Corthos
Great Old One
Ugh... No on thinks to ask if you're alright, they just assume you are "in the spirit". Pentecostal church. =/
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Christians: I am generalizing to get this off my mind
- Thread starter Unveiled Artist
- Start date
Ugh... No on thinks to ask if you're alright, they just assume you are "in the spirit". Pentecostal church. =/
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
That is hard. I keep reading the sutras (I actually got that from my co-worker. I love studying and that's how I really apply things meditation wise) and it talks about how the Buddha used different means to help people from suffering... means or methods that were appropriate to the people at the time period. I think that if the Middle Way is the appropriate for our time since we tend to talk in black and white, that makes sense.
What's interesting and kinda fustrating is I wish I can express this in a strong nice way to other people as if we are talking about, I dont know, the love for books. It just doesn't come that easy and I feel it should since I'm talking about myself-and I should know more about myself if people want to know me.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
Yeah. It took a bit before I came to. Then I told them, since it was out of the norm and I was still off, to call 911 (which they didn't do).. and they siad instead "this guy had a heart attack and a triple bypass and by the grace of god, he was saved".
I went to the hopsital and talked with an officer about it. She said I should have known that certain religions are like that. The church is in a vacant doctor's office near my home. I walk pass there to listen to music I havent heard since I was young. I came back from Mass-a quiet sermon and steped into a loud one. So, my nerves must have shocked.
She said she'd go back and tell them next time to call 911. I dont think she did though. Good music. Just their practice.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
Hi, Carlita.
I believe there are several factors to the Christian psychological profile, which, when studied in a more objective manner, can help you to understand and deal with it more easily.
I was raised in a Catholic family and attended Catholic school until the 9th grade. I became exposed to Eastern thought via my older brother, who had a tour of duty in the Navy in Japan, and who practiced yoga. At one point,I decided to run away from Christianity, but when you have been indoctrinated to the nth degree, it is an uphill battle to get a handle on it. After studying some of the other world religions, I can now return to Christianity and see it in a different light. In fact, some its roots are from the East, and some from the pagan world; at least that is what some of my own research seems to have revealed. Most Christians would disagree, most likely.
The author and spiritualist, Alan Watts, once made the comment about Christians that they are 'like men huddled in the dark, shouting to lend comfort to one another'.
...and a Hindu client of mine once commented that: 'Christians are like little children, so we should forgive them', LOL, in spite of the fact that her Christian 'friends' all told her that she 'was going to the hell!' because she was a Hindu.
Well anyway, as regards their aggressive evangelism and proselytizing, modern Essenes have claimed that, in ancient times, the Essene teachings were structured in 3 circles (as I recall), with the initiates on the outer perimeter, and the elders in the inner circle, who held the keys to the mysteries. The initiates did not; they were only familiar with doctrine. Some of the members of this outer circle broke with the Essene community at one point and took with them only an evangelistic view of the teaching, without a true mystical vision. IOW, their impetus was conversion. It was this handful of initiates who became the first Christians. Theirs was a superficial teaching which did not include the deeper mysteries of the elders. This is admittedly a second-hand account from memory from what I had read from an Essene account, the source of which escapes me at the moment, so take with a grain of salt, OK?
Then we have the evangelist and charlatan, St. Paul and the Roman authorities, who went after the Nazarenes (an Essene sect) hell bent for leather, and destroyed most of their teachings, which were of a Jewish mystical origin. These Nazarenes (led by Yeshua) did not believe in the Virgin Birth, bodily resurrection, nor blood sacrifice. Theirs was difficult inner spiritual work which did not have mass appeal, and Constantine in Rome and Paul wanted a religion which was appealing to the masses. All one need do was to accept 'Jesus' as one's Lord and Saviour, and you were saved. You did'nt have to KNOW anything...just believe. This was most likely appealing to Constantine from a political viewpoint, as control of an obedient and docile populace would have been very desirable. So it appears that what Paul did was to simply overwrite the authentic mystical teachings of Yeshua with those of the pagan god Mithra, which DID include blood sacrifice, a virgin birth, and bodily resurrection. The core difference between Yeshua's teaching and those of Paul, is that Yeshua's teachings were breath-based, while Paul's were blood-based, in terms of the life-force, the former of Eastern origin, the latter of pagan origin. In one fell swoop, Paul synthesized a new religion from 3 elements: Jewish history as backdrop to lend credibility and authenticity to the story; the notion of the Logos, a divine teacher, descending from heaven to teach man, taken from the Gnostics; and the notion of a dying and resurrected god-man, taken from the mystery religions, such as Mithraism, and possibly some others. All of this revolved around conversion, and so, evangelism.
Another aspect of the Christian profile comes from psychology, known as The Five Egotistical States, particularly the one known as:
1. APPARENT LOVE OF OTHERS BY PROJECTION OF THE EGO
This is idolatrous love, in which the ego is projected onto another
being. The pretention to divinity as 'distinct' has left my organism and is now
fixed onto the organism of the other. The affective situation resembles that
above, with the difference that the other has taken my place in my scale of
values. I desire the existence of the other-idol, and am against everything that
is opposed to them. I no longer love my own organism except in so far as it is
the faithful servant of the idol; apart from that I have no further sentiments
towards my organism, I am indifferent to it, and, if necessary, I can give my
life for the safety of my idol (I can sacrifice my organism to my Ego fixed on
the idol; like Empedocles throwing himself down the crater of Etna in order
to immortalise his Ego). As for the rest of the world, I hate it if it is hostile to
my idol; if it is not hostile and if my contemplation of the idol fills me with
joy (that is to say, with egotistical affirmation), I love indiscriminately all the
rest of the world. If the idolised being rejects me to the point of forbidding
me all possession of my Ego in them, the apparent love can be turned to hate.
from: Zen and the Psychology of Transformation, by Hubert Benoit
I am offering these tidbits as starting points to develop an understanding of the Christian psychological profile. I see this as the key, rather than developing an emotional attitude toward what appears as obnoxious 'in your face' evangelizing and proselytizing.
There is, of course, more to the story, which can be added as we go along.
Comments?
I have to read this a couple more times, but seeing it from a psychological and objective point of view can help a lot. Sometimes I can see that when I'm alone. When I'm in a conversation, it's like there are other things at play. It's really hard to express my feelings in general if I think or feel a gut that it will offend the person. Offend meaning physically intimidate them to move towards me or say something abusive instead of saying "I disagree and this is how I feel." I dont know if it's from upbringing or not. My co-worker and I were exchanging our childhood stories.
Once I have a good re-read, I'll recomment. In general, a psycholical perspective does help. I need help with the emotional one.
godnotgod
Thou art That
A woman once brought her daughter to Ghandi, requesting that he have a talk with her about her overindulgence in sugary sweets. Ghandi asked the woman to return in a week, which she did. Ghandi then took the young girl aside and instructed her about the ill effects of eating too much sugar-laden sweets. The mother thanked him, and then asked why she had to wait a week for him to see her daughter, to which he replied: 'It took that long for me to stop eating so much sugar myself'.
The point here, is that we should know from inner reflection how our spiritual life works, so that when we come across scripture, we can interpret it correctly in light of our own inner spiritual experience with the divine nature. Many of us have it backwards, wherein we attempt to gain an understanding of spiritual matters via reading scripture. Yeshu warned about this when he said:
'You search the scriptures for eternal life, when it is I to whom the scriptures refer'
The Bible is a second hand account of the first hand spiritual experience. We need to get the spiritual experience first hand, and THEN read the scriptures. That way, we will know how to properly interpret them, especially when a Christian is attempting to teach us some moral lesson.
godnotgod
Thou art That
The important thing is not to get confrontational in your discussions, even if you disagree. That will only polarize the situation even further. Even though the logic of Christian thought appears completely ridiculous, they are trying to be genuine and sincere, and we should try to respect that. There are other ways of getting around the question. If we are hostile to them, they will only interpret that as a sure sign of our being in need of conversion.
Zen people have a saying: 'Don't push the river!'
A slow, calm approach is probably best. Just take your time. Even an inch gained is precious when you both see the same thing. Just remember that the divine nature that is within you is the same exact divine nature that is within the Christian. Your divine nature is trying to communicate with the one inside them. When Hindus bow to one another and say 'Namaste', they are recognizing the divine nature in that person. But this may appear as blasphemous to a Christian, who sees the Hindu as claiming to be God. In the mind of the Hindu, that is OK, and the Hindu sees the Christian as God playing Hide and Seek with himself, pretending to be a 'Christian' while denying his own divinity! IOW, the Christian is actually the divine nature, pretending he is not the divine nature, and that the divine nature is someone and somewhere else.
Last edited:
Just because God is evil, doesn't mean god stops being god. A person may recognise that the "goodness" of a god or a belief may be crippled, but you have to also stop believing that your religion is true in order to reject it. you might want to, but that still presents a difficulty as you've replace one form of denail (of god's evil doings) with another (of the existence or possibility of evil).
don't be too pissed with them if they can't give you a straight answer. no-one wants to associate with the worst the human race can do to each other. we're all natural hedonists so we want to believe we are good. of course "life" is more complicated than that.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
That makes sense. I like the story as well. In Budhism, how I practice is study as spiritual experience so when I meditate or talk about it, I live my life value: freedom of expression. Reading the sutras is like have a gold mind and meditating is like exploring it.
The Buddha says its all about the mind. Granted he didnt mean study first be he and Nichiren did say test everything before claiming it truth.
The Bible does have a point. I see people idolize the Bible. But even spiritual experience when expressed abusivly defeats the purpose ans blocks what that person actual believe. The experience really doesnt hold if it doesnt relate to its foundation.
I was just talking to an elder lady fifteen minutes ago and she, as if normal, said that her friend did X and he wasnt going off of biblical principles. Im thinking, is this person christian first? Is he bound by scripture? I asked if he was christian. She said yes. Then I agreed with her. If he was not, then she has a right to her opinion but telling him as if he is supposednl to believe her morals is completely disrespectful.
Sometimes experience can backfire or become too much pride. When one gains knowledge as a foundation...say know "what" you believe then that knowledge will coinside "how" you practice. Hopefully, they reflect off each other.
Having read the OP, I have this to say:
I find the conception of "religion" and "faith" that many Christians and Muslims hold to be less than admirable.
Many or most of those seem to have been taught from early on to think of their beliefs as some sort of necessary truth that other people do not accept out of bad character or, at best, some terrible injustice that a good believer is supposed to seek to correct even if warned not to.
It is IMO a frequent side-effect of giving belief in God too much weight, and one of the main internal challenges of those two faiths. They need to heal themselves of that illness, for their own sake above anything else.
I find the conception of "religion" and "faith" that many Christians and Muslims hold to be less than admirable.
Many or most of those seem to have been taught from early on to think of their beliefs as some sort of necessary truth that other people do not accept out of bad character or, at best, some terrible injustice that a good believer is supposed to seek to correct even if warned not to.
It is IMO a frequent side-effect of giving belief in God too much weight, and one of the main internal challenges of those two faiths. They need to heal themselves of that illness, for their own sake above anything else.
The line at the end of the synoptic gospels, telling the disciples to go to the world, is often a known addition.
The bit that tells Christians, 'unless you believe in jesus' is repeated 11 times within John.
They're told by Paul, that they're all in a race for grace, that by bringing people into the religion you're saving them, which is what Paul believed he was doing.
Yet their knowledge of the substance of what Yeshua was saying is weak in some, and many just have words, that add up to lies.
So i find Christians like flies around manure, as every bit we can show is made up, and not from God, they say are the best bits....
Its a shame, as they're not realizing they're the hypocrites the Bible is talking about.
So the best we can do is educate them to what is going on; yet even then, they think they know best, when all they're left with is the manure.
The bit that tells Christians, 'unless you believe in jesus' is repeated 11 times within John.
They're told by Paul, that they're all in a race for grace, that by bringing people into the religion you're saving them, which is what Paul believed he was doing.
Yet their knowledge of the substance of what Yeshua was saying is weak in some, and many just have words, that add up to lies.
So i find Christians like flies around manure, as every bit we can show is made up, and not from God, they say are the best bits....
Its a shame, as they're not realizing they're the hypocrites the Bible is talking about.
So the best we can do is educate them to what is going on; yet even then, they think they know best, when all they're left with is the manure.
Kelly of the Phoenix
Well-Known Member
Personally, I feel Christianity's sales division reveals a certain faithlessness. After all, God has been able to talk to the people He's going to talk to without evangelism throughout the entire bible. Prophets, priests, etc then claimed THEY had a monopoly on divine communication, but given how often the bible complains about continued polytheism and sinning, clearly they suck at their jobs. Why not just let God do His own talking? (Because they are afraid He will tell us they are wrong, LOL.)
What does that have to do with whether their killings in the past have an effect? Evangelization isn't murder.
Well there is a large part of your problem. I think the idea of generational karma is absolute rubbish and highly offensive.
There is another problem, of yours. See a person, not a past that has nothing to do with the person in front of you.
Or your Fr. Evangelization is one of the biggest tenets of the Christian faith, it is fundamental to our religion.
I also think you should decide whether you want to have a real conversation with your friend. Where honest feelings are exposed are decisions about future actions made.
I find it unlikely you are trained in either producing or interpreting psychological profiles and should leave it to the professionals.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
We are not separate from our past. Christianity today is not isolated from how it evolved from how it was before. Our karma from other people affects us even when we do not know it. We can call it many names, but it affect us.
Killing creates negative karma. Live is not linear its circular and interconnected. What I do today will have an affect on my relations (if I so have) in the future. I am not isolated just because this is the present moment.
Evangalization, as I said in my OP, should be humble and based on our actions not just the words that come from our mouths. Words hurt. Verbal abuse hurts. When someone insults a part of me it is like killing me internally. We do this daily. Christians are no exception. Its how we evangalize that makes healthy conversations balanced not one sided (given majority here talk as if everone believes in god. Its a default).
That is not a probem. That is a difference of opinion. I know that I am part of my family and family before no matter if they are murderers or the best parents in the world. That doesnt change their true nature is pure. I am a part of that.
I cannot change that.
It is not a problem, its a difference of opinion. We are a reflection of our past. The key is not to relive the negative things we took on but change today so future generation's karma wont have another extention of bad deeds by people because they dont look to their past for foundation for present living.
My family family have murdered, have been in gangs, and so have ou (found this at my grandmothers funeral/family reunion). They have done actions that even their child look back and see our family with a bad stain.
I talk with her every night. I live where I work. We have honest conversations; however, because of her childhood, her expression comes accross negative. She said she tries to change it. However, I dont think she understands or knows it influences how she express her faith.
I cant share my pagan beliefs. Thats disrespectful. Christians do not define paganism the same as pagans themselves. There is a huge bias that separates finding the right definition because she is going by what she is told and read rather than asking a pagan himself.
I can talk about buddhism. She tells me stop apologizing for how you and what you believe. If that is what you believe, dont let someone say no. I can she gets uncomfortable about certain topics outside of christianity though religious in nature.
She is very very bible focused. So its harder to talk about other things because it wraps back to the bible.
I try to give others the benefit of the doubt. I was talking to a friend I havent seen in almost a year. He is "home"less but has shelter. He has many problems that threatens his life etc. When he talks about X, I dont say "maybe X is right; maybe you are seeing it wrong"
I listen and understand his view because his point isnt trying to find debate but to express his feelings.
We need to understand the context and why people say what they do before reacting to What they say.
It is not just me, the Muslim beside me, and the Clerk to the left. It applies to christians too.
Well, you are the one who came here, it seemed like with a problem. You said you were in worry of the dissolution of your friendship. I can't speak to your friend but I can advise you.
It isn't about debate. If someone is taking the effort to confide in you and their actions and attitudes are negatively impacting themselves why wouldn't you help them?
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
1. We have a difference of opinion. I don't see karma has hoggwash and all that.
2. It is impacting me negatively; so, it is hard to help people (if that were the case but she was not asking for help) if you're affected by their negativity and/or bias.
That's like trying to help a friend while he is beating me up.
However, she didn't ask for help; so, I don't understand how that is really an issue. I just don't like how Christian I am generalizing have certain evangalistic methods and talk that negatively impact me and half the people I talk to on RF and most likely outside of real life, of course, too.
I also said when I talk with my friend, I don't tell him "you are wrong; you have a problem; maybe you saw it the wrong way" instead I say "I understand. Maybe you can handle your feelings/reactions if you try this" I don't put the blame on him, his problems, and his situation.
It affects me negatively, though; so, I can't help him but only so much.
In my co-workers case (as well as every other Christian I have spoken with) it is not like my friend who is in a life/death situation. Christianity shouldn't be a faith to belittle others. It shouldn't be used to convert. It shouldn't be used to tell others they are wrong.
However, from reading the Great Comission and other things, that's what it seems like it is. I don't see evangalization like that. I respect others views by not telling them my beliefs apply to them. It's not hte other way around. Christians, for some reason, don't have that "it is my truth rather than the truth".
It fustrates the mess out of me.
Please read the context not the content. It bothers me; that's all I'm saying.
godnotgod
Thou art That
Of course you would think that. Christian apologists don't want us to know the real truth, and to rely on 'authority'. There is no more authentic authority than the divine nature that dwells within each one of us.
I know exactly what I am talking about in posting the piece about Idolatrous Love and the Five Egotistical States. You just don't want to believe that it is actually the case.
When it comes to a Christian attempting to foist his dogma on me, I am the authority to decide what is appropriate and what it is not. Most of the time, the cocksure Christian has to be shown how to properly interpret the very doctrine he is trying to evangelize.
Psychology is my discipline, so yeah.
That you didn't return with actual credentials in developing psychological profiles doesn't surprise me. You are simple miserably equipped to follow through with your claim.
godnotgod
Thou art That
Yes, it is true: it is important to understand that Christians treat their belief as if it were Absolute Truth, and 'Hey! Don't blame me! It's God's word, not mine!'. In their heads, they can't understand how their beliefs cannot possibly equate to Absolute Truth. Not only that, but their truth is the ONLY Truth, all others be dammed! The milder view is 'God will decide whether a non-Christian can go to Heaven or not'.
I said that I would help you get a handle on the issues you raise by providing more and more information to shed light on the subject. Here are two such tidbits for you:
"The problem arises, however, because the theologians really want to
say that God is a fact, a thing albeit the first fact and the first
thing, the Being before all beings. Had it been clear that
theology was not speaking of facts, the conflict between
theology and natural science could never have arisen. But when,
during the era of the Renaissance, this conflict first arose neither
the theologians nor the scientists realized that there might have
been any profound difference between the languages they were
speaking. Theologians and scientists alike understood them^
selves to be talking about "objective realities'*, which is to
say things and events. Yet to add to the confusion the
language of St. Thomas, St. Albert the Great, and St.
Bonaventure was also metaphysical. They said that God was
not in the class of things, that he was not an event in time, that
he was not a body, that he had no parts or divisions, that he was
eternal, infinite, and all the rest. But it is very clear that with
some few possible exceptions, such as Eckhart and Erigena,
the scholastics were still trying to talk about a thing a very
great thing, beyond and including all other things.
The confusion has its historical roots in the fact that Christian
dogma is a blend of Hebrew mythology and history with Greek
metaphysic and science, complicated by the fact that Greek
metaphysic was never so clearly formulated as Indian, and
was always in danger of being identified with highly abstract
thought. Indeed, the Western metaphysicians from Aristotle
to Hegel have been above all things the great abstractionists,
the thinkers. In this respect they are at the opposite pole from
any traditional metaphysic, which is radically empirical and
non^conceptual. It is possible, then, that the Greeks derived a
number of metaphysical doctrines from India, but, for the
most part, mistook their nature and treated them as concepts
as abstractions which have an objective existence on a "higher
plane" than material things! It seems to have escaped the
Greek mind that a metaphysical term such as "eternity" is not
a concept at all It is the negation of the concept of time. It
involves no positive statement. It merely points out that the
notion of reality as extended through past, present, and future
is a theory and not a real, first-hand experience.
As a result, then, Christian dogma combines a mythological
story which is for the most part Hebrew, and a group of
metaphysical "concepts" which are Greek, and then proceeds
to treat both as statements of fact as information about objec'
rive realities inhabiting (a) the world of history, and (b) the
"supernatural" world existing parallel to the historical, but on
a higher plane. In other words, it talks about mythology and
metaphysic in the language of science. The resulting confusion
has been so vast, and has so muddled Western thought, that
all our current terms, our very language, so partake of the
confusion that they can hardly straighten it out.(!)"
excerpted from: 'Myth and Ritual in Christianity', by Alan Watts
*****
'The fundamental difference between Buddhism and other religions is that Buddhism has no God or gods before whom people bow down in return for peace of mind. The spirit enmeshed in the Buddha’s teachings refuses to offer a god in exchange for freedom from anxiety. Instead, freedom from anxiety can only be found at the point where the Self settles naturally upon itself.'
from: 'From the Zen Kitchen to Enlightenment', by Dogen/Uchiyama
godnotgod
Thou art That
So what? That doesn't automatically equate to you actually KNOWING anything.
If you are versed in the field of psychology as your discipline, then tell me what is wrong with the information I posted regarding the Egotistical State of Idolatrous Love and how it applies to the Christian belief system. Benoit is explicit in his exposure of the mechanics of ego projection.
[/QUOTE]That you didn't return with actual credentials in developing psychological profiles doesn't surprise me. You are simple miserably equipped to follow through with your claim.[/QUOTE]
My claim is that the spiritual experience encompasses all of psychology.
Understanding comes first; the credentials are merely window dressing. Burn them.
Last edited:
At the very least, it thankfully lets me spot BS when I see it.
I'll take your challenge. And because I'm in a generous mood, I won't even limit myself to psychology!
First problem, no such thing as "the Christian psychological profile" exists. Christianity encompasses such a broad population that it is a laughable claim; no one with any psychological knowledge or insight, spiritual or otherwise, would make such a mistake.
I was going to write about and critique every historical error found in the paragraphs that follow this statement, but really it is the whole thing. This is a plea, I can't make you do anything and I wouldn't try to. Please, please, look into actual history. If you like the eastern and the mystery religions, whatever, but don't get taken in by bald-faced lies.
Two things here:
You laid this here and did not provide the context that Benoit wrote it in, that he believed this was part of the human experience, that all people participated in the apparent altruistic love on their way to actualization.
Which leads to that you didn't even explain how you thought this applies to Christians.