Guest Tyciol Posted May 18, 2009 Share Posted May 18, 2009 I know that perhaps this may fly in the face of what the theme here is, but in terms of turning to other spiritualities (I am not sure if this requires something supernatural or if it also involves more philosophically oriented things such as buddhism) could it not also include things which might be termed `christianity` by some, but not so by most christians perhaps... Like I had thought it odd for so long that people seemed to have specific criteria about what it was, it brings up a `no true Scotsman` sort of image, if that is the appropriate phrase. When looking at it, to me it seems that it only means someone who follows the beliefs of Jesus (annointed, christ, messiah, all synonyms). Actually since Christ is the root of the word and not Jesus (otherwise it would be Jesusian or something) then it could refer to many of the other messiahnic characters of the times, but for simplicity`s sake, let`s say I limit it to Jesus. The thing about following Jesus is that due to different interpretations of the bible, people are not in full agreement about the exact wording of what was said, or what was intended by it. Furthermore, there are many people who add or subtract things (Mormons add books, Gnostics or whatever they`re called include books that the Catholic church excluded from inclusion into the bible, some people believe some things are metaphors whereas other parts are literal). My view, moreso, as an agnostic-atheist, is that I can be a christian too, because I am following the teachings of Jesus. The exception is that I am not following ALL of them. A disciple is someone who has learned from someone else. While traditionally we use the word to imply someone who has learned directly, more broadly we can apply it to anyone who has learned from the stories or teachings of somebody. If I only take a few teachings (like it being a good idea to not cast stones hypocritically, feed and heal people who need it, and make friends with prostitutes) then isn`t that enough to be a disciple of Jesus, and thus consider yourself a Christian... Whenever I talk to christians about this they deny this and say people who believe like this should be excluded from the label, but I do not view that with much authority. The reason for this is because many christians (just as with many religions) believe they have the authority to exclude many sects which have branched off with differences of opinion over things. I do not think all buddhists take everything in those writings to be true, yet they are considered buddhist for following Siddharta`s path, so I do not see why the same cannot apply to Christians. I think the main difference here is a difference in culture and acceptance and persecution of others infringing upon territory. This is not to say that there were not moments where a `true buddhism` persecuted others` rights to claim to be Buddhist (I am sure even this has gone through phases like that throughout history) but just moreso in the modern incarnation in western culture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vomit Comet Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 Oh, there's plenty of liberal/mainline denominations out there who would happily consider you one of the fold. They're dwindling fast, but that's beside the point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skankboy Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 I do not think all buddhists take everything in those writings to be true, yet they are considered buddhist for following Siddharta`s path, so I do not see why the same cannot apply to Christians. I think the main difference here is a difference in culture and acceptance and persecution of others infringing upon territory. This is not to say that there were not moments where a `true buddhism` persecuted others` rights to claim to be Buddhist (I am sure even this has gone through phases like that throughout history) but just moreso in the modern incarnation in western culture. While I agree with you in principle, I would say the biggest difference is that the bible claims to provide absolute truth (whether or not people actually follow it that way) whilst Buddha emphasized the "truth" of the individual. As such, again in my opinion, the "cherry picking" option in Buddhism is a lot more valid than taking this same approach with Christianity. Now, if you wish to follow the teaching of Jesus as a philosophical outlook, I can certainly see that, but don't be surprised when the "not a true christian" card gets played alot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hereticzero Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 How do you know which teachings of Jesus are true and which are made up by the church? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev R Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 This is not to say that there were not moments where a `true buddhism` persecuted others` rights to claim to be Buddhist (I am sure even this has gone through phases like that throughout history) but just moreso in the modern incarnation in western culture. Though there was some Buddhist on Buddhist violence in Japan's middle ages, the vast majority of sectarian rows took (take) place on the debate platform or through letters and lectures. After that Skankboy is spot on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwc Posted May 21, 2009 Share Posted May 21, 2009 Like I had thought it odd for so long that people seemed to have specific criteria about what it was, it brings up a `no true Scotsman` sort of image, if that is the appropriate phrase. When looking at it, to me it seems that it only means someone who follows the beliefs of Jesus (annointed, christ, messiah, all synonyms). Actually since Christ is the root of the word and not Jesus (otherwise it would be Jesusian or something) then it could refer to many of the other messiahnic characters of the times, but for simplicity`s sake, let`s say I limit it to Jesus. So you don't wish to follow "jesus" but only to be a xian but in order to simplify the definition of xian you'll limit it to mean "jesus." Therefore you've equated "jesus" and "xian." And so what is it that you have done that is different that other sects beyond rationalize your circular reasoning? If I only take a few teachings (like it being a good idea to not cast stones hypocritically, feed and heal people who need it, and make friends with prostitutes) then isn`t that enough to be a disciple of Jesus, and thus consider yourself a Christian... You also wish to cherry pick from the gospels. so I do not see why the same cannot apply to Christians. I think the main difference here is a difference in culture and acceptance and persecution of others infringing upon territory. And you're upset that xians do not recognize your particular version of the religion. And you wish to call yourself a "Christian" why? It holds what value for you have that label? If the xians that have that label apparently do not hold the same values that you do then how are you really a xian? You must be something different? Why must you try to wrestly the label away from them? You must have a reason for wanting that label attached to yourself as well. You even went so far as to apply circular reasoning so that you could maintain the label. The problem seems more to do with you than with them. Figure out what that is and I think you'll be okay. mwc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts