Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
ali smack

Truth behind The Bible

139 posts in this topic

There are Buddhists who deliberately leave out the religious aspect, I think they think it increases the religion's appeal. I don't think we should seek out converts anyway, and especially by putting a Western philosophy gloss over it. Do me a favor and start a Buddhism thread of some sort not too preachy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Getting back on topic I don't think Jesus was son of God.. I think he was just a loony

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Getting back on topic I don't think Jesus was son of God.. I think he was just a loony

LOL. Good for you, although I doubt that. My honest opinion is that he is mostly a myth, maybe completely a myth. What we have about him is of at least one generation later, and that is assuming we accept the NT time frame, which is hazy at best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Learning good meditation is to me a great start, and a good supplement for life even if one knows nothing more about Buddhism.

This thread is about the Bible, and every moment now I expect a moderator to come down on me <grin> even though I swear my innocence and only respond.

Nevertheless, I think the Buddha would be dismayed if he were to log on to Unexplained-Mysteries.com and read that his legacy was being discussed by us in the West primarily on his views of meditation. It sounds such an oversimplification as to be dishonest about what he actually teaches (I don't claim to be an expert in Buddhism, but I feel I have greater knowledge than most).
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course I agree with you fully. I enjoy talking about Buddhism and I am a practicing Buddhist, and know a lot, but I don't pretend to expertise. When I started here I made a promise to myself that I would not try to convert people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You probably have greater knowlegde then me about it..

Have you read 30 pieces of silver... Interesting book about Jesus being a set up

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is Buddhism a set of beliefs, a philosophy, a way of interpreting one's role in the universe? That's what I would call a religion.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say that is the philosophy part of religions, and can be done without the religion part as is seen in the Western philosophical tradition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't want to put words in your mouth; are you saying that religion specifically deals with a god, whereas philosophies focus on self? (or something like that)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always assoicated religion with "God" having to do what "God" wants and so on

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well as you know Buddhism doesn't have gods, exactly (at least most forms of it), so saying Buddhism is a religion does not mean it is a theistic religion.

But otherwise it walks, flies, swims and talks just like a religion. It doesn't have priests but there are plenty of monks who often play a priest-like role. It has special places of "worship," lots of rituals and prayers and other such religious stuff. It is very un-dogmatic, but, still, the vast majority of Buddhists believe pretty much the same things, although you have no creed or any sort of doctrinal discipline.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do you call it religion I call it a philosophy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I will start a new thread: Is Buddhism a philosophy or a religion?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

good idea

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not important for me to insist it. I'm just giving my opinion which I believe to be more correct then your opinion that it is religion.

This what I think. Religion tells us what to believe and why something is so. Buddhism challenges the way you look at something.

Religion creates "faith" and worshipping a God whereas buddhism doesn't require faith or worship in God.

Religion creates this need for people to pray to a God so they can be helped whereas Buddhism shows you how to meditate

Apart from the fact that in general terms, including academically and philoophically, buddhism IS defined as a religious faith, (For example a study of comaprative religions will always include buddhism) this sounds like simple prejudgement or perhaps ignorance, on your part.

Why think that, say, christianity tells people what to think or how to act and buddhism does not? Buddhists are told very explicitly how it is most productive to think and act.

To be a buddhist you have to have both inner beliefs and outer actions or rituals That is just the same for christianity or any other religion. Buddhism describes a path and a destination. Christianity certainly does exaclty the same. Buddhism connects how we live with the outcomes we have in life. Christianity does exactly the same. Buddhism has internal rationales. So does christianity (and for christianity substitute almost any modern religion in these statements.

Of course buddhism requires faith. To be a buddhist is to act in faith. And many forms of buddhism do involve a god, but just conceptualised and named in a different way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say that is the philosophy part of religions, and can be done without the religion part as is seen in the Western philosophical tradition.

This is true but it is also true of faiths such as christianity, judaism and islam, among others. They can all be approached, belonged to, and appreciated, as a philosophical and personal way of life, rather than as a monolithic, hierachical, and authoritative religion.

For example i 'do" christianity as a personal, philosophical, and practical way of life. I dont have an outer religion or an inner religious belief which shapes or drives me, or limits me, but i do have a personal relationship with the universal or cosmic consciousness via enlightenment and lifestyle. I live "at one" with the univeral consciousness and, as far as a physical being can, I live at one with the physical world as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For example i 'do" christianity as a personal, philosophical, and practical way of life. I dont have an outer religion or an inner religious belief which shapes or drives me, or limits me, but i do have a personal relationship with the universal or cosmic consciousness via enlightenment and lifestyle. I live "at one" with the univeral consciousness and, as far as a physical being can, I live at one with the physical world as well.

I can't help but say that this doesn't sound "Christian." It sounds maybe Transcendental or Taoist or something. You don't mention a relationship with Jesus or his sacrifice, which is how I identify Christian mystics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

a Buddha carryin' a crozz

:yes:

:)

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My begging bowl is smaller than yours. Nya Nya.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My begging bowl is smaller than yours. Nya Nya.

and ... it must be full otherwise the bottom will be too deep to reach

:whistle:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't help but say that this doesn't sound "Christian." It sounds maybe Transcendental or Taoist or something. You don't mention a relationship with Jesus or his sacrifice, which is how I identify Christian mystics.

When I fill out thse online surveys about your spirituality, I come out buddhist and jainist but also seventh day adventist, because I live a christian based life in practical terms; allowing the seventh day for rest and contemplation, and have a basically vegetarian diet, with no drugs alcohol or nicotine in my life. In practice I follow the principles of a healthy mind in a healthy body but gently rather than zealously. I minimise my ecological footprint in every way I can, to walk lightly on the planet, and i share every thing i do not need for survival with those whose needs are greater than mine.

Even so i live a richer and more fortunate life than 95% of the worlds population.I dont have a relationship with christ as such but with the cosmic consciousness of god god because god and i share existence within each other. I benefit from things like the physical abilities of god and the power of the "holy spirit" or gods energy within me. I do use christ as a human/masculine template for how to think and to act towards my self and others..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread does give rise to an interesting question, what does one need to believe to actually be a Christian? Does one have to believe in all this "sacrifice" concept, which frankly is always something I've never really understood? Does one have to believe that Jesus Died for our Sins, and if so, what does that mean, exactly? Is it enough to try to follow his teachings and his example, or do you have to also take on board all the theology that was added by people like Paul and Augustine?

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I once has a (somewhat heterodox) priest tell me that as long as the group has a communion (mass) of some sort, it is Christian, although it may be heretical in what it thinks is happening during the ritual.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This thread does give rise to an interesting question, what does one need to believe to actually be a Christian?

That turns out to be two questions. What does the denomination of the church teach that makes it Christian, and what of that teaching do you need to believe personally to belong to the denomination?

The respective answers are: sometimes very little teaching, and often nothing believed at all.

The most usual kind of Christian church is Nicene, meaning a church that professes the Nicene-Constantinople Creed. The churches have little else in common, and even within the Nicene community, there are people who prefer the Apostles' Creed upon which the Nicene is based.

Most people will, in practice, extend the definition by creed to non-creedal churches whose historical origin is descent (and usually dissent) from a Nicene church and who retain some focus on Jesus. Quakers fall into this category, and in the United States, the Unitarian Universalist church is probably the borderline case of an arguably Christian non-creedal denomination.

There are also churches that are creedal, which do focus on Jesus, but whose creed isn't historically related to the Apostles' Creed. Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses are familiar examples. Discussing whether these are "Christian religions" is a lot like asking whether atheism is a religion at all. Different people have different opinions, and it probably depends on what makes sense in any specific situation.

So, what of that do you have to believe to belong? Protestant denominations often define themselves by their particular set of beliefs, and Protestantism generally puts a lot of emphasis on what a person believes anyway. So, to be creedal Protestant, you probably have to believe at least the Apostles' Creed (although, of course, what you believe that formula means is between you and God, unless you make a public point of it).

Protestantism is, however, a minority within Nicene Christianity. Two-thirds of Nicenes belong to churches in apostolic succession, chiefly the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and a variety of Oriental Orthodox churches. The normal thing here is infant baptism, and sacraments are efficacious. Doing the math, then, to belong to these Nicene Churches, you need literally believe nothing whatsoever, and need never have done.

That's unusual, of course, since someone who didn't believe something probably wouldn't identify themselves as members. But, they are allowed to if they want to, and there can be legitimate reasons for a non-believer to exercise the prerogative. (Some of my ancestors, for example, are buried in "consecrated ground." If I wanted to be buried with them, I could be, despite not being in life, so far, a model member of the church in question - but still a member as far as church regulations are concerned.)

There are also minority definitions, most of which are tailored to disputation and often founder in the light of day. Anti-theists rather like the idea that Christianity should be defined by beliefs, the more Biblically literalist-inerrantist the better. Another ploy is to define "Christian" by etymology, as anyone who believes that Jesus of Nazareth was the Jewish Messiah. That kind of defintion is popular among Muslim apologists, since it makes Islam a reformed Christianity, from which is a convenient place for them to argue that self-described Christians have their Jesus all wrong.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Depending on how open the definition is, one can include everyone or no one. The same thing probably applies to every religion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.