, as I have said, because a commitment to a position or belief come what may (i.e. a dogma) will require one, if other sources contradict that position, to say whatever is necessary to rationalize the position in the face of contradictory evidence- and that includes denying the validity of reason, logic, the senses, science (in other words, anti-intellectualism). The history of the Church is a case study in this fact.

Yes, it posits an afterlife

Glad we got that covered.

No, it isn't. In the view of the biblical authors, there was no such thing as homosexuality.

Irrelevant.

And the societal view of women is culturally -- not spiritually -- based and, therefore, need not concern post-moderns.

Irrelevant.

The point is- as I've expressed to another poster- that misogynistic attitudes towards women and homophobia are not incidental to Christians or the Christian faith, but are a function of specific scriptural passages, and the subsequent religious traditions based upon them, which forbid homosexual relations, describe them as abominations, and portray women as inferior and subservient to men- and all this as a matter of divine sanction.

You've failed, as yet, to prove the "fact" that Xy is dogmatic, otherworldly, prejudiced, or pernicious.

That Christianity is dogmatic and otherwordly is a patent fact. It has official teachings, and it posits an afterlife or a higher realm. That verses describing homosexual acts as abominations and women as inferior are prejudiced is self-evident. And that all this is pernicious follows fairly easily.

These are conclusions you've put out there as "fact," but, as I've shown, are not fact.

Patting ourselves on the back a bit prematurely, as it turns out.

You've arrived at these opinions through only the most surface and cursory glance at some bible passages and historical circumstances, not taking into account the historic, theological, literary, or cultural contexts. Talk about anti-intellectualism!

Even if this speculation as to my methods were true (it is not, needless to say), this is not what "anti-intellectualism" means.

We're not just talking about denominations here. We're also talking theology, praxis, understandings, spiritual formation, etc. There is plenty about Xy that isn't dogmatic.

You appear to be unaware of what "dogmatic" means in this context, and are objecting on the basis of that misunderstanding- like Christine. "Dogma" is not, in this context, a value-judgment or a negative term. It is a term in comparative religion for an official teaching. I think I've mentioned this above, hopefully this sinks in. This misunderstanding also renders most of what you've said on the question of dogma irrelevant.

Oh, so when discussing humanity in general, we don't have to take into consideration all races and cultures -- just the white American ones?

Wow...

Xy's diversity is not irrelevant to the discussion of it.

If I was talking about a subject on which Christianity DID have diverse opinions, then yes. But since I was talking about some general features of Christianity as a religion, shared by all but perhaps a few outliers, then no. This is a dead end, and trying to weirdly turn it into a racial thing, like above, is just silly.

Nope. These are statements against what is perceived in that particular time and place to be acts that are "unnatural," not against homosexuality as an orientation or an identity.

The verses are not qualified in any such way. This is your interpretation being projected onto the text, and one that is not shared by any consensus of your fellow Christians. History proves this, including recent history.

 

[sojourner]

Cite where I've said that then.

From post #77:

Christianity is a dogmatic religion

That's an exhaustive statement. If you didn't mean for it to be exhaustive, you should have said, "Xy is a religion with dogmas." As I've shown, Xy isn't a dogmatic religion, for love, justice, relationship and sharing do not depend on dogma in order for us to practice them faithfully. And those are the building blocks of Xy.

That's fine. Christianity, as a religion, is a dogmatic religion, as a matter of classification.

According to...?
And "classification" according to what criteria, and for what purposes?

This is because it typically has dogmas, or official teachings, and that's what "dogmatic" means here. This is a simple fact.

Then the teachings are what is dogmatic -- not the religion. The religion is far more than its "official" teachings.

Dogma, as such, easily lends itself to anti-intellectualism, as I have said, because a commitment to a position or belief come what may (i.e. a dogma) will require one, if other sources contradict that position, to say whatever is necessary to rationalize the position in the face of contradictory evidence- and that includes denying the validity of reason, logic, the senses, science (in other words, anti-intellectualism). The history of the Church is a case study in this fact.

It can. But that's not necessarily the case. In fact, most things can lend themselves to anti-intellectualism. Dogma =/= blind allegiance. In fact, the RCC has something called "informed dissent" that releases one from blindly following church decisions. Your statement is rather like seeing a few wormy apples in a bushel and concluding that, because there is opportunity for apples to be wormy that all apples are substandard as a fruit and as a source of nutrition.

Glad we got that covered.

No, we didn't. Because you've conveniently ignored the other half of that statement, which (truncated) said that Xy is primarily focused on how we live our lives in this world. In other words, simply because Xy claims an afterlife does not define it as "otherworldly." it isn't.

Irrelevant.

It's quite relevant to your argument that the bible contains discriminatory statements against homosexuality. For, if homosexuality was unknown at the time of writing, there can, by definition, be no discriminatory statements against something that was not known to exist.

Irrelevant.

The point is- as I've expressed to another poster- that misogynistic attitudes towards women and homophobia are not incidental to Christians or the Christian faith, but are a function of specific scriptural passages, and the subsequent religious traditions based upon them, which forbid homosexual relations, describe them as abominations, and portray women as inferior and subservient to men

Again: No. Because it's not a function of specific scriptural passages, but rather the neglect of properly exegeting those passages that results in the behaviors and attitudes you cite. The passages, themselves, can only be properly understood inasfar as they are properly exegeted.

and all this as a matter of divine sanction.

No, it's a matter of undisciplined interpretation.

That Christianity is dogmatic and otherwordly is a patent fact. It has official teachings, and it posits an afterlife or a higher realm.

Neither of which (as I've said before) makes the religion dogmatic or otherworldly. It does make some teachings dogmatic (again: the teachings are not the religion). But the focus of the religion isn't on the afterlife. It's on this life. Just because astronomers look at the stars doesn't mean that science is "unearthly."

That verses describing homosexual acts as abominations and women as inferior are prejudiced is self-evident.

No, it's only evident that the writers held different views of women and homosexual acts than we do.

And that all this is pernicious follows fairly easily.

Only if insufficient conclusions are drawn from insufficient study of the facts. We, today, hold the authors' views as pernicious -- as well we should -- but the authors' views do not the religion make. therefore, Xy, itself, isn't "pernicious" based only upon what the authors thought.

Patting ourselves on the back a bit prematurely, as it turns out.

You're dismissing facts a bit prematurely, as it turns out.

Even if this speculation as to my methods were true (it is not, needless to say)

Oh, it needed saying, all right.

this is not what "anti-intellectualism" means.

Hmmm. From Wikipedia: "Anti-intellectualism is hostility towards and mistrust of intellect, intellectuals, and intellectual pursuits, usually expressed as the derision of education, philosophy, literature, art, and science, as impractical and contemptible."

You said in post #76:

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.

but I suppose that statement doesn't treat the intellectual pursuit of understanding a religion as "impractical" in this case? And your subsequent maligning of Xy, based upon shoddy research (because, of course, decent research would be far too impractical for your purposes here) also doesn't fit the description of "anti-intellectual. Mmhmm.

You appear to be unaware of what "dogmatic" means in this context, and are objecting on the basis of that misunderstanding- like Christine. "Dogma" is not, in this context, a value-judgment or a negative term. It is a term in comparative religion for an official teaching. I think I've mentioned this above, hopefully this sinks in. This misunderstanding also renders most of what you've said on the question of dogma irrelevant.

Oh, I understand fully what dogma is and is not. But, as I've said, the teachings are not the religion. The relationships are the religion, and those are not dogma. There may be dogma about them, so that we can understand them better, but they, themselves, are not dogma. Which is why the religion isn't dogmatic, even though it has dogma.
There's some misunderstanding going on, but it's certainly not coming from me.

If I was talking about a subject on which Christianity DID have diverse opinions, then yes. But since I was talking about some general features of Christianity as a religion, shared by all but perhaps a few outliers, then no.

So, equality of target groups, endorsement of slavery and other systemic violence (such as human trafficking) are not subjects on which there is much diverse opinion??? Srsly?
Discrimination of women and of those who identify as homosexual, slavery, violence, and anti-intellectualism are patently not "general features of Xy as a religion." They may be viewpoints held by some (or even many), but they have relatively little to do with the religion, itself -- except, of course, for the establishment of justice, the propagation of love, and the fostering of right relationships. These subjects are hotly debated -- even within the largest and most mainstream groups. Therefore, diversity is crucial to the debate here.

trying to weirdly turn it into a racial thing

I wasn't trying to "turn it into a racial thing." I was using the example as hyperbole, to hopefully get you to see how absurd your position on context really is.

The verses are not qualified in any such way.

Good exegesis does qualify them in that way.

This is your interpretation being projected onto the text, and one that is not shared by any consensus of your fellow Christians.

No, it's a product of exegesis. What you're talking about is eisegesis, or reading into the text what isn't there. Which is what you're doing. There is consensus (and its growing) among scholars as to the nature of the texts in question. What the uninformed believe has more to do with individual beliefs than it does the nature of the "religion" or even what the texts say.

The problem you have, as I see it, isn't really with Xy, itself. it's with a number of those who identify as Xtian, and with a limited number of "official" teachings (none of which are universally agreed upon, anyway, so just how "official" are they?).

 

[Enai de a lukal]

From post #77:

That's an exhaustive statement.

No, it isn't. It is like saying "football is a contact sport"- and bringing up flag football would be to miss the point, just as you're doing here.

As I've shown, Xy isn't a dogmatic religion, for love, justice, relationship and sharing do not depend on dogma in order for us to practice them faithfully.

No, you've simply shown you don't understand what "dogmatic' means in this context.

According to...?

Virtually any theorist you care to pick. Christianity has official teachings or positions, as opposed to, say, Judaism.

Then the teachings are what is dogmatic -- not the religion.

No, the teachings themselves are the dogmas- that's what "dogma" means. A religion which has dogmas, is a dogmatic religion (I suppose its better to get these basics covered late than never...) .

The religion is far more than its "official" teachings.

Indeed. But that's irrelevant.

It can. But that's not necessarily the case. In fact, most things can lend themselves to anti-intellectualism. Dogma =/= blind allegiance. In fact, the RCC has something called "informed dissent" that releases one from blindly following church decisions. Your statement is rather like seeing a few wormy apples in a bushel and concluding that, because there is opportunity for apples to be wormy that all apples are substandard as a fruit and as a source of nutrition.

No, not at all. And I haven't said that dogma necessarily leads to anti-intellectualism- you persist in misunderstanding me, deliberately it seems- but rather that it easily lends itself to anti-intellectualism, for the reasons mentioned. And this is precisely what we've seen throughout history, and on the part of some of Christianity's most esteemed writers (Aquinas, Luther, Paul).

No, we didn't. Because you've conveniently ignored the other half of that statement, which (truncated) said that Xy is primarily focused on how we live our lives in this world. In other words, simply because Xy claims an afterlife does not define it as "otherworldly." it isn't.

Ah, so there is no higher or more ultimate life or realm in Christian teachings? Good to know all this kingdom of heaven nonsense was just a bad joke.

It's quite relevant to your argument that the bible contains discriminatory statements against homosexuality. For, if homosexuality was unknown at the time of writing, there can, by definition, be no discriminatory statements against something that was not known to exist.

No, that doesn't follow. Whether it was a known phenomenon at the time or not, describing the acts that define homosexuals as homosexuals (i.e. homosexual acts) as "abominations" is prejudiced. And since now we do know that homosexuality exists, adhering to a text that makes such comments is inexcusable.

Again: No. Because it's not a function of specific scriptural passages, but rather the neglect of properly exegeting those passages that results in the behaviors and attitudes you cite. The passages, themselves, can only be properly understood inasfar as they are properly exegeted.

And "proper exegesis" here apparently means interpreting them to mean the opposite of what their literal meaning appears to be. This is not exegesis, this is called "sweeping it under the rug".

No, it's a matter of undisciplined interpretation.

Neither of which (as I've said before) makes the religion dogmatic or otherworldly.

Yes, that's what "dogmatic" means. Sorry. And you're now rewriting basic Christian doctrine in order to avoid the charge of otherworldliness. This is fine with me, since removing the kingdom of heaven from Christian doctrine is to take away a vital piece of the foundation of Christian ethics, such that the whole house comes tumbling down- works for me.

No, it's only evident that the writers held different views of women and homosexual acts than we do.

Views that are canonized in Christianity's sacred scriptures. You don't recognize the problem in that? Or how using such verses to justify homophoby and misogyny (which undeniably happens every day) is at least understandable? (one can hardly be faulted for reading "lying with man as with woman is an abomination" in the Bible, of all places, and not conclude that homosexuality is... well, an abomination, according to the Bible)

Hmmm. From Wikipedia: "Anti-intellectualism is hostility towards and mistrust of intellect, intellectuals, and intellectual pursuits, usually expressed as the derision of education, philosophy, literature, art, and science, as impractical and contemptible."

Exactly, thank you.

Oh, I understand fully what dogma is and is not.

Everything you've hitherto posted on the matter belies this claim.

So, equality of target groups, endorsement of slavery and other systemic violence (such as human trafficking) are not subjects on which there is much diverse opinion??? Srsly?

Um... what?

Discrimination of women and of those who identify as homosexual, slavery, violence, and anti-intellectualism are patently not "general features of Xy as a religion."

Historically, yes, they are.

Good exegesis does qualify them in that way.

Except, if it is superimposing things onto the text with no textual basis for them, then it is not "good exegesis".

 

[sojourner]

No, it isn't. It is like saying "football is a contact sport"- and bringing up flag football would be to miss the point, just as you're doing here.

Flag football is football -- and it's not a contact sport. That's precisely the point!! Not all Xy is as you describe it -- the descriptors are not universals of the Faith, just as contact is not a universal of football. It may be prevalent, but not universal.

No, you've simply shown you don't understand what "dogmatic' means in this context.

I do understand the term "dogma." That's like telling an airplane mechanic that he doesn't understand the term "aileron."

Virtually any theorist you care to pick. Christianity has official teachings or positions, as opposed to, say, Judaism.

Are these theorists Christians, themselves? If not, what business is it of theirs to determine what we are? Xy is not a dogmatic religion, because the teachings, themselves, do not constitute the religion. One can be a Christian without following any of the "official" teachings.

A religion which has dogmas, is a dogmatic religion

No. A religion that has dogma is a religion that has dogma. A dogmatic religion is one in which the teachings, themselves, are the religion. Judaism might come closer to that definition, since observant Jews follow the Law, or teachings (or dogma) of Torah. Xy has no teachings that must be followed in order to identify as Xtian. Not universally speaking, at any rate.

Indeed. But that's irrelevant.

See above.

it easily lends itself to anti-intellectualism, for the reasons mentioned.

And you cite this propensity as an inherently bad thing? Most things easily lend themselves to anti-intellectualism. Are most things bad?

Ah, so there is no higher or more ultimate life or realm in Christian teachings?

Love God; love neighbor. That's the reconciliation Jesus came to effect. There is no more abundant life than reconciliation with the Divine and with each other.

Good to know all this kingdom of heaven nonsense was just a bad joke.

Such abundant life constitutes the kindom of heaven.

describing the acts that define homosexuals as homosexuals (i.e. homosexual acts) as "abominations" is prejudiced.

The acts don't define the orientation. Plenty of heterosexual people have engaged in homosexual acts. And the biblical injunctions clearly focus on the acts -- not the people. So, strictly speaking, the injunctions are not prejudicial.

And since now we do know that homosexuality exists, adhering to a text that makes such comments is inexcusable.

I couldn't agree more.

And "proper exegesis" here apparently means interpreting them to mean the opposite of what their literal meaning appears to be. This is not exegesis, this is called "sweeping it under the rug".

Appearances are often deceiving. Which is why we need the exegetical process. A literalistic reading of the texts is intellectually irresponsible.

you're now rewriting basic Christian doctrine in order to avoid the charge of otherworldliness.

Be specific: state the doctrine that's being "rewritten" here.

This is fine with me, since removing the kingdom of heaven from Christian doctrine is to take away a vital piece of the foundation of Christian ethics, such that the whole house comes tumbling down

The afterlife isn't "foundational" for Xtian ethics. Loving God and loving one's neighbor is. You obviously don't understand Xy well enough to argue against it. Not looking good for your side of the argument...

Views that are canonized in Christianity's sacred scriptures.

The views aren't what's canonized. The texts are what's canonized. Are you aware what "canonization" means?

You don't recognize the problem in that?

"Canonized" doesn't mean "written in stone." The only problem arises when people treat the texts as if they were, and as if nothing can be questioned, updated, weighed, or refuted based upon information gleaned subsequent to the writing. But there's nothing inherent about the texts -- or in "Xtian rules" that preclude us from questioning, refuting, and weighing these texts.

Or how using such verses to justify homophoby and misogyny (which undeniably happens every day) is at least understandable?

It's understandable that it happens I suppose, even if I disagree with the narrow thinking that produces both such a treatment of the texts and such treatment of fellow human beings. I think it's abhorrent that people feel justified in their homophobic and misogynistic thinking. It's a blatant misuse of the texts and a blatant abuse of any sort of entitlement they think is theirs simply for "being Christian."

(one can hardly be faulted for reading "lying with man as with woman is an abomination" in the Bible, of all places, and not conclude that homosexuality is... well, an abomination, according to the Bible)

Sure they can! The evidence is out there, if people only cared enough and were interested enough to find it. I hold people responsible for their actions when it comes to systemic violence.

Everything you've hitherto posted on the matter belies this claim.

Then you're misunderstanding me.

Um... what?

**sigh** The equal treatment of women, LGBTQ, and other hitherto groups that have been targets of discrimination (blacks, Natives, etc.) and systemic violence is a matter of much diverse opinion in the church! And it can't just be swept under the rug by saying "the bible says..." or "church teaching says..." or "people believe..." it's a problem that sane and ethical people have to wrestle with -- especially those of us who call ourselves "xtian." For to do otherwise really undermines our practice of loving God and neighbor.

Historically, yes, they are.

Discrimination may historically be a general feature of some (or even many) who identify as "Xtian," and of part of the political machine, but discrimination is not a general feature of Xy, itself, for it does not speak to love of God or love of neighbor.

Except, if it is superimposing things onto the text with no textual basis for them, then it is not "good exegesis".

Well, that would be what we call "eisegesis."
Part of exegesis is taking into consideration the prevailing culture, and then making a judgment as to why they wrote what they wrote. Only then can comparisons be made interculturally, to see whether we need to uphold the particular sentiment or throw it away. In this case, we should throw it away.

 

[Theodore A. Jones]

'is Holocaust'? or his Holocaust.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Flag football is football -- and it's not a contact sport. That's precisely the point!! Not all Xy is as you describe it -- the descriptors are not universals of the Faith, just as contact is not a universal of football. It may be prevalent, but not universal.

And that's precisely what we're saying when we make general statements. One can describe football as a contact sport, or Christianity as a dogmatic religion, and have these be both accurate and informative statements, without adding "nearly always", "for the most part", "in most cases"- its painful and pedantic to add qualifiers where people already understand that exceptions are possible.

I do understand the term "dogma." That's like telling an airplane mechanic that he doesn't understand the term "aileron."

Evidently not.

Are these theorists Christians, themselves? If not, what business is it of theirs to determine what we are? Xy is not a dogmatic religion, because the teachings, themselves, do not constitute the religion.

No. A religion that has dogma is a religion that has dogma.

Or, less clumsily, a "dogmatic religion". This is a pointless semantic quibble- "a religion that has dogmas" is exactly what "dogmatic religion" means.

A dogmatic religion is one in which the teachings, themselves, are the religion.

No.

Judaism might come closer to that definition, since observant Jews follow the Law, or teachings (or dogma) of Torah.

No. Since you've demonstrated you're unclear on what "dogmatic religion" denotes in comparative religion, and have now demonstrated a rather naive and uninformed view of Judaism, you're in zero position to make this judgment.

And you cite this propensity as an inherently bad thing?

It's worse than a lack of such a propensity.

Most things easily lend themselves to anti-intellectualism.

Um, no. Not a lack of dogma, at any rate.

Love God; love neighbor. That's the reconciliation Jesus came to effect. There is no more abundant life than reconciliation with the Divine and with each other.

This is called a "duck-and-dodge".

The acts don't define the orientation. Plenty of heterosexual people have engaged in homosexual acts.

Now we're flailing. A homosexual is a person disposed towards homosexual sex- committing "homosexual acts", just as a smoker is someone disposed towards smoking (the nature of the disposition is different, but that's irrelevant); just as smoking a cigarette doesn't make one a smoker, engaging in a homosexual act doesn't make one a homosexual. But if smoking is an abomination, then frequently smoking, and even having the desire to smoke, are bad things. I have a hard time believing you actually buy this swiss-cheese line of argument; that describing homosexuals acts as an abomination contains no negative or prejudicial connotations towards homosexuality or homosexuals at all, which is patently ludicrous.

I couldn't agree more.

(including the Gospels)

Appearances are often deceiving. Which is why we need the exegetical process.

The problem is the exegesis is measured for a specific (and self-serving) conclusion. It is arbitrary and ad hoc.

A literalistic reading of the texts is intellectually irresponsible.

As is the disingenuous cherry-picking of a text, embracing and reading as literally true or genuine those passages one happens to disagree with and explaining away those one does not.

Be specific: state the doctrine that's being "rewritten" here.

That there is another, higher or more ultimate life or world than this one (see also: otherworldly)

The afterlife isn't "foundational" for Xtian ethics.

Yes, it is.

You obviously don't understand Xy well enough to argue against it. Not looking good for your side of the argument...

A vacuous ad hominem. Fallacious flailing about isn't looking good for your side of the argument...

The views aren't what's canonized. The texts are what's canonized. Are you aware what "canonization" means?

Yes. And indeed the texts are canonized, which is the problem.

I think it's abhorrent that people feel justified in their homophobic and misogynistic thinking. It's a blatant misuse of the texts and a blatant abuse of any sort of entitlement they think is theirs simply for "being Christian."

And yet, its been fairly typical through the history of Christianity- and continues to this day.

Then you're misunderstanding me.

If it was once or twice, that would be plausible. But you've been systematic in your confusion and, as we saw above, are still persisting in it.

Discrimination may historically be a general feature of some (or even many) who identify as "Xtian," and of part of the political machine, but discrimination is not a general feature of Xy, itself, for it does not speak to love of God or love of neighbor.

Well, that would be what we call "eisegesis."
Part of exegesis is taking into consideration the prevailing culture, and then making a judgment as to why they wrote what they wrote. Only then can comparisons be made interculturally, to see whether we need to uphold the particular sentiment or throw it away. In this case, we should throw it away.

Good, and it would be nice if enough Christian leaders got behind that sentiment for Christianity to reverse course on the matter. But its simply dishonest to pretend that oppression of women, gays, and others besides is not a significant part of the history of the church, and, largely on a religious and scriptural basis (whether you agree with their interpretation or not).

 

[sojourner]

And that's precisely what we're saying when we make general statements. One can describe football as a contact sport, or Christianity as a dogmatic religion, and have these be both accurate and informative statements, without adding "nearly always", "for the most part", "in most cases"- its painful and pedantic to add qualifiers where people already understand that exceptions are possible.

Except that Xy is not a dogmatic religion. There are dogmas within it, but at the foundation of what it is, it is decidedly not dogmatic. As I've mentioned time and time again, the teachings are not the religion.

Evidently not.

Evidently so.


You just posted a face palm. So, am I to assume you think that it is up to people to tell others what they are, and that that definition is OK for others to use when unfairly defaming people based upon irresponsible and obviously biased research?

Or perhaps it means you've seen the error of your ways and are disgusted with yourself for having been so slipshod? Without some responsible research, we'll never know for sure, so, to follow your example, I'm just gonna call it as I see it: You're disgusted with yourself. Thank you.

Or, less clumsily, a "dogmatic religion". This is a pointless semantic quibble- "a religion that has dogmas" is exactly what "dogmatic religion" means.

No. There's a fundamental difference that is cogent to the argument -- and it's precisely why you just don't have a dog in this fight. A dogmatic religion is one that is based in teaching. Once again, Xy is not based in teaching. It's based in relationship. The squabble is only pointless if it doesn't mean anything, and if you think it doesn't mean anything, then I don't think you have any business trying to tell the rest of us who really know Xy what it is or is not.

No.

Yes.

Since you've demonstrated you're unclear on what "dogmatic religion" denotes in comparative religion,

I don't give a tinker's dam what you believe "'dogmatic religion' means in comparative religion." I'm telling you what Xy is and is not. We are not our teachings. Therefore, we are not "dogmatic."

and have now demonstrated a rather naive and uninformed view of Judaism, you're in zero position to make this judgment.

...said he who knows nothing about Xy, but pretends that he does...

It's worse than a lack of such a propensity.

"Worse than" is a relative term. And doesn't mean the same thing as "bad." In this case, we're not even sure what "worse than" means. Its a vacuous accusation, because it really doesn't mean anything and is unimportant as a qualifier of the religion. yet you irresponsibly use it to vilify Xy. "Lends itself to anti-intellectualism" is about like saying "tomatoes may be yellow." So what?

This is called a "duck-and-dodge".

It's called "refuting your ill-informed claim with the truth." You so obviously don't understand what Xy is all about. The "higher life" you speak of is reconciliation with God and neighbor. Here and now. Period. That's what it is.

Now we're flailing.

I know you are, but what am I?

But if smoking is an abomination, then frequently smoking, and even having the desire to smoke, are bad things.

This is absurd. You're blanketing all sex acts under the same umbrella. And it doesn't equate to smoking. At all. Within the realm of homosexual acts are: acts of love, acts of violence, acts of power, acts of lust, acts of ritual. Which ones do the writers think are an abomination? In that time and place, the concept that one could physically love someone of the same sex was unknown, so it can't be that one. However, there was rape (violence/acts of power), there was pedophilia (lust), there were ritual acts (temple prostitution). I guess it must have been one (or more) of those.

Additionally, there's the cultural difference. In that time and place, shame and honor were imbedded in the sexes. Men embodied honor, women embodied shame. (Notice that, in the OT, women are not mentioned in the condemnation of homosexual acts.) So, for a man to bend over and "take it like a woman" was to act shamefully. Could be that's what the writers were talking about. That's why exegesis is so important. Until we have a pretty good idea what the author actually meant, we have no idea what the author actually meant, so we superimpose what we think onto the texts.

I have a hard time believing you actually buy this swiss-cheese line of argument; that describing homosexuals acts as an abomination contains no negative or prejudicial connotations towards homosexuality or homosexuals at all, which is patently ludicrous.

See above. If there were no homosexuals, how could the writings be prejudicial against something that is unknown???

(including the Gospels)

Hello! The gospels never mention homosexuality or the homosexual act.

The problem is the exegesis is measured for a specific (and self-serving) conclusion. It is arbitrary and ad hoc.

No. That would eisegesis, my Innocent.

As is the disingenuous cherry-picking of a text, embracing and reading as literally true or genuine those passages one happens to disagree with and explaining away those one does not.

That's not exegesis, either. You really seem to be confused on this point. Exegesis =/= "disingenuous cherry-picking." Weighing the relative value of the texts' relevancy for us isn't "cherry-picking." At all.

That there is another, higher or more ultimate life or world than this one (see also: otherworldly)

I didn't ask you to pick something out of the air and vaguely synopsize it. I asked you to state the doctrine. This is called a "duck-and-dodge."

Yes, it is.

Sorry. Not. If you think that it is, you'll have to prove it.

A vacuous ad hominem. Fallacious flailing about isn't looking good for your side of the argument...

It's not a personal attack, and therefore not an ad hominem. It's an observation based upon reading your woefully underinformed arguments thus far. (BTW, your statement above: "Since you've demonstrated you're unclear on what "dogmatic religion" denotes in comparative religion, and have now demonstrated a rather naive and uninformed view of Judaism, you're in zero position to make this judgment" is precisely the same kind of observation. Pot, I'd like for you to meet Kettle.)

Yes. And indeed the texts are canonized, which is the problem.

Canonization isn't problematic. Now who's "flailing about?"

And yet, its been fairly typical through the history of Christianity- and continues to this day.

It's also fairly typical of most human interactions. It isn't a uniquely Christian thing, and therefore can't be used to flame the religion.

you've been systematic in your confusion and, as we saw above, are still persisting in it.

You're projecting.

But its simply dishonest to pretend that oppression of women, gays, and others besides is not a significant part of the history of the church, and, largely on a religious and scriptural basis (whether you agree with their interpretation or not).

It's been a significant part of human history. And yes, people have misused the biblical texts to continue their bigotry. BUT: Bigotry is not part of Xy, but part of human sin.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Except that Xy is not a dogmatic religion. There are dogmas within it, but at the foundation of what it is, it is decidedly not dogmatic. As I've mentioned time and time again, the teachings are not the religion.

And this remains irrelevant, because, as I've pointed out about 13 times now, and is a patent fact, "dogmatic religion" is a religion which has dogmas. No dogmatic religion is exhausted by the dogmas themselves, there are all the other aspects of the religion to consider as well.

Evidently so.

Ah, I know this game- "I know you are but what am I".

You just posted a face palm. So, am I to assume you think that it is up to people to tell others what they are, and that that definition is OK for others to use when unfairly defaming people based upon irresponsible and obviously biased research?

Or perhaps it means you've seen the error of your ways and are disgusted with yourself for having been so slipshod? Without some responsible research, we'll never know for sure, so, to follow your example, I'm just gonna call it as I see it: You're disgusted with yourself. Thank you.

Now you're really flailing.

No. There's a fundamental difference that is cogent to the argument -- and it's precisely why you just don't have a dog in this fight. A dogmatic religion is one that is based in teaching.

No, it isn't. "Dogmatic religion" and "religion which has dogmas" mean exactly the same thing. And since you explicitly admit you neither know nor care what "dogmatic religion" means in this context, you're simply talking out of your ***** here.

I don't give a tinker's dam what you believe "'dogmatic religion' means in comparative religion." I'm telling you what Xy is and is not. We are not our teachings. Therefore, we are not "dogmatic."

This is getting rather sad- you continue to flail against a patent fact, and appear willing to say anything to ward off implications that are not even present. I don't see much point in continuing here, especially since you're no longer debating the subject matter but simply throwing ad hominems-

...said he who knows nothing about Xy, but pretends that he does...

The fact is that you have no idea what I know, and it happens that I was raised and confirmed Christian, my mother was a pastor, and I minored in religious studies with a focus on Christianity. And since I've demonstrated that I know at least a little about Christianity, now you just look either delusional or dishonest- disagree with what I say, but unwarranted personal accusations don't help your case at all (and it needs a good deal of helping at this point).

If there were no homosexuals, how could the writings be prejudicial against something that is unknown???

This is non-sequitur. If I don't know about transgender people, but I write about how defying traditional gender roles is an abomination, this is nevertheless prejudicial against transgender people.

In any case, the rest of your post contains precious little that is on-topic, or isn't simply you stamping your foot and shrilly repeating the same nonsense which has been addressed already, so I'm not going to waste my time further. You wish to portray Christianity as something other than it has been throughout history (and continues to be to this day), so that you can sleep OK at night, that's your business. But there's not much point in debating with someone who's demonstrated no concern for honesty or accuracy.

 

[sojourner]

The preponderance of the above post is worthless, so I'm not responding to it. However, I shall respond to these points:

"Dogmatic religion" and "religion which has dogmas" mean exactly the same thing.

"Dogma"
From Merriam-Webster: "a belief or set of beliefs that is accepted by the members of a group without being questioned or doubted."
"Dogmatic"
From Merriam-Webster: "expressing ... beliefs as if they are certainly correct and cannot be doubted ..."
Neither of these really fits your definitions of the terms. Merriam-Webster probably knows a lot more about these terms than you do. Nonetheless, I also offer these definitions from The Westminster Dictionary of Theological Terms, ed. Donald McKim, Westminster John Knox Press, 1996:
"Dogma"
(Gr. dogma, "That which seems to one," "an opinion") A teaching or doctrine which has received official church status as truth.
"Dogmatism"
(From Gr. dogmatizein, "to lay down a deree"; Lat. dogmatismus) A decidedly stated and expressed opinion, many times unwarranted or without a foundation.
OK. Westminster defines "dogma" as a "teaching which has achieved official church status as truth." But "dogmatism" has nothing to do with anything other than opinion.

Since the church has never been able to agree on most any "official teaching," it effectively renders the qualifier "official" moot. Church "authorities" can teach what they will, but not everyone recognizes the authority of those persons. Therefore, while the church does spout dogma from time to time, those dogmas neither speak to the universality of what constitutes Xy, or to a universality of belief of what constitutes "truth." Therefore, Xy is not a "dogmatic religion," by any of the definitions I've provided here. Xy is about fostering love relationships, not about learning "truths."

The fact is that you have no idea what I know, and it happens that I was raised and confirmed Christian, my mother was a pastor, and I minored in religious studies with a focus on Christianity. And since I've demonstrated that I know at least a little about Christianity, now you just look either delusional or dishonest

Shall we compare resumes? It happens that I was reared and confirmed Christian, my grandfather was a pastor, my father is a pastor, my mother is a pastor, my former father-in-law, brother-in-law, two sisters-in-law and ex-wife are/were pastors, and I am a pastor with standing in a mainstream Christian denomination. I graduated magna cum laude from a fully accredited seminary with a Master of Divinity. With a focus on theology. I know what I'm talking about.

So, now that we've established that we're both at least nominally "experts" on the subject, what remains? The word of someone who knows about Xy, but apparently rejects it, against that of someone who knows about Xy, but apparently embraces it. One says that "Xy is a dogmatic religion, and that that dogmatism is bad." the other says that "Xy is not a dogmatic religion, and that any dogmatism is incidental and not integral to the religion."

In other words, "he said/she said."

You wish to portray Christianity as something other than it has been throughout history (and continues to be to this day), so that you can sleep OK at night, that's your business. But there's not much point in debating with someone who's demonstrated no concern for honesty or accuracy.

While you wish to portray the religion, itself, as the driving force behind some pretty horrendous activities, I concede that people within the religion have perpetrated some pretty horrendous activities upon the world in the name of their religion. But I don't see how a religion that is based in building loving relationships can be the driving force of evil acts, as you seem to claim it is.

You are mistaken. Love does not perpetrate evil. It's really that simple. God is love, therefore Xy is love. It matters not what some (or many) have tried to make of it -- yourself included.

I'm not going to waste my time further.

Good.
Buh-bye, now.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

"Dogma"
From Merriam-Webster: "a belief or set of beliefs that is accepted by the members of a group without being questioned or doubted."
"Dogmatic"
From Merriam-Webster: "expressing ... beliefs as if they are certainly correct and cannot be doubted ..."

You're quoting Merriam-Webster to take issue with a technical term in a scholarly field... Interesting strategy.

Neither of these really fits your definitions of the terms. Merriam-Webster probably knows a lot more about these terms than you do. Nonetheless, I also offer these definitions from The Westminster Dictionary of Theological Terms, ed. Donald McKim, Westminster John Knox Press, 1996:
"Dogma"
(Gr. dogma, "That which seems to one," "an opinion") A teaching or doctrine which has received official church status as truth.
"Dogmatism"
(From Gr. dogmatizein, "to lay down a deree"; Lat. dogmatismus) A decidedly stated and expressed opinion, many times unwarranted or without a foundation.
OK. Westminster defines "dogma" as a "teaching which has achieved official church status as truth." But "dogmatism" has nothing to do with anything other than opinion.

We aren't talking about dogmatism.

Shall we compare resumes?

You're missing the point. I haven't questioned whether you know anything about Christianity, because I prefer to take issue with your statements, not speculate about your background, especially when it is obvious from the foregoing that we both at least have some idea what Christianity is, enough to go on at least. Thus, your accusation was either disingenuous, or simply delusional, as I said before (not to mention irrelevant- which is, of course, why ad-hominem is a fallacious form of argument).

It happens that I was reared and confirmed Christian, my grandfather was a pastor, my father is a pastor, my mother is a pastor, my former father-in-law, brother-in-law, two sisters-in-law and ex-wife are/were pastors, and I am a pastor with standing in a mainstream Christian denomination. I graduated magna cum laude from a fully accredited seminary with a Master of Divinity. With a focus on theology. I know what I'm talking about.

And yet, curiously, have never come across the descriptor "dogmatic religion" as it applies to comparative studies.

While you wish to portray the religion, itself, as the driving force behind some pretty horrendous activities, I concede that people within the religion have perpetrated some pretty horrendous activities upon the world in the name of their religion. But I don't see how a religion that is based in building loving relationships can be the driving force of evil acts, as you seem to claim it is.

Because you are apparently unwilling to recognize the patent fact that your personal view regarding what Christianity is "about" is NOT what has been the accepted view by church fathers, writers, or theologians over the course of history. Throughout the course of history, "the kingdom of heaven" is widely interpreted as referring to an afterlife. Over the course of history, the role of faith, i.e. believing that certain propositions are true, was emphasized as being a crucial, if not the most crucial, aspect of the religion. Over the course of history... well, you get the idea.

You may think that essentially the entire history of the church represents a distortion or misrepresentation of "genuine Christianity", or some such thing, or even agree with Nietzsche that "there was only one Christian, and he died on the cross... What, from that moment onward, was called the “Gospels” was the very reverse of what he had lived: “bad tidings,” a Dysangel. It is an error amounting to nonsensicality to see in “faith,” and particularly in faith in salvation through Christ, the distinguishing mark of the Christian: only the Christian way of life, the life lived by him who died on the cross, is Christian" (AC)... But I'm not talking about ideal or "true" Christianity (if there is any such thing), but historical Christianity. And it is a simple fact that, overwhelmingly, Christianity has historically been both a dogmatic religion (or, if you still have an aesthetic objection to that term, a "religion which has dogmas"), and an otherworldly religion, and its rampant discrimination against women, gays, and non-Christians has been performed on a scriptural basis, regardless of whether their interpretation was right or wrong. None of this can be said of all other religions, and certainly not Buddhism.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

God is love, therefore Xy is love.

For one thing, that doesn't follow. And for another, the irony here is that, if non-Christians had to infer the nature of the Christian God from the behavior of Christians, a god of love or mercy is NOT the conclusion most people would come to.

 

[nazz]

Christianity or Buddhism, which is "better" for the individual

Wouldn't that be up to the individual in question?