Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Came around Christianity
Ficus_religiosa
Veteran
So, as some of you may have noticed, I had a slight problem with Christianity. Well, to be honest it was far worse in real life than what has come through here. Realizing I was uhm shoveling gravel on my own road (for lack of a better expression), I decided to lay down my weapons.
First I got myself a bible (on my phone) and then I read a passage in it every evening. The Old Testament I remember well from school, so I focused on The New Testament. I also got myself a brass Bible key-hanger-thingy to make myself look at a it several times a day (it was quite cool in fact - a complete mini-New Testament, readable).
I also studied Christian denominations closely, focusing mostly on Lutheranism since it's the official denomination in my country.
The key-hanger part was the most challenging disposition, since everyone knows what I thought about Christianity (and yes, I was confronted with my Bible!) Most people I know don't like Christianity, so that was also a difficulty in my proceedings.
Yesterday I took off my Bible-key-hanger. I know a lot more about Christianity - now I can even defend it against the views and arguments I had before. More important though: I'm not "antichrist" anymore. It feels like a major step to me. Just felt like sharing..
First I got myself a bible (on my phone) and then I read a passage in it every evening. The Old Testament I remember well from school, so I focused on The New Testament. I also got myself a brass Bible key-hanger-thingy to make myself look at a it several times a day (it was quite cool in fact - a complete mini-New Testament, readable).
I also studied Christian denominations closely, focusing mostly on Lutheranism since it's the official denomination in my country.
The key-hanger part was the most challenging disposition, since everyone knows what I thought about Christianity (and yes, I was confronted with my Bible!) Most people I know don't like Christianity, so that was also a difficulty in my proceedings.
Yesterday I took off my Bible-key-hanger. I know a lot more about Christianity - now I can even defend it against the views and arguments I had before. More important though: I'm not "antichrist" anymore. It feels like a major step to me. Just felt like sharing..
17
Comments
I think Ya Dun Good.
Some how reminds me of a part in the film about Gandhi where a man approaches him anquished with guilt over his participation in recent religious riots.
Gandhi suggests the man adopt an orphan from these riots and to personally raise him in that same religion that he was feeling so guilty of hating..
Not an easy road but an admirable solution to hatred.
The Buddha, Christ, the gods, us and other ignoramus are all much less problematic when we have knowledge of their and consequently our true nature. We can indeed increase in compassionate acceptance of others limitations as reflective of our own.
As Buddhists it is sometimes necessary to sever our sense of the sacred in our cowering herd mentality. That is why sometimes we bow to the Buddha and sometimes burn his image to create warmth.
There are Christian mystics who are closer to the truth than we can imagine as mere dukkha avoiders. When we tread the path of compassion, we must remember as the Dalai Lama says, 'not everyone on a different path is lost'.
Christ be with you (but not too much)
Ooops, sorry, wrong religion!!
Admittedly, one of the dangers of believing in God is that Christians believe God is a Christian, Muslims believe Allah is a Muslim and Jews believe G-d is Jewish.
The one thing you can say about Buddha is that he wasn't a Buddhist.
Buddhism is a confident religion.
Yes, the meaning and wisdom would still be there.
But there are some serious differences between Buddhism and Christianity.
Christianity is about a relationship with God through Jesus. Thus behind Christianity is a philosophy that there lies an 'essential' person - two 'essential' people - the believer and Jesus. This brings into play a whole range of other aspects not the least of which is that of 'faith' which then leads into speculations about the 'reality' of heaven and hell.
There is also the matter of 'desire' and 'attachment' which are associated with the religious traditions. It is these aspects that eventually lead to attachment and grasping that is the cause of the world's problems.
The Buddha, of course, would have none of this. In fact, the Buddha would argue that the mental constructions which we might call 'Christianity', or 'Islam', or 'Judaism' or ... , are an obstacle to the path.
My own path into Christianity and the study of the more speculative theologians and philosophers has confirmed that none of them actually explain the 'how' - of how it is all suppose to work - except they keep harping on about this thing called faith which, historically, seems not to work at all, but which, instead, leads to a mimetic response to others thereby triggering aggression and anger.
I don't believe the differences between Buddhism and Christianity are serious, unless we are attempting to justify one path as correct over the other. Each person accepts one over the other because it makes more sense to them, and each tradition has a long history of those that have manifested the essence of their respective teachings, but sadly, there are those who have not to the detriment of others.
One who did manifest the essence of his tradition and has shown us how through the example of his life is St Macarius. His Homily 49 addresses your key points about desire, attachment, and belief:
1. If anyone should leave his family and renounce this world and possessions and father and mother for the sake of the Lord, and if he has crucified himself and has become a wanderer and poor and needy, but does not find in himself the divine satisfaction instead of the satisfaction of the world, nor feel in his soul, instead of the temporal pleasure, the pleasure of the Spirit and has not been clothed, instead of with perishable clothing, with the clothing of the light of the Godhead, and if he does not know with assurance the satisfaction of the communion with the heavenly Bridegroom in his soul, instead of the temporal and carnal communion, and does not know the joy of the Spirit interiorly, instead of the sensible joy of this world, and does not receive the heavenly consolation of grace and a divine filling in the soul in appearance to him of the glory of the Lord, as it is written (Ps 17:15), and in a word, instead of this ephemeral enjoyment, does not even now possess in his soul the imperishable enjoyment that is greatly to be desired-this person has become salt without savor. This one is pitiful beyond all. This one even here has been deprived of things and has not enjoyed the divine gifts. He does not know divine mysteries by means of the workings of the Spirit in his inner man.
2. For this is the reason why one becomes a stranger to the world so that his soul may pass in mind to the other world and to eternity, according to the Apostle. He says, “Our conversation is in Heaven” (Phil 3:20). And again, “Walking on earth, we do not war after the flesh” (2 Cor 10:3). Therefore, it is necessary that he who puts away this world must deeply believe that it is necessary to pass in mind even now through the Spirit into another age and there to have conversation and take pleasure and enjoyment in spiritual good things, and for the inner man to be born of the Spirit, as the Lord said: “He, who believes in me, has passed from death to life” (Jn 5:24). Indeed, there is another death than the physical one and another life other than the visible one. For Scripture says, “She who lives in pleasure is dead” (1 Tm 5:6), and , “Let the dead bury their dead” (Lk 9:60), because “the dead shall not praise you, Lord, but we who live” (Ps 115:17-18)
After all didn't one end up becoming the Holy Spirit?
Personally I just believe in the Buddha Dharma
Just a normal, public school (publicly funded). Christianity is a class if the school so chooses. It can be called "Religion" if the school wants. When I went to school, we had Christianity to begin with (1. - 3. grade - both Biblical stories and ethics. Later it was changed to religion, and we were taught about other religions. The classes were seriously flawed, I later learned. The material which public school teachers use is often shallow and prejudiced, not above passing on old myths. Children are also supposed to go to church during school time on church holidays, although their parents can object to it.
New liberal, liberal democratic and socialist parties often criticize the classes and teaching, however the actual ruling politicians are always social democrats or liberals, and they both support the current state of things.
so what did he do during those 17 years?
Where did he go?
Why did he come back?
Any self realized mindful sentient being knows buddha Dhamma whether they reguard it as Dhamma or as helping its still the same.
"Children are supposed to go to church during school time on church holidays"? REALLY?? I thought Europe was more secular than that. On other forums, Europeans have said north and central Europe isn't particularly religious. What you say sounds like something from the early 20th Century, lol! Sorry, but it's hard to believe this is going on now.
I remember being told not to kiss my girlfriend on a boat in Croatia, because "this is a Christian boat" - we were 16! In many countries, girls must cover their shoulders as not to faux pas, men should have short hair. All kinds of ridiculous, religiously-based cultural norms flourish all over this place. Especially in southern Europe, but as you see also in the north. The reason children are sent to church? "To learn about "our" culture", to "preserve "our" culture" - the usual stuff.
Yeah, my mom made us go to Sunday church school with the "culture" excuse. She said religious themes appear in literature, so we should know that stuff. But I didn't allow any of that information to enter my mind. I distracted myself during each class, so I wouldn't hear any of it. Except for the 4th grade class, when we had a university student who taught us about World Religions, including Buddhism and Taoism. I got hooked on Buddhism as a result of that class. The following years, I would drop out mentally. It's a good thing that material wasn't forced on us in school, I would have flunked the course every year.
And just like in the US, in the EU there's a powerful, Christian lobbying going on. I think it was a ban of pornography which was up (in the EU) not long ago - pornography! It fell, but still...
Same-sex marriages in church was a major debate in my country just a few years ago. The law passed, but not easily. As was singles' right to adopt and same sex couples right to adopt.
Same sex, registered partnerships were recognized in 1989 but did not give the same legal status as marriage. In all laws where the words "husband" and "wife" were used instead of "spouse", same-sex couples weren't counted in unless it would be openly meaningless to count them out. Seven years ago, the largest Christian missionary organization "Indremission" was given money from public funds to make a website about sexual relationships targeted at teens, while they also stopped the distribution of educational material to schools because it described sexual minorities and the most common sexual fetishes/games, like bondage. It was a CD-rom called "SexStars".
There are so many examples...
But yes, the Buddha Dhamma will be forgotten then re-found by a new Buddha once in a (long) while. I'm not sure Jesus is the one (Buddhism having survived perfectly fine in countries untouched by Christ), though the modern way to interpret the Bible and his actions makes him look like a real good person, and someone who would be a good Buddhist too
Single people were allowed to adopt in your country only a few years ago? In the US they've been allowed since at least the 1960's. A social worker would examine the case to make sure the individual was suitable, but I think that's the case with couples adoptions, too.
"Thunder-priests" aren't the norm, here, btw. There are plenty of denominations that have just normal, quiet sermons. Fundamentalist sects are rare in some parts of the country, and, generally-speaking, are more popular in southern states. Along with snake handlers, people who speak in tongues, all kinds of exotic things.
Singles could not adopt a few years ago, but now they can. The debate is the interesting part - how suddenly conservative forces showed up everywhere.
I know that fundamentalists are few in number, but they are - maybe due to prejudice - considered an American phenomenon. Fundamentalists in Europe hide, in the US they have TV-channels if you catch my drift
I think there is a tendency for people to get on their "high horse" and want to put down people that have views different from their own, or whose views they feel are not "enlightened" (and I mean that primarily in a non-Buddhist sense).
As we see on this site every day, people have different moral viewpoints. And I know, for example, fundamentalist Christians who still think homosexual activities are immoral, but from a legal standpoint feel that gay people deserve all the rights that straight people have. It's very much like my personal stand on abortion...I don't personally think abortion is "right action" in most cases, but I do not believe that my personal moral view should be forced on others in a legal sense. It's sort of related to the separation of church and state.
An English televangelist would have no audience.
In the USA money talks and some of the most well funded and generously corrupting forces are the groups and extremists who have been planning and working on "Christianizing America" since the mid-late 1980's.
So it's our very own conservative and right-wing politicians (and certain media outlets) who support these fringe groups... all because of the $$ they give and the FEAR they generate amongst the lesser educated and worldly-wise public.
I am not comparing the two in any way of course..
Just saying that there are differences in what are seen as mainstream in the US and Europe.
Apart from Danish pupils I gave a few examples of what I've experienced when traveling Europe and what legislation is being proposed in the EU.
Christianity is not in our faces, but under our skin.
*that is, unnecessary, petty rules of "proper morale" derived from "Christianity", which have very little to do with the message and more to do with norms from the patriarchal society of old
Now I also understand how a lot of people can mix Christianity and Buddhism.. These are interesting times - in my mind at least
I've found it very liberating.
The ideaof the compatibility of Buddhism and Christianity and of Jesus being a Buddhist is just what some people want to believe.
An aspiring concert pianist focuses on practicing the piano, but she may learn much by observing other instruments which may enhance her own skills with the piano.
We need less dotted lines, not more. It opens the lines of communication so different spiritual practices can mutually grow together rather than merely shaking fists at one another. It belies a lack of spiritual maturity and courage. Getting attached to methods of non-attachment becomes yet another samsaric attachment.
The first of the fourteen mindfulness trainings of Thich Nhat Hanh states:
"Aware of the suffering created by fanaticism and intolerance, we are determined not to be idolatrous about or bound to any doctrine, theory, or ideology, even Buddhist ones. We are committed to seeing the Buddhist teachings as guiding means that help us learn to look deeply and develop our understanding and compassion. They are not doctrines to fight, kill, or die for. We understand that fanaticism in its many forms is the result of perceiving things in a dualistic and discriminative manner. We will train ourselves to look at everything with openness and the insight of interbeing in order to transform dogmatism and violence in ourselves and in the world."
What good does it do to cling to exclusivity just as other fundamentalists do?
What I have learned is, that while Christians can be bad people, Christianity is not in itself bad and certainly has it's merits (my new discovery is the merits part).
On the whole I think I cannot be said to be either Christian nor Buddhist. It doesn't matter to me. My goal in life is to grow as a human being, becoming ever more gentle and wiser. And part of that is making up with my age-old enemy, Christianity along with a bunch of other things I need to learn. And I think I'm slowly progressing, thank God