Atheism Is For The Weak

[Ouroboros]

To me it's comfort from God - which can be defined by others as unknown or unproven. Where do you and others draw your/their comfort from? (excpet other Gods like Allah, Hindu Gods, etc of organised religions)

Hmm... well... I can tell you this much, when I was in trouble and in dire need of comfort, it did not come from a supernatural source, but from *gasp* kind human beings around me (of every faith and non-faith). The human "heart" can be very passionate when it is moved. For some, religion moves it, for some religion only cause them to be greedy, and for some they are moved by the stories people have to tell, so all in all, humans can't always be trusted, but still they're the only ones able to give comfort.

[NotBlinded]

Since no one knows the Truth™, there can be no claim made to it. Makes sense huh?

I agree.

 

It really doesn't matter if it's true or not as long as you're not lost in unknowing.

Agreed.

 

..comfort from the unknown.

Where are you going with this?

 

To me it's comfort from God - which can be defined by others as unknown or unproven. Where do you and others draw your/their comfort from? (excpet other Gods like Allah, Hindu Gods, etc of organised religions)

Dang...when you split them up like that I can't even tell what I said.

 

 

I am saying that the truth can't be found in any understanding because what is not physical can't be understood. It is a necessary part of the physical, but just as illusive as trying to look at the back of your own head (without a mirror). It will escape your inquiry because you are trying to look at the very core of what you are. That probably won't make much sense to you right now, but maybe later on in your life it will.

 

With that said, the truth isn't contained within a single book or any book. There are parts of the truth and it is everywhere. There is no way you, or I or anyone can comprehend God. Books and ideas are pointers only to try to get you to 'feel' what you are. It is purely emotional and can be nothing else. I don't discredit emotions, but emotions are subjective and your experience of God/Awe/Wonder is supposed to be subjective. Even those they don't believe in God/s experience this and there is no reason for them to attribute it to any God. I choose to use the word God because it gives my understanding more meaning. Others don't need that at all. Lay down the law and move beyond your understanding of the basics of the myth.

 

That's the problem...people are supposed to grow out of the need for the myth because once you can experience this awe, it is no longer needed. But, people pay so much attention to the words and take them for truth that the truth disappears. That is why, IMO, many atheists are more spiritual than the most devout Christian. They don't need any myth to experience the wonders of life. The truth isn't the story and can never be put into words. And besides, where would the church be if people outgrew the myth?

 

I find comfort knowing that I don't have to know in order to know. I also find comfort in understanding that all religions are relating their lives to their subjective experiences of God. They are stories of the God/s. They all have merit, but none contain the Truth™.

 

What I was trying to say above is that when you think you have found the truth in one story and claim the truth exclusively, that your comfort is, well, arbitrary. It really has nothing to do with the truth in larger context of wholeness. It is very hard to try to explain this... The comfort I get comes from understanding that the truth cannot be contained. The comfort you get comes from knowing that the truth is contained in one book and the rest of the world be damned (maybe not so much you, but others that live by exclusivity).

[Amanda]

Hmm... well... I can tell you this much, when I was in trouble and in dire need of comfort, it did not come from a supernatural source, but from *gasp* kind human beings around me (of every faith and non-faith). The human "heart" can be very passionate when it is moved. For some, religion moves it, for some religion only cause them to be greedy, and for some they are moved by the stories people have to tell, so all in all, humans can't always be trusted, but still they're the only ones able to give comfort.

 

Hi Hans! I haven't been keeping up with this thread entirely, yet I'd like to ask you to think of this idea. Perhaps this human "heart" is God, is the Christ nature. Maybe if "God" moves, it is through us. Could this recognition/emphasis and movement in this direction become known as the "holy spirit," just as there is a "patriotic spirit"? Most Christian "organized religion" may be the great harlot, yet I see spirituality as different, and can be applied to Atheist too. It's about emotions, empathy, empowerment, AND reason.

 

Sometimes I see the NT as the innovators to the Atheist movement we have come to know today (Madeline O'Hare). OT is a God out there that judges and punishes, while the NT brings God within us. No need to go to the temple to commune with God because God is inside us, the kingdom of God is within, ye too are gods, etc.

 

That's the problem...people are supposed to grow out of the need for the myth because once you can experience this awe, it is no longer needed. But, people pay so much attention to the words and take them for truth that the truth disappears. That is why, IMO, many atheists are more spiritual than the most devout Christian. They don't need any myth to experience the wonders of life. The truth isn't the story and can never be put into words. And besides, where would the church be if people outgrew the myth?

 

NBBTB, thank you.

I must still say that I do find these principles in the NT quite beneficial, as I understand them from the manuscript from which the KJV was taken. People of those days, especially OT times, were not any where near as articulate as we are today, and to pass on morals/civility were by fables/myths.

 

I was watching a biography about the famous artist Raphael and how he painted to add drama to these religious stories. People have built these Biblical stories up much as the way we did with St. Nicholas to Santa Claus. But even in Santa Claus, if we look at the true St. Nicholas events, what a much more meaningful and endearing story than what we ended up having!

[Lycorth]

Hmm... well... I can tell you this much, when I was in trouble and in dire need of comfort, it did not come from a supernatural source, but from *gasp* kind human beings around me (of every faith and non-faith). The human "heart" can be very passionate when it is moved. For some, religion moves it, for some religion only cause them to be greedy, and for some they are moved by the stories people have to tell, so all in all, humans can't always be trusted, but still they're the only ones able to give comfort.

 

Precisely

 

The only "gods" we can hope to have comfort from are ourselves.

[Trancelation]

Hmm... well... I can tell you this much, when I was in trouble and in dire need of comfort, it did not come from a supernatural source, but from *gasp* kind human beings around me (of every faith and non-faith). The human "heart" can be very passionate when it is moved. For some, religion moves it, for some religion only cause them to be greedy, and for some they are moved by the stories people have to tell, so all in all, humans can't always be trusted, but still they're the only ones able to give comfort.

 

Precisely

 

The only "gods" we can hope to have comfort from are ourselves.

I'm in agreement with you there, Varokhar; we make our own comfort. If one can draw comfort from an imaginary friend, one can just as well draw comfort from a used car lot. This is a ploy argument used by Christians; THEY have da' hawley sprite to draw from, and WE, teh sux0rz n00b 47hiztz, have NOTHING, or so they would like to believe. I deal with my own problems; I do not ask for help from an imaginary source. as tempting as it can be to go back to the Old Ways and pray, I find it more helpful to draw in a long, deep breath and focus my mind, to be aware of all factors in a situation, and keep my thoughts clear. This emptiness in myself is my comfort, my river of insight. When Christians lose their God, they lose everything.

[Legion]

I deal with my own problems; I do not ask for help from an imaginary source. as tempting as it can be to go back to the Old Ways and pray, I find it more helpful to draw in a long, deep breath and focus my mind, to be aware of all factors in a situation, and keep my thoughts clear. This emptiness in myself is my comfort, my river of insight.

Hell Trancelation, that is damn near poetic. Taoist poetry.

[Ouroboros]

Hi Amanda! I was wondering if you were still active or not. Good to see that you are.

 

Hi Hans! I haven't been keeping up with this thread entirely, yet I'd like to ask you to think of this idea. Perhaps this human "heart" is God, is the Christ nature. Maybe if "God" moves, it is through us. Could this recognition/emphasis and movement in this direction become known as the "holy spirit," just as there is a "patriotic spirit"? Most Christian "organized religion" may be the great harlot, yet I see spirituality as different, and can be applied to Atheist too. It's about emotions, empathy, empowerment, AND reason.

You mean that the emotions and intution people feel basically gave the foundation for the idea of "the gods moving us" and such? When the early humans started to feel and express emotions they didn't have an explanation, and the best one they came up with was an outer force making them feel such? That is very possible. (If that's what you mean.)

 

Sometimes I see the NT as the innovators to the Atheist movement we have come to know today (Madeline O'Hare). OT is a God out there that judges and punishes, while the NT brings God within us. No need to go to the temple to commune with God because God is inside us, the kingdom of God is within, ye too are gods, etc.

The "ye too are gods" is a very strange verse indeed, isn't it? Jesus said it, but few preach about it. Such heretic words out of their saviors mouth. Maybe you're right about the connection of Jesus and Buddhism you talked about last year or so.

[Amanda]

I deal with my own problems; I do not ask for help from an imaginary source. as tempting as it can be to go back to the Old Ways and pray, I find it more helpful to draw in a long, deep breath and focus my mind, to be aware of all factors in a situation, and keep my thoughts clear. This emptiness in myself is my comfort, my river of insight. When Christians lose their God, they lose everything.

Trancelation, one thing I find personally intriguing is how many ExChristians seem to struggle against going back to a prior religious belief they have found through reason, to be impossible and/or highly unlikely. My stay on this site has shaken a few foundations I use to stand upon, however, once I've seen the unreasonable nature of that belief, it seems impossible to consider going back there again. I would appreciate any insights.

 

quote]You mean that the emotions and intution people feel basically gave the foundation for the idea of "the gods moving us" and such? When the early humans started to feel and express emotions they didn't have an explanation, and the best one they came up with was an outer force making them feel such? That is very possible. (If that's what you mean.)

Hi HanSolo, I've missed you! I have to go out of town a lot now and do not have much access to the internet / ExC site.

 

Back on topic: Perhaps because of our evolution to a more stable envioronment, we had time to ponder 'higher' thoughts than were afforded us in the past. As our needs were met, we could consider things besides survival. This new stable position producing these thoughts extending us beyond selfish survival desires, might have been designated as "God" speaking to us. Depending on how one defines "God," maybe it was. Could we call 'God' that 'higher' calling in and from our own thoughts?

 

Still, 'OT God' was designated a position "out there somewhere." The NT brings "God" within us, to cultivate a thinking of it not robbery to be equal to God, as a way of orienting these 'inner' drives to empower self actualization. Spirituality and emotions seem similar, and what was emotionally uplifting brought us into heaven and what was emotionally distructive brought us into hell. Maybe this was the way our own 'God nature' guided us in the ways we must go?

 

The "ye too are gods" is a very strange verse indeed, isn't it? Jesus said it, but few preach about it. Such heretic words out of their saviors mouth. Maybe you're right about the connection of Jesus and Buddhism you talked about last year or so.

 

Jesus, IMO, would be considered Buddhist more than any other religion today. However, many ideas I've gotten from you and others here, I see where lots of mythology is intertwined in these teachings, but I don't think that was the case in these initial teachings. (Kind of like the St. Nicholas to Santa Claus scenario.) I've noticed on the History Channel there seems to be a lot of education on how people have reinterpreted these biblical teachings to accommodate their own agendas. It seems that rulers who demanded of us to believe/worship a certain way or be punished had a great influence on its progression to today.

[NotBlinded]

I deal with my own problems; I do not ask for help from an imaginary source. as tempting as it can be to go back to the Old Ways and pray, I find it more helpful to draw in a long, deep breath and focus my mind, to be aware of all factors in a situation, and keep my thoughts clear. This emptiness in myself is my comfort, my river of insight. When Christians lose their God, they lose everything.

I hope you don't take this wrong, but that is the very core of spirituality. It's not bogging one's mind down with religious nonsense, it's clearing the mind to find what is already inside you.

 

This is why I will say that Atheists, or non-fundamental people, are more spiritual than religious people.

 

This is where, IMO, God is to be found.

 

I hope I didn't offend you with that, I just find it so amazing that fundies of all flavors can't see this.

[NotBlinded]

I deal with my own problems; I do not ask for help from an imaginary source. as tempting as it can be to go back to the Old Ways and pray, I find it more helpful to draw in a long, deep breath and focus my mind, to be aware of all factors in a situation, and keep my thoughts clear. This emptiness in myself is my comfort, my river of insight.

Hell Trancelation, that is damn near poetic. Taoist poetry.

Indeed...

[Lycorth]

I hope you don't take this wrong, but that is the very core of spirituality. It's not bogging one's mind down with religious nonsense, it's clearing the mind to find what is already inside you.

 

This is why I will say that Atheists, or non-fundamental people, are more spiritual than religious people.

 

This is where, IMO, God is to be found.

 

I hope I didn't offend you with that, I just find it so amazing that fundies of all flavors can't see this.

 

You're damn skippy

 

True spirituality is found within, not dictated from without by dogmatic cults with sick-ass ideas. We are our own gods, and the dictators of our own spirituality. All religions must either serve to help guide and inspire us, or else be discarded.

 

On a side note, I hate when Jesus is likened to Buddhism. There isn't anything remotely Buddhist about that egomaniacal jerk.

[NotBlinded]

I hope you don't take this wrong, but that is the very core of spirituality. It's not bogging one's mind down with religious nonsense, it's clearing the mind to find what is already inside you.

 

This is why I will say that Atheists, or non-fundamental people, are more spiritual than religious people.

 

This is where, IMO, God is to be found.

 

I hope I didn't offend you with that, I just find it so amazing that fundies of all flavors can't see this.

 

You're damn skippy

 

True spirituality is found within, not dictated from without by dogmatic cults with sick-ass ideas. We are our own gods, and the dictators of our own spirituality. All religions must either serve to help guide and inspire us, or else be discarded.

 

On a side note, I hate when Jesus is likened to Buddhism. There isn't anything remotely Buddhist about that egomaniacal jerk.

Yep...you said that wonderfully.

 

I am really guilty of your side note! I really like to look at the parellels. But, I also think that what we have as being Jesus' words aren't necessarily the enitre truth. So, I disect them and try to see beyond the bullshit. It just doesn't make sense to me that an entire section has Jesus saying something profound and then the last words end up saying, "slay them before me".

 

If we had anything that he actually wrote of his own and those were his very own words, then I would probably feel the same. But, we have heresay so I feel I can do that without much worry. We know that many people put words in where they wanted to give a perspective that they wanted to achieve. I don't know...

[Lycorth]

Thanks, NBBTL

 

However...

 

It just doesn't make sense to me that an entire section has Jesus saying something profound and then the last words end up saying, "slay them before me".

 

What's so profound about that parable? It's a story about a greedy master who throws a tantrum because he didn't get as much money as he wanted from the efforts of his servant. Fits in perfectly with the idea of the greedy, tantrum-throwing god of the Babble.

[NotBlinded]

Thanks, NBBTL

 

However...

 

It just doesn't make sense to me that an entire section has Jesus saying something profound and then the last words end up saying, "slay them before me".

 

What's so profound about that parable? It's a story about a greedy master who throws a tantrum because he didn't get as much money as he wanted from the efforts of his servant. Fits in perfectly with the idea of the greedy, tantrum-throwing god of the Babble.

Nuh-uhhhhhh. :tongue:

 

We've discussed this before Varokhar...right here.

 

I just see it differently is all.

[Antlerman]

I must still say that I do find these principles in the NT quite beneficial, as I understand them from the manuscript from which the KJV was taken. People of those days, especially OT times, were not any where near as articulate as we are today, and to pass on morals/civility were by fables/myths.

But here's where I'll challenge this in a surprising twist. I think this will come 'round to where I promised Alice awhile ago I would talk about language, but never got back to it.

 

Is being articulate about these concepts the best method of communication? I tend to have a fairly reasonable command of language and try to put my thoughts and ideas into words to best communicate what is going on in my mind, but sometimes just a simple look at a painting, a voice singing simple notes, a smile, a touch, a smell, or even a single word can instantly impart meaning a thousand times over than a long exhaustive analysis can convey, and moreover on a much deeper and far reaching level.

 

Mythology is a vehicle, and like NB says so well (better than me I'll add), it is not the truth itself. But can we get rid of mythology? Should we?

 

First I don't think it's possible to get rid of it, and I'm not talking about stories of gods and legends. It's part of our language, how we communicate concepts. Our everyday, non-religious lives are saturated with mythologies. JFK, Watergate, Osama Bin Laden, Hollywood, etc are all complete systems of ideas that are heaped onto the symbols, layers of signs upon signs. All of these things impact how we perceive the world around us, and consequently the meaning we take from it.

 

The point I'm getting at is that it is probably true that mythology is a far more efficient vehicle of communication than science when it comes to imparting the experience and meaning of an idea. Again NB is right, that for many people they worship the language of the myth, calling the myth the truth itself.

 

I would agree that the whole experience of being human cannot be found in pure rational thought, though I'm sure one could counter that "irrationality" is ultimately very rational. Nonetheless, I don't think that we can experience the sunset through critical analysis, nor communicate that experience in the most effective way through a descriptive analysis. You really just experience the sunset, and the best way to communicate it is through descriptive metaphors expressing emotion, songs, poetry, music, tale stories of gods climbing the clouds in golden chariots, etc.

 

Is the story of the god climbing the clouds the truth, or a lie? Or is that not the correct question? Isn't the question, "what value is the story"? What is truth? Pure objectivity, or is it also subjective? (I know I owe a response to LR on this one). I say that "truth" is a word that means many things in application. People use it for subjective reality because it is first word that comes to mind because of the place it holds for them in their experience of the world. It is truth to them. So if the story of the god and the clouds has value to them, if it inspires an emotional and mental connection with the sunset, isn't it truth to them? The story therefore will then embody the reality of that experience and itself become truth for them. The story is true, to them.

 

Now of course the rational side of us will realize than in an objective reality, there is no such thing as gods riding clouds in chariots. And that is also truth. Our rational mind will be satisfied through exercising mental processes of critical analysis, pleased that we have a level head on our shoulders. Furthermore this added knowledge will become satisfying to us because it is useful knowledge to help us navigate our way through life. There is no need for us to change the flight paths of aircraft to avoid clouds in order to not hit one of these sky gods. We can use this objective analysis of the sunset to communicate a common truth to others that is useful to a society of many members.

 

But we also respond to the world through non-rational means. We can't know objective truth non-rationally, but we can experience meaning, or subjective truths through non-rational means. Is mythology rational? Depends. Is experiencing emotions?

 

That's all I'll say for now as I feel like I'm rambling and am off topic. There's a concept I'm trying to drive at, but its hard to put it in words so I just took advantage of what I read here as it led me to these thoughts... sorry about that...

[pug]

Amanda, with the broad brush, let's be clear:

 

Comparison of Buddhism with Christianity:

Since about 75% of American adults identify themselves as Christian and only 0.5% view themselves as Buddhist, it may be useful to compare Buddhism with the U.S.'s dominant religion.

 

We define as "Christian" any person or group who thoughtfully, sincerely, prayerfully regard themselves as Christian. This is the definition that pollsters and the census offices of many countries use. It includes as Christians the full range of faith groups who consider themselves to be Christians, including Assemblies of God members, Presbyterians, Roman Catholics, Southern Baptists, United Church members, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, etc. Many Christians have a much less inclusive definition of the term "Christian."

 

Beliefs not shared: Buddhists do not share most of the core beliefs of historical Christianity. These include: An original golden era in the Garden of Eden, and a subsequent fall of humanity.

Original sin shared by all present-day humans, derived from Adam and Eve.

A world-wide flood in the time of Adam, causing the greatest human genocide in history.

The need for a personal savior whose death enabled individual salvation.

A god-man savior who was born of a virgin, executed, resurrected and ascended to heaven.

Salvation achieved through good works, specific beliefs and/or sacraments.

Eternal life spent in either a heaven or hell after death.

Return of the savior to earth at some time in the future.

An end of the world as we know it in the near future.

 

Some shared beliefs: Buddhism and Christianity share some features: Ethic of Reciprocity: Buddhism, Christianity and all of the other major world religions share a basic rule of behavior which governs how they are to treat others. Two quotations from Buddhist texts which reflect this Ethic are: "...a state that is not pleasing or delightful to me, how could I inflict that upon another?" Samyutta NIkaya v. 353.

Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful." Udana-Varga 5:18.

This compares closely to Christianity's Golden Rule, which is seen in: "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them." Matthew 7:12.

"...and don't do what you hate...", Gospel of Thomas 6.

 

Life after death: Almost all religions teach that a person's personality continues after death. In fact, many religious historians believe that this belief was the prime reason that motivated people to originally create religions. Christianity and Buddhism are no exception. However, they conceive of life after death in very different forms: Buddhism teaches that humans are trapped in a repetitive cycle of birth, life, death and rebirth. One's goal is to escape from this cycle and reach Nirvana. The mind experiences complete freedom, liberation and non-attachment. Suffering ends because desire and craving -- the causes of suffering -- are no more.

Christianity has historically taught that everyone has only a single life on earth. After death, an eternal life awaits everyone: either in Heaven or Hell. There is no suffering in Heaven; only joy. Suffering is eternal without any hope of cessation for the inhabitants of Hell.

 

Themes of morality, justice, love: These themes are found through both the Buddha's teaching and the Hebrew and Christian Bible.

 

Beliefs shared by some Buddhist traditions and Christianity: In its original forms, Buddhism did not teach of the existence of transcendent, immanent, or any other type of God, Gods, Goddess, and/or Goddesses. However, many Buddhists -- particularly in Japan -- do believe in a pantheon of deities.

Some traditions within Buddhism believe in the power of prayer; others do not.

Some Buddhists believe in Miroku, the "future Buddha." They expect him to be reincarnated and spread Buddhism further.

 

http://www.religioustolerance.org/buddhism4.htm

[Ouroboros]

Pug, you made the mistake of comparing Buddhism with Christianity. There is a difference between what Jesus supposedly preached and what the Christians believe.

 

Jesus said, love your neighbor, and to tell you the truth I still have to see that happen. Egotism and greed is flourishing most in the country where the largest majority of Christians rule. Jesus said don't worry about tomorrow, he also said "do to other what you want them do to you" and so forth. But all in all, Christians believe more in what Paul said and follow his words instead of the words of the mythological Jesus. But you know there's one thing that Jesus said that no preacher teaches his congregation and reinforces in his own life and others, and that is that Jesus supposedly said that a true follower of him had to sell all his possessions and give to the poor. Have you done it yet?

 

The discussion Amanda and I have had on and off is that Jesus is more of a Buddhist teacher (not everything what Jesus supposedly said or did is that good though, some stuff in the Gospels are junk). And that those teachings are lost on the ones that call themselves followers.

 

Btw, in one of the stories about Buddha, he is resurrected too, dies, wakes up and then his spirit ascend to the sky. And when it comes to some of the other comparisons, it's odd that Christianity would put its identity as a religion in if another religion beliefs in a world flood or not. Basically, a "true" religion got to have a gross and evil flood created by a vengeful god before it can be considered true or even have teachings that can be followed. Do you understand what I'm saying? Of course the Jewish faith doesn't match Buddhism, but Jewish belief doesn't match Christian belief either. If the flood is a requirement for comparison of religions, then we can compare the old Summerian religions with Judaism and it's clear that the OT borrowed those stories from the older religions. Besides, not all Christians believe the Flood story to be literally true. Most American Evangelicals do, but there's many other versions of Christians in the world, and many don't take all the stories in the Bible as historical records.

[Amanda]

Thanks, NBBTL

 

However...

 

It just doesn't make sense to me that an entire section has Jesus saying something profound and then the last words end up saying, "slay them before me".

 

What's so profound about that parable? It's a story about a greedy master who throws a tantrum because he didn't get as much money as he wanted from the efforts of his servant. Fits in perfectly with the idea of the greedy, tantrum-throwing god of the Babble.

 

Varokhar, I can totally understand your position since the fundamentalist beliefs are the dominant associations to these teachings. It seems that strong parallels to such a literal mind-set, it is better to just throw these biblical teachings away and to start new somewhere else. There are plenty of other great teachings in other places. I happen to like Buddhism immensely, yet it is more difficult for me to work through mentally. However, I do think that in all fairness, it is important to understand that just as all people who drink liquor are not alcoholics, not all people who read these biblical teachings are fundamentalists.

 

My interpretation of the story you are referring in Luke 19 is about people who think that utopia is just going to fall down from the sky or something and think it is going to happen overnight (Luke 19:11). However, we are each given equal talents to interact with each other in a positive way to help each other, then there will be the compounding of these talents (rewards). Those that do nothing with these talents and just wait for the benefits to appear for no effort on their part will get no rewards. It's not to be mean, it's just the way life is. Giving is receiving. If we want utopia to manifest here, then it has to come out of our own efforts.

 

I'm in no way saying that people should worship these teachings. There are a lot of other resources to get wonderful principles to live life. I've benefited tremendously from people right here!

[Amanda]

 

Antlerman, I agree with you and NBBTB whole heartedly! I'm just not as articulate at expressing myself as you two.

 

I agree that there is a very significant place for symbolism, and what is interesting is that it seems to go to different depths for different people. You and NBBTB seem to be able to take it to far more meaningful levels deeper down than I can... but I'm working on that.

[Amanda]

Hi Pug!

 

Where this study differs from myself immensely is their resources for these teachings. IMO, sadly their biblical resources are this:

We define as "Christian" any person or group who thoughtfully, sincerely, prayerfully regard themselves as Christian. This is the definition that pollsters and the census offices of many countries use. It includes as Christians the full range of faith groups who consider themselves to be Christians, including Assemblies of God members, Presbyterians, Roman Catholics, Southern Baptists, United Church members, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, etc. Many Christians have a much less inclusive definition of the term "Christian."

If you would consider Joseph Campbell, who is an objective scholar on most ALL spiritual resources, interprets Buddhism here:

 

Now, I suppose one could say the prime, great example is the contrasts and affinities of Buddhism and Christianity. The idea of Buddha consciousness is that all beings are Buddha beings, and your whole function in meditation and everything else is to find that Buddha consciousness within and live out of that, instead of the interests of the eyes and ears. Do you understand what I mean?

 

Joseph Campbell says there might be a difference in:

Translate that into Christianity, that is finding the Christ in you. And it's exactly the same idea, and here they call it Christ consciousness; there they call it Buddha consciousness. Well, the figures that represent the two ideas are quite in contrast, in that the Buddhist imagery concentrates on the pacific aspect, you might say -- you know, having found peace within and serenity. Whereas the Christian, with Christ crucified, concentrates on the heroic attitude of living life which is tearing you apart, and finding the one within you, in the midst of the turmoil of the world.

 

However, Joseph Campbell even agrees that ultimately, these are the same thing.

You have that in Buddhism also, in the idea of the Bodhisattva -- the one who has found the eternal within himself, and recognizes it in the world. And so they have a beautiful term: joyful participation in the sorrows of the world. You accept the sorrows for yourself and for the world, in the realization of what the radiance is that a well lived life can bring forth out of this. These are the same things -- one in the active, you might say tragic, aspect, and the other in the serene, fulfilled aspect.

 

It seems to me, all spiritual teachings are very similar, not totally redundant, and in many ways compliment each other. I'd even include Atheist teachings in this too... such as Madeline O'Hare.

[Amanda]

and that is that Jesus supposedly said that a true follower of him had to sell all his possessions and give to the poor.

HanSolo, I agree with you on most of your post here... however, I understood this part differently. It seems this was about a very wealthy guy who came from a wealthy family and wanted to follow Jesus. Yes, he was told to sell all his things and give it all to the poor. I think this is because that particular person had come to identify his personal value by his monetary wealth and affluence. Just the thought of telling him to sell it all and give to the poor was a way to engage him to consider these foundations of living his own life. Just think about his inner "earthquake" of that very idea! :ohmy:

[Ouroboros]

Amanda, I was thinking of this verse:

 

Luke 14:25-35

25 Now large crowds were going along with Him; and He turned and said to them, 26 "If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple. 27 "Whoever does not carry his own cross and come after Me cannot be My disciple. 28 "For which one of you, when he wants to build a tower, does not first sit down and calculate the cost to see if he has enough to complete it? 29 "Otherwise, when he has laid a foundation and is not able to finish, all who observe it begin to ridicule him, 30 saying, `This man began to build and was not able to finish.' 31 "Or what king, when he sets out to meet another king in battle, will not first sit down and consider whether he is strong enough with ten thousand men to encounter the one coming against him with twenty thousand? 32 "Or else, while the other is still far away, he sends a delegation and asks for terms of peace. 33 "So then, none of you can be My disciple who does not give up all his own possessions. 34 "Therefore, salt is good; but if even salt has become tasteless, with what will it be seasoned? 35 "It is useless either for the soil or for the manure pile; it is thrown out. He who has ears to hear, let him hear."

 

And you have to hate your family too. Love your neighbor as yourself, but hate yourself and your family, doesn't this lead to that you should hate your neighbor as much as your hate yourself?

[Taphophilia]

Jesus thought it was so important to sell everything and forsake everything you have, that he says it not once but twice.

 

Yes, he was talking to the rich man in Luke 18, but before in Luke 14 when he was preaching to the multitude he tells them:

 

"33": So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple.

[NotBlinded]

I must still say that I do find these principles in the NT quite beneficial, as I understand them from the manuscript from which the KJV was taken. People of those days, especially OT times, were not any where near as articulate as we are today, and to pass on morals/civility were by fables/myths.

But here's where I'll challenge this in a surprising twist. I think this will come 'round to where I promised Alice awhile ago I would talk about language, but never got back to it.

 

Is being articulate about these concepts the best method of communication? I tend to have a fairly reasonable command of language and try to put my thoughts and ideas into words to best communicate what is going on in my mind, but sometimes just a simple look at a painting, a voice singing simple notes, a smile, a touch, a smell, or even a single word can instantly impart meaning a thousand times over than a long exhaustive analysis can convey, and moreover on a much deeper and far reaching level.

 

Mythology is a vehicle, and like NB says so well (better than me I'll add), it is not the truth itself. But can we get rid of mythology? Should we?

 

First I don't think it's possible to get rid of it, and I'm not talking about stories of gods and legends. It's part of our language, how we communicate concepts. Our everyday, non-religious lives are saturated with mythologies. JFK, Watergate, Osama Bin Laden, Hollywood, etc are all complete systems of ideas that are heaped onto the symbols, layers of signs upon signs. All of these things impact how we perceive the world around us, and consequently the meaning we take from it.

 

The point I'm getting at is that it is probably true that mythology is a far more efficient vehicle of communication than science when it comes to imparting the experience and meaning of an idea. Again NB is right, that for many people they worship the language of the myth, calling the myth the truth itself.

 

I would agree that the whole experience of being human cannot be found in pure rational thought, though I'm sure one could counter that "irrationality" is ultimately very rational. Nonetheless, I don't think that we can experience the sunset through critical analysis, nor communicate that experience in the most effective way through a descriptive analysis. You really just experience the sunset, and the best way to communicate it is through descriptive metaphors expressing emotion, songs, poetry, music, tale stories of gods climbing the clouds in golden chariots, etc.

 

Is the story of the god climbing the clouds the truth, or a lie? Or is that not the correct question? Isn't the question, "what value is the story"? What is truth? Pure objectivity, or is it also subjective? (I know I owe a response to LR on this one). I say that "truth" is a word that means many things in application. People use it for subjective reality because it is first word that comes to mind because of the place it holds for them in their experience of the world. It is truth to them. So if the story of the god and the clouds has value to them, if it inspires an emotional and mental connection with the sunset, isn't it truth to them? The story therefore will then embody the reality of that experience and itself become truth for them. The story is true, to them.

 

Now of course the rational side of us will realize than in an objective reality, there is no such thing as gods riding clouds in chariots. And that is also truth. Our rational mind will be satisfied through exercising mental processes of critical analysis, pleased that we have a level head on our shoulders. Furthermore this added knowledge will become satisfying to us because it is useful knowledge to help us navigate our way through life. There is no need for us to change the flight paths of aircraft to avoid clouds in order to not hit one of these sky gods. We can use this objective analysis of the sunset to communicate a common truth to others that is useful to a society of many members.

 

But we also respond to the world through non-rational means. We can't know objective truth non-rationally, but we can experience meaning, or subjective truths through non-rational means. Is mythology rational? Depends. Is experiencing emotions?

 

That's all I'll say for now as I feel like I'm rambling and am off topic. There's a concept I'm trying to drive at, but its hard to put it in words so I just took advantage of what I read here as it led me to these thoughts... sorry about that...

Antlerman, I have learned much from you.

 

Is it a truth or a lie? Indeed, it is both.

 

I sure wish you would write a book. Your words are beautiful.

[Lycorth]

My interpretation of the story you are referring in Luke 19 is about people who think that utopia is just going to fall down from the sky or something and think it is going to happen overnight (Luke 19:11). However, we are each given equal talents to interact with each other in a positive way to help each other, then there will be the compounding of these talents (rewards). Those that do nothing with these talents and just wait for the benefits to appear for no effort on their part will get no rewards. It's not to be mean, it's just the way life is. Giving is receiving. If we want utopia to manifest here, then it has to come out of our own efforts.

 

Yours is certainly the better and healthier interpretation, Amanda

 

Pity that hundreds of Xians sects over the two thousand years of Xianity's existence aren't content with interpreting the Babble in a peaceful, non-threatening way. All too many of those sects, while they would be fine with also citing an interpretation like yours, will also be quick to point out a more literal view, that being that Jebus wants us to serve him first and foremost, or else we'll pay for it in the end.

 

Especially with that little bit about "slaying" those who would not have Jebus reign over him at the end - if stuff like that weren't in the Babble, I'd have fewer objections to it.

 

Again, a shame that more Xian sects don't take your approach to the Babble, but I can see where it's hard for them to do so, when the damned book is written in such a fashion

 

And you have to hate your family too. Love your neighbor as yourself, but hate yourself and your family, doesn't this lead to that you should hate your neighbor as much as your hate yourself?

 

Well-put

 

Jebus plainly says that, if we want to be worthy of him, we have to hate everything and everyone else but him, sell all our possessions, and devote our lives exclusively to the promotion of the Xian religion. People can intrepret this metaphorically and cause relatively little harm to themselves (depending on if they interpret the whole of it in a non-literal way or not), but anything else than complete metaphor is either cherry-picking at best or ascribing to an insane and self-repressive idea at worst.

 

Things like that are why literalism in Xianity must go (next best thing to the entire religion being done away with )