Is Christianity a Negative Religion?

[MysticSang'ha]

Is the Buddha inherently more special to you than anyone else?

Good question. My answer is "no." He isn't more inherently special than anyone else, meaning he has no more value intrinsically than you or me. He was a man who became fully awakened, so I recognize him for what he attained.

Interestingly, I just realized that while I have no trouble calling Siddhartha Gautama "the Buddha" I almost never refer to Jesus as "(the) Christ" when talking about my own beliefs. hmm.... am going to have to reflect on that...

Ooooh, I'm looking forward to what you come up with!



Peace,
Mystic

 

[Runlikethewind]

I want to comment on the historical negativity of Christianity. As a Catholic I always have a problem when the inquisition and the crusades come up. These where before the reformation (in fact they contributed to the reformation in the first place) and so when we talk about them we are specifically talking about Catholic Christianity. And then you throw in the whole Galileo thing and my faith ends up looking like a bunch of unenlightened barbarian or worse. I don't want to downplay these events but I do believe that the faith was not the primary motivator in these events, although it was defiantly a primary justification. I don't think it's right to judge the actions and events of the past by the standards of today, we have to place them in context to do them justice. The inquisition and the crusades happened at a time when there was no concept of separation of church and state, church and state where for the most part the same thing. the pope and bishops where often appointed by and for political leaders and political reasons and not for their piety or ability to lead the faithful. In fact the pope was a secular head of the papal states. These actions where the actions of the political body that was the church of that time. the motivations for the inquisition, the crusades, the forced conversions of peoples, where highly political and much less so religious in nature. Of course religion was a justification for these actions but I believe the motivations more political.

One could, for example, point to the equally horrible actions of the communists under Stalin and Mao and say here is an example of the evils of atheism. I have even wanted to make this argument myself. Fact is, it had less to do with communisms relation to atheism on a philosophical level than it did to the political motivation of the party to exercise total control over every aspect of life in the society. The persecutions of Stalin and Mao where motivated for more political reasons than for reasons of atheism. One could point to the Nazis and their use of eugenics and say here is an example of the evils of science. But again I don't think this is the case. Eugenics was used as a justification, it was not the motivation. The motivations where more political in nature.

I think it goes right back to what Mister_T and Feathers in Hair where saying about this sort of action being inherent to human behavior. We should blame the human for their actions as opposed to blaming the faith or philosophy that was a primary justification for those actions. The inquisition and crusades, the persecution of the communists, the persecution of the Nazis, are all examples of the badness of human nature. Greed, the lust for power, etc, can all be justified and are justified by whatever means are appropriate at that time and place in history. It was justified by religion when religion was a major influence on peoples lives, it was justified by science and rationality when they became a greater influence on peoples lives. And it will continue to be justified by whatever means a person can who desires to let greed and power motivate their actions.

 

[Aqualung]

*nods adamantly* It kind of goes hand-in-hand with having humans around.

It goes hand in hand with having ANY animals around. All, or at least the vast majority, of living things fight for territory, food, mates, etc. Men aren't alone in this.

 

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by MysticSang'ha
I now credit my Buddhist practices with my Gospel studies in a whole new positive light (a little like Lilithu, which at this point rarely surprises me anymore). I could meditate on the Gospels and the Epistles with a new and fresh perspective, and I can now enjoy and find inspiration in the Bible without fear that I'm getting it "right."
It was my zen buddhist teacher who taught me how to understand what I had found to be one of Jesus' most troubling teachings: "It is harder for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven than for a camel to go through the eye of a needle." For the longest time, I didn't understand why loving, wonderful, kind Jesus would condemn a person to hell just because he or she happened to have money. In bringing to my awareness the concept of attachment - "this (money) belongs to me" - I finally understood. Jesus was not condemning anyone, merely stating a fact.

I've known more than one Episcopal priest who either were practicing Buddhists for a time or are strongly influenced by, drawn to Buddhist teachings.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I've known more than one Episcopal priest who either were practicing Buddhists for a time or are strongly influenced by, drawn to Buddhist teachings.

And, many Buddhist monks and nuns point to Christ and his teachings for study, meditations, and for the practicality of his ethics. In fact, my favorite commentary so far on the Gospels was written by a Hindu yogi: Paramhansa Yogananda and his discourse (it's huge) - http://www.amazon.com/Second-Coming...7462265?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1176220967&sr=8-1


Burning bridges - bad. Building bridges - good. :flower:




Peace,
Mystic

 

[lunamoth]

It goes hand in hand with having ANY animals around. All, or at least the vast majority, of living things fight for territory, food, mates, etc. Men aren't alone in this.

I don't think anyone can argue with the observation that wherever there are humans there is a large chance for conflict over resources, power, wealth, and ideologies and too often done in the name of God.

There is at least one view of Christianity, though, that sees itself as a counter-point to the idea that we need to fight each other. My understanding of 'overcoming nature' is not that we dominate our environment and other creatures, but that we overcome our natural self-centeredness and aggressive tendencies.

 

[Ðanisty]

As my first religious studies professor said, people tend to judge their own religions by the best of their intentions and judge the religions of others by the worst of their actions.

That's true.

I agree that we can't ignore history, and that Christianity has a bloody history. I also believe that it's not inherently worse or better than other religions. Unfortunately, the religions of those who hold power tend to be used for violence, because their believers have the power to do so.

My point is mainly that when Christians ignore other people's historical concerns about the religion, it makes those people feel like they aren't being heard or that their concerns are simply unimportant to Christians. At the same time, those people need to know that what the church has supported historically does not necessarily apply to the current theology. It takes effort on both sides (and I'm not implying that the effort isn't put forth by a lot of people...just not by some and that leaves a bad taste in some peoples' mouths...it affects their view on things).

 

[Darkness]

Do you agree that Christianity has a more negative outlook on things?

What is negative for one person may not be negative for another. I find the "all humanity is sinful and deserving of hellfire" to be very negative. However, if you hold that statement to be true, then Salvation looks pretty good.

Please say whether you are or were a Christian, and if you left what made you do so.

I am an ex-Christian and I left because of lack of evidence for a God, let alone the Christian God, and because of the hellfire/seperation doctrine.

My point is mainly that when Christians ignore other people's historical concerns about the religion, it makes those people feel like they aren't being heard or that their concerns are simply unimportant to Christians. At the same time, those people need to know that what the church has supported historically does not necessarily apply to the current theology. It takes effort on both sides (and I'm not implying that the effort isn't put forth by a lot of people...just not by some and that leaves a bad taste in some peoples' mouths...it affects their view on things).

I hate it when Atheists, Agnostics I know bash Christianity for what has occured five hundred years ago. Christians should be able to answer questions from "heathens," but really the "heathen's" question is irrelevant. Judge the Christianity the Christian you are speaking to believes in.

 

[Ðanisty]

I hate it when Atheists, Agnostics I know bash Christianity for what has occured five hundred years ago. Christians should be able to answer questions from "heathens," but really the "heathen's" question is irrelevant. Judge the Christianity the Christian you are speaking to believes in.

I hate that too. My point is only that Christians should try to understand why atheists, agnostics, etc. feel that way and address those issues while also explaining that they don't believe in all those bad things. Just ignoring it or denying it though makes non-Christians angry and doesn't help at all with trying to open a dialogue.

 

[Aqualung]

I don't think anyone can argue with the observation that wherever there are humans there is a large chance for conflict over resources, power, wealth, and ideologies and too often done in the name of God.

I know. I'm saying it's not a human thing, but an animal thing. Wherever there is any animal, humans included, there will be these types of conflicts.

There is at least one view of Christianity, though, that sees itself as a counter-point to the idea that we need to fight each other. My understanding of 'overcoming nature' is not that we dominate our environment and other creatures, but that we overcome our natural self-centeredness and aggressive tendencies.

Agreed.

 

[love]

I call myself a Christian in my profile but a better description might be a believer in the the teachings of Christ. Many things in history would not have happened if the leaders at the time had followed the example that Christ set for man. Christ said His kingdom was not of this world.

 

[earl]

Christianity seems to be a "heart" religion- a devotional one requiring surrender of the armament of the heart in open vulnerability. A welcoming receptivity to Christ. It's not it seems to me a "head" thing-and its the head trip of certain theologies that unfortunately leads folks astray from that very path. I've practiced Buddhism of the zen variety for years and despite much "book learning"/sutra study one can do, the emphasis is on meditative understandings or realization beyond mere words. It was when I happened upon contemplaive or hesychastic Christian practice and approached it in the same light as I did Buddhism, that I then embraced the nominal Christianity of my childhood in a more profound and meaningful way. When the prayer of the heart reaches a depth of "silence" beyond words, theologies drop away and the Christ message can naturally be lived out in our realizations. Many would say I'm not Christian. Many would say I'm not Buddhist. But that's OK. take care, earl

 

[lilithu]

Of course religion was a justification for these actions but I believe the motivations more political.

In general, I agree with your post. Christianity has been used as a justification for violence that was motivated by other factors - fear and hatred for those who are different from us, and this is a part of human nature, and has certainly been expressed elsewhere. It is not inherent in Christianity. (Or if it is, it's because Christianity reflects human nature.)

But I don't quite agree with your distinction between religion and politics. I think you can distinguish theology from politics (to some extent, tho not completely) but you cannot separate religion from politics. Religion is theology AND politics. Separation of church and state simply means that no religion can be favored by or exert undue influence on the state. It does not meant that religion is not political. When preachers are talking about abortion and homosexuality in the pulpits, regardless of which side they come down on, it's political. The traditional Catholic stand of caring for the poor (something that I admire greatly) is a political stand. When those of us who are people of faith try to live our faith in day to day life, it's political. The only question is whether our politics is on the side of the poor and oppressed or serves to bolster those with power and wealth.

God does not exist...God is existence.

And I ADORE your sig! :yes:

 

[idiotsatanist]

no its positive

 

[lilithu]

Please note: I no longer buy the notion that anyone who gets a negative message from Christianity is herself at fault for getting a negative message from it -- and that Christianity was not meant to be interpreted that way. If that were true, then the otherwise positive and upbeat people I know who left Christianity because of its negativity would not have found the religion so negative, for many of them are naturally bouyant people.

I have not heard people say that if someone gets a negative message from Christianity, it's that person's fault. (Not disputing you; I just haven't heard that myself.) What I have heard many times in response to criticisms of Christianity is "That is not true/real Christianity." Perhaps this is what you're referring to? I think if this sentiment places blame anywhere it's with the teachers/perpetuators of "negative" Christianity, not with those who have heard/believed it. But I agree with you that in their zeal to defend Christianity, apologists often do not give enough consideration to the experiences of those who have heard/believed/suffered the negative. Instead, they dismiss them as being wrong, which can be seen as blame. I think that's partly what Danisty was referring to - people refusing to acknowledge the negative.

Partly, it's human nature to want to ignore viewpoints that run contrary to one's own experience. And partly, it's a centuries old theological argument over what constitutes "true Christianity." Acknowledging the existence of evidence to the contrary weakens one's position.

I'm not sure how to convey this without ignoring the validity of your/Danisty's complaint (because I do think it's valid) while at the same time getting across the intent of the person who denies any negativity in Christianity. On the one hand, we want to acknowledge what is real and not deny the negative experiences of people. Otoh, there is some truth to the notion that things become what we believe them to be. Especially given that what we're talking about is a social construct. So if we say that a Christianity is about hellfire and damnation, we validate that version of Christianity and Christianity is more about hellfire and damnation. Whereas if we say that Christianity is about love thy neighbor, we validate that version of Christianity and Christianity is more about love thy neighbor. Does that make any sense?

 

[des]

I've always thought of Christ as an attribution rather than a name. Christ wasn't Jesus' last name. Rather it was something Jesus attained. I consider it very similar to the Enlightened One.


Have you read "Living Buddha, Living Christ" by Thich Nhat Han? Very interesting comparison of the teachings of Jesus and of The Buddha.


--des

Interestingly, I just realized that while I have no trouble calling Siddhartha Gautama "the Buddha" I almost never refer to Jesus as "(the) Christ" when talking about my own beliefs. hmm.... am going to have to reflect on that...

 

[lunamoth]

I have not heard people say that if someone gets a negative message from Christianity, it's that person's fault. (Not disputing you; I just haven't heard that myself.) What I have heard many times in response to criticisms of Christianity is "That is not true/real Christianity." Perhaps this is what you're referring to? I think if this sentiment places blame anywhere it's with the teachers/perpetuators of "negative" Christianity, not with those who have heard/believed it. But I agree with you that in their zeal to defend Christianity, apologists often do not give enough consideration to the experiences of those who have heard/believed/suffered the negative. Instead, they dismiss them as being wrong, which can be seen as blame. I think that's partly what Danisty was referring to - people refusing to acknowledge the negative.

Partly, it's human nature to want to ignore viewpoints that run contrary to one's own experience. And partly, it's a centuries old theological argument over what constitutes "true Christianity." Acknowledging the existence of evidence to the contrary weakens one's position.

I'm not sure how to convey this without ignoring the validity of your/Danisty's complaint (because I do think it's valid) while at the same time getting across the intent of the person who denies any negativity in Christianity. On the one hand, we want to acknowledge what is real and not deny the negative experiences of people. Otoh, there is some truth to the notion that things become what we believe them to be. Especially given that what we're talking about is a social construct. So if we say that a Christianity is about hellfire and damnation, we validate that version of Christianity and Christianity is more about hellfire and damnation. Whereas if we say that Christianity is about love thy neighbor, we validate that version of Christianity and Christianity is more about love thy neighbor. Does that make any sense?

That does make sense and it's a good point. I've been thinking about it a lot as I read this thread. I see Christianity as positive but I know that others have had a very real experience of negative, condemning flavors of Christianity and I would not want to just brush that off.

But what really irks me is when someone tells me I'm not a 'real' Christian unless I buy into the fire and brimstone, original sin and predetermined to hell version of Christianity, and then in the next breath condemn that same version of Christianity.

 

[lunamoth]

Christianity seems to be a "heart" religion- a devotional one requiring surrender of the armament of the heart in open vulnerability. A welcoming receptivity to Christ. It's not it seems to me a "head" thing-and its the head trip of certain theologies that unfortunately leads folks astray from that very path. I've practiced Buddhism of the zen variety for years and despite much "book learning"/sutra study one can do, the emphasis is on meditative understandings or realization beyond mere words. It was when I happened upon contemplaive or hesychastic Christian practice and approached it in the same light as I did Buddhism, that I then embraced the nominal Christianity of my childhood in a more profound and meaningful way. When the prayer of the heart reaches a depth of "silence" beyond words, theologies drop away and the Christ message can naturally be lived out in our realizations. Many would say I'm not Christian. Many would say I'm not Buddhist. But that's OK. take care, earl

Hi earl. As you know I'm something of a heart Christian too. It does seem like a very positive way to approach Christianity, or any religion.

 

[love]

My whole experience with Christ has been with the heart. The heart is where the seed is planted and from this grow wisdom and knowledge of the power of Gods love.

 

[!Fluffy!]

OK, obviously my answer is no.

But people who leave Christianity, either drifting off into a secular life or actually converting to a different religion, sometimes site a negative perspective toward humanity or too much emphasis on 'sin' in Christianity as the reason they were turned off from it.

Do you agree that Christianity has a more negative outlook on things? Please say whether you are or were a Christian, and if you left what made you do so. Was it the teachings, the people, a particular experience?

From my own perspective, I think Christianity is a very (the most) hopeful and positive religion. I can understand however that the emphasis on sin, and especially the doctrine of Original Sin, is viewed by many as a negative aspect of Christianity, especially when combined with some Protestant teachings about predestination and hell. Personally I think that while some meditation on sin and hell (as separation from God) can deepen our faith, to only emphasize these aspects is a shallow, hollow approach to Christianity and yes, I consider that a very negative face of the religion. It can also be noted that not all Christian denominations, notably the Eastern Orthodox, have Original Sin as part of their doctrine, and the ideas of theosis and apacatastasis are not/have not always been viewed as heresies.

from the beginning this has been true: there are only two fundamental responses to the Christ of the Gospel, offense or faith (negative, or positive). it is perfectly understandable that an unbeliever would be offended by Christ yesterday, today, and tomorrow, it is all the same now as it was then. one would reasonably expect the story of the supernatural conception, the life, healings, miracles, teachings, death and resurrection of Christ as found in the new testament would be as offensive to mankind now as it was at the time it took place, and my belief is that he would be worshipped/reviled/crucified, one way or another, at any time in history including right now if he were alive today.

negative or positive, it's all in one's point of view... overwhelmingly positive to the believer.