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.
"How Christianity Was Invented: The Truth"
genkaku
Northampton, Mass. U.S.A. Veteran
I have no way of applauding or disparaging the scholarship of this year-old article, but it was passed along in email, and I thought it was interesting... and thought maybe others might as well.
As the Anglican theologian Charles Williams once wrote, "people believe what they want to believe," so the object of creating this topic is not so much to rain on any Christian's or quasi-Christian's parade or to start another Christianity-vs-Buddhism or Christianity-cum-Buddhism thread.
Rather, what I find interesting is an experience anyone might have had: What if you woke up in the morning and found that some deeply-cherished and profoundly-important belief was not exactly what you had imagined it was ... a kind of oops moment?
1
Comments
Oops the world's not flat? Been there! I just rolled with it, literally.
Believing something based in a lack of certitude i.e. faith, or believing something because it is familiar or feels right, yet really is not based on anything but these very things, may vey well lead to an oops moment. Predicating one's beliefs with things that don't square with reality may also engender this situation.
I try to predicate what I say and do based in experience and reasoned outcomes. If what I am doing is shown to be wrong, or have undesirable outcomes then it is something to take in, learn from, and possibly take another approach, knowing what I am embarking upon is not fixed and may not be certain. In one's search for the truth, if such a thing is to be found, it is imperative, IMO, to take apart, dissect, throw your ideas and concepts in the furnace and see if their value and validity hold through such a process.
No oops moments, just moments to reconsider the path I am on.
You roll with it.
It also helps to divest yourself of "deeply cherished and profoundly important" beliefs ahead of time.
You know I am reading about renouncing cherishment of self in Understanding Compassion by Geshe Gyato. And I'm re-reading it for the third time and this morning it just "clicked"
In metta
No doubt I have some that have snuck in but I do my best to make any deeply-cherished and profoundly-important beliefs I do hold to be ones that have undergone analysis and reason. I do hold some beliefs that aren't held to the same rigor but they are more provisional and aren't integral to my belief system.
And to answer the question - I am actually in the middle of release religious preconceptions now - and not only due to my turn of good fortune. I was born and raised a theist. I have travelled a few paths. I have always questioned things (much to chagrin of the nuns and priests at school, the Rabbis encouraged it at Shul and the Pagans were fairly "meh" about whether I questioned things or not), but my experience in Buddhism has shown me results. Tangible, measurable results. In the past I tried to marry a dual practise of Buddhism and faith in Divine Creator together. Then I got sick. Then I became confused and angry. Then I decided to shut up and really try to learn. And when I shut up, I started to notice things, little things at first. If I meditated regularly, I was calmer and slept better. When I was calmer, people reacted better to me. When I missed a few sessions and wasn't so calm - people reacted differently (and I got banned one time :P ...) I also found it easier to focus on the teachings of Buddha and found that when I made a conscious effort to stick to the 8NP and made decisions with the Precepts in mind, I felt better about myself and others. And my relationship with the world was better. And I accepted my life and didn't spend so long wasting time on silly crap.
But as my illness progressed, so did my practise and I actually accepted the outcome. Now I have a fantastic chance to hopefully change the outcome and I am finding that I'm blessed not only by people who want to genuinely help me, but I want to help others too.
Belief in Divine Creator has taken a backseat because I found it easier to cope at first by putting it to the side in the too hard basket and focusing on things I could accept (Buddhism and the Dharma). And you know, I think I'm almost ready to go it alone in Buddhism. And that doesn't make me wring my hands in guilt and go "what do I do?" And that's a pretty huge step for me.
I think that half the reason that we find it hard to accept the "proof" to our long held beliefs is because, as @Chaz said before, we do not work on releasing our attachment to cherishing. If this had happened even two years ago, I would have tried anything to rationalise keeping a dual belief system going. But now, things have just "clicked" and I'm at a stage to accept what is the bleeding obvious with a bit of grace.
In metta _/_
Kinda reminds me of when this happened........all faith was lost!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlton_Football_Club_salary_cap_breach
Today I had a doctor appointment, and I have a very good relationship with my doctors. In chatting he happened to mention that his parents lived in Salt Lake City, and I asked if he was a Mormon. He said he was, and I shared with him that my home town was the birthplace of Mormonism, and told him several stories that he delighted in.
I was telling my neighbor about it, and she said that it had casually come up in a conversation with her, and she told him that was great (she is a Methodist). She told me about another friend, who upon realizing it told him something along the lines of, "Please tell me you're not really Mormon. I'm so sorry for you."
I'm not going to pay any more attention to the article that was posted about Christianity, than I did to a similar article I read a couple of months ago about what a falsehood Buddhism is. And, of course, there are similar articles about virtually every religion.
To me, there is no "right" religion, although there are some "wrong" religions.
And, as we have discussed in the past, the primary question is not whether certain "facts" are actually factual, but whether the underlying principles are sound.
I think everything is up for grabs in my world.
I have little reason to carry much in the way of beliefs because what ever I need to see can simply be accessed directly in that moment according to my ability to get myself out of it's way.
That it can be different from one moment over the next, illustrates more of it's probably truth than it's falsehood, if chaos is reality and fluidity rules.
Indeed. If one gets that particular 'zeal' about Buddhism, it's going to blow up in your face OR you'll do what Christians are accused of -- chucking whatever doesn't 'fit' into those cherished notions.
I am with How, but not great at it yet; perceiving that everything is up for grabs. I think of the "beginner's mind". Lately on my way to work, it's become a little ritual to remind myself of beginner's mind, mainly because I used to drive to work and 'plan' what was going to happen, which is patently delusional. I think I'm beginning to get it, because any aversion I'm immersed in lessens. There is a 'feeling' to having beginner's mind, but that's because I've become quite accustomed to my delusions
I do have faith in what I have yet to experience, but try to avoid 'believing' in any particular thing happening. The Buddha laid out guidelines, and my faith comes from actual experience of the cessation of suffering so far.
Beginner's mind is kind of like listening for a sound you can't hear. Like I know there is an Amtrak train station in my city, and I try to 'hear' the trains even though I live too far away (got this from a guided meditation). Just sitting there 'trying to hear' something is what it feels like to have my crumpled version of 'beginner's mind'.
Woah . . . just one minute . . . Buddhism works? You mean it is pragmatic? Good in the beginning, good in the middle, good in the end (if you'll pardon the expression)?
[lobster faints]
Did you know about this cushion?.
The thing is...after reading various posts of yours since joining the forum..its not any given article that you might post that I doubt.
I don't think that Christianity is the target here.
I think it stands for all attempts at meaningfulness.
I think that some people embody the jaded nihilism of the age, and project their cynicism onto the universe, and mistake it for honesty.
Aren't all "religions" invented? Bob
I think it means events imagined by humans instead of actually being the recorded history of God and all those miracles and stuff. An "invented" history... or the difference between "fiction" and "non-fiction". I'm sure all religions partake, to a greater or lesser extent.
Believing is seeing
Luckily, @Citta, we have countervailing views like your own which can correct what you perceive as nihilism and infuse the world with meaning. Isn't that enough?
@genkaku I dunno where all these nihilists are. Even when I was just a plain-old atheist I was far from being nihilistic, and I've never spoken to anyone (in real life or the internet) that took the view that life is meaningless or doesn't matter. Neither among atheists nor Buddhists is it assumed that a supreme being or creator needs to assign meaning for life to be meaningful!
Meaning is or is not already the case. That can't be a matter of correction .
Our challenge is to live as though life is meaningful.
That makes it true.
@citta -- So the assertion of either meaning or lack of meaning is pretty much moot ... is that what you're saying?
Does this mean that if I find it meaningful, therefore it is true? My understanding was that such assertions were a large part of the problem and not a description of anything resembling a solution.
1 ) Meaning is already the case.
2) Living is meaningful.
3) Realising this is the result of living as if.
Reading the comments of the original article, I find it interesting how many people revel in the ability to disprove another's religion.
I have no desire to bash anyone's religion. I have a desire to understand where they are coming from and why they believe what they do.
I've always referred to myself as a recovering Catholic, who was baptized by the Southern Baptists, only to teach Vacation Bible School at a Presbyterian church as a Buddhist.
I was on a path, not political, not even religious in the typical sense. A search for belonging and something that "felt right" with my "soul."
I can no better prove (or disprove) Siddartha's story than Jesus'. I was not there to experience it first hand. These are stories passed down through the ages, orally or written. There was no Internet to broadcast the message on youtube, there were no smartphone videos to document what went on. Myth Busters was not around.
The thing is we "choose" to have faith in something and that becomes our belief. What's the underlying message? Is it helpful or harmful to society?
Quite so. Its the need to ' disprove ' the narrative that someone uses to make sense of their life that I find strange.
@citta -- I don't mean to disagree, but as a human being would like to ask: 1. If meaning is already the case, who says so and what meaning is it? Is the statement in fact true, is it true or merely arrogant to say so? Is something true simply because it is stated as true? 2. If living is meaningful, who says so and on what basis must/should/can other human beings credit such a statement? Is the agreement of many a sure-fire proof of anything ... as for example, the widely held hope/belief that their lives have meaning? I am not suggesting that meaning is somehow foolish or unwarranted, only asking whether a failure to examine it makes much sense when a person hopes to attain a little peace. 3. Is it conceivable that living life as if living were meaningful might just as easily result in something considerably less pleasant than anticipated? Again, I'm not trying to disparage or dispute the need to imitate what seems good and nourishing and credible. Every practice includes such efforts. But it strikes me as a bit extreme to suggest that such imitations will necessarily produce nourishing results.
Yes and no.
The target of the specific article is Christianity. But remember (not you, specifically) that the title of the blog site is "Beyond ALL Religion" (the full capitalization of ALL is his, not mine), and in case some missed it, there is a somewhat similar article about Buddhism on another of his tabs. While not as negative as the article about Christianity, it's almost as bad.
I have no problem with his writings, and am as open about his writings as I would be about the writings of any other real estate broker. There's nothing wrong with being a self-proclaimed expert on religion. But it would be interesting to learn why he is so negative about ALL religions. My guess is that it's not a pretty story.
1) The Buddha. This discussion is happening in the context of a Buddhist website. A website that one visits by choice.
2) The Buddha .. ditto. .....
3) Meaningful is not synonymous with pleasant. Dukkha is deeply meaningful.
( In response to @genkaku. )
All religions are constructs of man. Bob
@MeisterBob -- Might we say the same of "meaning?"
What do you mean?....ok...seriously. ..I'd say something has meaning if you think it does so, yes- meaning is in the eye of the beholder or construct. Meaning will change as the construct changes-thankfully! Bob
I suspect it is at least partly a backlash against the tendency of some Christian demoninations to hold the bible as %100 reality and condemn others to hellfire and ostracism based on that belief.
I think this actually happens all of the time. Big things, little things. Sometimes you find out your husband wasn't as faithfully devoted as you thought. Sometimes you find out that the expensive but cute little organic foodie restaurant buys all of their produce at Walmart. And then, sometimes you realize holes in religious dogma.
I, personally, have only experienced the last scenario, but was lucky enough to bounce back. I think the key is to never let your world be so consumed by something unprovable and impermanent. For better or for worse, I'm pretty "show me, don't tell me" now. When people start talking about "faith" as a prerequisite, I feel itchy...
I am of the opinion that if one's religion brings comfort, compassion, gives direction and wellbeing for self and others that a wonderful thing. It is all well and good to say ignore the stories, what matters is the bottom line; do these teachings produce good fruit and are they helpful. One could say this about Buddhism quite easily, it's all together unimportant if there was even a man named Siddarta, or if he was born from his mother side ect ect. The teachings require me to believe none of this. The problem posed for Christians is that Jesus MUST have existed, without Christ there is no salvation. So that requires a lot of faith, each to his own.
“Constant revision of history is part of the normal scholarly process of writing history.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_revisionism
This is not nihilism; just the process of evaluating events that are presented as historical facts.
If a religious narrative claims to present (historical) facts; it will meet such evaluation.
Sraddha does not deal with history only. It is a personal narrative.
This forum is not about history. Its about self knowledge and the Skillful Means that lead to it.
The Skillful Means employed by others are not our concern.
Kia Ora,
Aren't all religions just inventions including Buddhism (If one likes to call Buddhism a religion that is) ...
Metta Shoshin:)
@Shoshin MeisterBob said the same thing. The emphasis of the article is how Christianity was invented (at least the author's opinion). All religious traditions are human inventions, so that's really not the contention here.
KIa Ora @AldrisTorvalds,
Sorry my mistake...Thanks for pointing this out...
Metta Shoshin
@Shoshin I get the confusion. What confuses me, what has never made sense, is how many humans are unskeptical when it comes to religious claims. A religion can even be created within the past 100 years by a science fiction writer... and be believed wholeheartedly by many people! As a life-long skeptic, I've had to shake my head at the people around me for as long as I can remember. Granted they're mostly Christians and not Scientologists, but it's still always seemed crazy to me.
Naturally, you're referring to the Spaghetti-Monster....
Kia Ora @AldrisTorvalds,
Sadly it would seem there are and always will be desperate and very gullible people and those who prey(pray) upon them...
Metta Shoshin
@Shoshin Ah yes "gullible" is the word! Easier than saying unskeptical or non-skeptical.
especially as they're not even the same thing.....
(Google definitions)
gullible, adj., easily persuaded to believe something; credulous.
skeptical, adj., not easily convinced; having doubts or reservations.
They seem to be opposites or mutually exclusive. If you're gullible you're not employing skepticism, and if you're employing skepticism you're not being gullible.
(On further investigation...)
Merriam-Webster's online dictionary does list "gullible" as an antonym of "skeptical", and vice versa. (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/skeptical?show=0&t=1401608145)
I'm sure there are different definitions around. They still capture my meaning quite well.
I rust my cause.....
Personally I am pro Buddhist. Not anti anything. There is a general consensus in all schools of Buddhadharma that Right Understanding precludes negativity about views we do not share.
They are not our business.
@Citta I don't know about that. I've got some pretty big negativity about views I don't share that are leading to a woman being executed. I think it's all of our businesses to do what we can to stop stuff like that. Maybe we can't do anything personally, but we can speak up and call people out, make it known and take a stand against it. Apathy shouldn't have any place in Buddhism, IMHO.
The proposed execution that you cite is not a result of Christian views.
Just as the killings in Myanmar of Muslims by Buddhists were not a result of the Buddha's Dharma.
This thread is not a critique of human behaviours. It is a shallow critique of a way of understanding the world that most Buddhists do not share.
And that's all Buddhists have to make clear.
Who said it was? I'm responding to you saying that what others believe is none of our business, and my response is that it becomes my business (and should be ours) when it's causing real demonstrable harm to our fellow human beings. Maybe that's not what you meant, but that's where I stand.
" Hatred ceases not by hatred. Hatred ceases but by love...."
The Buddha. Dhammapada.
I think there's an incredibly fine line between conquering 'negativity about views we do not share', and condemning those who abuse their faith and misconstrue it, and twist it to their own ends.
It's a line I have not yet fully learned to negotiate myself, even though I strongly advocate practising how one should....
I think that there is no doubt about the OP @federica. Everything follows from that.