Your Religion/WorldView

[ConGregation]

EXCELLENT POST Chief! You have a grasp on a lot of things. I am going to try to respond with my ideas to yours.

 

The teachings of Chirst explicitly warn of the errors of having a Church and the writs of man interfering with the word of God.

Yes! It is the danger of religion! And why I try to distinguish myself from "organized religion" and more toward personal experience along with "organized fellowship of believers"

 

 

All Christians have have a bible with the Old Testament and New Testament, but probably couldn't name the books of the Old Testament

 

I could We actually teach the OT to our kids and glean a lot from it's teachings.

 

let alone live by the word. Christ lived by the Old Testament as a Jew. He added to it with the New. Which wasn't put to writing and collected for a number of generations

The New Testament ushered in a new era. If you really study it, the NT superceded the OT and now we live in the time of grace. The OT is the "Law". Do this, do that, dont do this, dont do that and if you messed up you were messed up. The New Testament is "Grace". Do this, do that, dont do this, dont do that but if you messed up there was still grace for you. And we do it now not out of fear but out of love because of the awesome love He showed to us in instuting this grace (the cross). So we dont follow the Levitical Law. But there is truths present in the OT that can apply to today. It is still the same God and he changes not.

 

Not all of the books are present, none of them are studied in the original text with an understanding of the original words. The meaning AND the content are different. Your faith is necessarily dependent on the translation and preservation of the word of God as interpreted and colated by man hundreds of years after his time with man. And revised for a millenium by the Catholic church to suit its tastes and power struggles.

 

Here is where I seperate myself from scholars to some degree and approach it with faith. You are correct, the originals are no longer. The translations of the Bible have been done many times and through many languages, most of which are "dead" languages. The very idea that they were perfectly translated would be ludicrous. BUT... God promised that He would "Preserve His Word unto all generations". So I feel that God has preserved the Bible for us today.

 

But you bring up the interesting point of corrupted translations. This really happened. A textual study would produce two very basic viewpoints. "Alexandrian Text" vs the "Majority Text". I am strongly of the opinion that the majority text is the true line of the Bible. This is where the "Textus Receptus" came from and thus the "King James Version". So I stick to the KJV. I even take it a step farther but that is not for this discussion So I believe that God has preserved the Bible for us today.

 

To deny Judaism as a spirtual experience, or Catholics as a spiritual following isn't what you meant to say. But those words came out by saying that Christianity is a spritual experience and different than Catholicism. Catholics are Christians by definition

Of course I never meant to say that Catholic's cant have a spiritual experience. But I would still feel that if a Catholic tried to have a spiritual experience with Christ they cant do it by following the teachings of the Catholic Church. But rather the teachings of the Bible. And Catholics are christian by definition (or label) of the world. Its really semantics. Like I said before. I dont think we should label groups as christian but rather individuals.

 

Protestants were formed through the Reformation in order to begin to return the teachings of Christ to the populace. Since then the Baptist Church has grown into an organization of its own.

 

One thing I would like to clarify. Baptists are not really Protestants. This is a common misconception. The Protestant "religions" all came "out" of the Cathlic church during the Reformation. Baptists can trace their lineage to the Anna-Baptists. And the Anna-Baptists were never a part of the Roman Catholic Church. But rather a small seperatist group that faced many years of persecution. It is a rather small point but one many Baptists take pride in

 

All religious truths are in the experience. Until the end, words will only bring distance. Doctrine and dogma are the curse of every organized religion. And words are the root of all distinction. There is one universe that has borne one existence. There are many interpretations and understandings of that world. Language brings us together and keeps us apart.

 

Some very deep thoughts in there. I would agree about the Doctrine and dogma. Personally I attend a "local" church that answers to no big denomination located in Timbuctoo (sp?). We are a congregationalist church that is totally autonomous and subject to no higher power except Christ Himself. So that eliminates a lot of the problems inherant with "Organized religion"

[Gunman]

Nice post Rev, made me think about alot of stuff. I have never been religious, at all. I believe in God, and I think that is enough for me. Dont get me wrong, I was just never raised in a religious atmosphere.

 

Just my .75912415 of a cent...

 

Gunny

[Chief]

NOFX, you sound like an existential atheist, perhaps. Buddhism is a great fit. Nice practical approach to organizing and rationalizing the world and finding peace with the way things are. However, some practicing Buddhists do believe in an "afterlife," some do not. When I was in over in Indonesia I had a chance to visit the Borubudor Temple in Yogya. That was quite a mind full after reading and studying a bit about Gotama.

 

***

 

Bit of a contradiction, and one of the problems that comes from putting these thoughts and beliefs into words:

 

...you guys got everything wrong.

VS.

 

It just seems that ppl dont respect other ppl's believe when they try to get people to convert. Escepially when noone is no more right than the other

 

I agree to an extent. Freedom of Religion should not only mean freedom to practice the religion (or absence thereof) of your choice, but the freedom from judgement by those who mission.

 

Live a good life. Let others live a good life, too. That's America in spirit, though not always in practice.

 

Chief

[Chief]

Some very deep thoughts in there.

Ditto. It is very tricky putting these things into words. There has to be a bond of common experience for the fundamental level of understanding that is so difficult to capture in words alone. Whether it's Buddhism, Catholocism or Jainism. Taoist, atheist, or Hindu. Mormon, Muslim, or Jew. We are all living in the same world but have so many different perspectives.

 

It saddens me that these differences lead to hate, but far from the fringe, at the core where each world view is isolated from contact with others and free from the entrenched mentality that feels it must attack others to feel secure with one's own belief, there is a beauty in nature that everyone must acknowledge. The world is amazing. Too bad we all can't enjoy it without the problems that come from the spoken word.

 

Chief

[NOFX]

yes, there was a bit of contradiction. but when I said you got everything wrong. I didnt mean your belief was wrong. I only meant that "if you think buddhist can go to heaven" then your just being closed minded and it seems that your only thinking for yourself. I merely meant open your eyes and look at the whole situation from a buddhist point of view.

[Hambone]

Buddhism does believe in afterlife. The afterlife is what you try and avoid, in all forms of Buddhism. Nirvana, exctinction, is your goal. Afterlife (rebirth) is prolonged suffering in the wheel of Samsara. "Buddhists can go to heaven" lacks understanding of Buddhist fundamentals.

[Chief]

Rebirth is not necessarily to be avoided in all forms of Buddhism. In Mahayana Buddhism, part of the grieving process is intended to help the deceased in their rebirth. Rather than "ending" or "extinction" the general goal is to progress through the bodhisattva path. Moving through the realms by following the Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path. blah blah blah, the goal is to better oneself. This can happen over many life times.

 

Again, it largely depends on your interpretation and the teachings that you follow.

 

Tibetan Buddhists, for example, have as their leader the Nobel Prize winning Dahlai Lama as their spiritual leader. His Holiness the Dalai Lama was recognised at the age of two as the reincarnation of his predecessor the 13th Dalai Lama.

 

Nirvana may more easily be thought of as "cessation" or more literally "windlessness" since it seems to be easier for Westerners to grasp the concept.

 

That Buddhists cannot or do not go to heaven lacks understanding of some views of Heaven and some forms of Buddhism. Heaven does not have to be a Hollywood set with people walking around signing you in...It can more simply be seen as Everything without the shackles of human existence to limit us. Some might call it the Way or Tao. Nirvana. Heaven. In physics energy is neither created nor destroyed--for some you might just call it energy. Regardless, as Kenneth Burke said, the universe most obviously exists and we experience it...

 

You're getting caught up in words and what you're afraid Heaven is or isn't. Putting words on this stuff only makes it harder because you end up presupposing things. In the mean time, read more about Buddhism and then start on another major religion. There are consistencies that stand up to science and your personal experience. Find them. But be open about it. There are more Buddhist fundamentals that you need to find before you move on though.

 

Chief

[Hambone]

The ultimate goal of Buddhism is to end the cycle of rebirth. The general goal is not always the bodhissatva (pardon the spelling) path either. Heaven is typically a reward for the soul, and Buddhism denies the soul, atman, whatever name you want to attach to it. There is no personal identity, we are all simply transient bundles of energy which are doomed to seperate and reform until the cycle can be broken. Gods aren't even worshipped, they are simply beings that have not attained Nirvana yet. The Buddhist concept of Nirvana is not analogous to Heaven.

[Chief]

Heaven doesn't have to have anything to do with a god, God, or gods as you're thinking of them. Angels and all that.

 

The totality of the universe, things that are , that can be seen as heaven. The energy that is Chief or Hambone will persist after our physical being ends. Typically, western beliefs tend to have this energy going to either heaven or hell at death. And tend to think of heaven and hell as portrayed in paintings...as a place. With people, and angels, and God. Or demons, tortured souls, and Hell.

 

Buddhists tend to think of this energy as continuing on in a long path from one life to another. Elevating the satus of this energy and gaining freedom from the cycle of rebirth and prolonged suffering has the ultimate goal of breaking from the cycle. The energy, in freeing itself joins the totality of the universe in a windless state free from desire, suffering or change. It simply is , and is a part of the universe...as the universe. Which can be seen as quite similar to the original views of what heaven is when you don't include the conceptions of heaven as a 16th century painting.

 

It is also quite consistent with the Taoist view of the way , and other views. There are differences, yes. But when you look at the sum or world views and religions there are more similarities than differences. The differences tend to be caused by differences of understanding and the words used to describe the perspectives rather than an irreconcilable difference rooted in fundamental beliefs.

 

Everything that you said about Buddhism, Hammy, is correct. I do not deny that. But I think that if you step back and look at the spirit of the words rather than focusing on the words themselves and presupposing differences you will find a world of similarities in the intent of each of these lessons. And at that point, I think that you will find there are more similarities between Nirvana and heaven than you see.

 

It is based on these similarities that there are councils of religous leaders studying the commonalities of faiths, philosophies, and religions. I see these commonalities and find peace in the generalities that point to more truth than the particulars. The experience over the words. Dogma will not set you free in Buddhism anymore than going to church regularly will gain you admittance to Heaven in Catholocism. I mean, soldiers who don't get the last rights? Tribesmen on an island go to hell? Christians don't find peace and salvation? Muslims are condemned? No way, they all give the same basic message and rules for living a life that is alliance with the way things are.

 

Those are my beliefs anyway. I see truth in all of them. I try to look past the difference in the words and see what the message is. Mostly they're all the same. And I do see them as largely analogous.

[Hambone]

Touché. All I know about Buddhism I learned in my Religions class, so it's somewhat limited. I bow to your knowledge, but I still disagree.

 

 

Sucka.

[Chief]

Bah, disagreement's a healthy thing. If people didn't disagree, we'd still be paying the king taxes and selling people as commodities.

 

Now recite 220 Om mani padme hums...

 

http://www.dharma-haven.org has some interesting stuff about Buddhism that just rambles on and on with some intersting stories and interpretations. From this site here's a thing about the mantra above:

 

Gen Rinpoche, in his commentary on the Meaning of  said:  

 

"The mantra Om Mani Pädme Hum is easy to say yet quite powerful,

because it contains the essence of the entire teaching. When you say

the first syllable Om it is blessed to help you achieve perfection in the

practice of generosity, Ma helps perfect the practice of pure ethics,

and Ni helps achieve perfection in the practice of tolerance and

patience. Päd, the fourth syllable, helps to achieve perfection of perseverance, Me helps achieve perfection in the practice of concentration, and the final sixth syllable Hum helps achieve perfection in the practice of wisdom.

 

So in this way recitation of the mantra helps achieve perfection in the six practices from generosity to wisdom. The path of these six perfections is the path walked by all the Buddhas of the three times. What could then be more meaningful than to say the mantra and accomplish the six perfections?"

http://www.dharma-haven.org/tibetan/meanin...-padme-hung.htm

 

 

Chief

[Guest ZDamage]

Awesome thread. Read through the whole thing. Great job on the info there chiefster. Good stuff.

[Xterminator]

i'll have to take some time outta my day to read it but eventually i will

[Guest InSaNiTy]

Very good read.

[dwEEziL]

Ok, when you get in to other belief systems outside the Judeo-Christian realm, I am lost...so I will not even try to comment there.

 

Now as for the term "Christian", in the general sense, I feel and belief system that has Jesus Christ as their only or main focus of...whatever you want to call it...worship, salvation, etc...can be labeled "Christian". That is how I feel in "general" terms. But the beginning of the term "christian" was a derision from the Pharisees shortly after Christs death, burial, and resurrection that was meant to make fun of the followers of Christ. It means "little Christ". Well, the early believers of the day wore this as a badge of honor, meaning they were clearly seen as followers of Christ by their action and deeds.

 

So, agreeing with Congregation (psst, btw...I prefer NASB), to be called a "Christian" in the original sense of the term, one has to be living a Christ-centric life, purposing to do and act as Christ would if He still walked physically on the earth. One does not act this way because of a "religion". This comes form a deep, personal relationship with Jesus Christ.

[[VI]ROosTEr]

Yeah, religions muddle up the fundamentals in a lot of ways. I pretty much read the Bible, and try not to screw it up too bad.

[Sgt.St3d4nk0]

I talked to an old chiropractor I know from the hills of kentucky.Hes a very religious man and preaches to me when i deliver his mail.hehe.I told him i had met some christians who didnt think catholics were christians.He gave me a funny look and said

"You go into our churches and look up on the wall and see who is there(Jesus).And then go into their churches and look up on the wall and see who is there(Jesus)"

 

I didnt need any further understanding.

[dwEEziL]

Well, again, that argument was more related to "what makes a person a christian". In general terms, I would definitely classify the Catholic belief as Christian (as I said above)

[Playaa]

you haven't met me sted....and if you had you'd have understood what I was saying......like I tried to explain....but apparently you want to hold a grudge, so have fun with that.

[Sgt.St3d4nk0]

you haven't met me sted....and if you had you'd have understood what I was saying......like I tried to explain....but apparently you want to hold a grudge, so have fun with that.

Heh Playaa.Your right I havent met you.I understand you have an opinion that you are free to express.Just like me.I dont hold a grudge to ya.Nor am I having fun with it.I was just sharing a talk I had with someone.And as a Christian I hope you can take your catholics brothers hand someday and accept him as gods children too.I feel its a shame some christians do not like catholics or feel they are not christian.And I feel like its not very christian like of them.

[Playaa]

alright, let me sum up my opinion on this matter. I take away my previous statements and say that I do not believe 90% of the catholics in my town are Christians. Any catholic that professes faith in Jesus Christ is a Christian in my book.

w00t?

[ShadowCaster]

Hmm......I'll say my stuff and then get in trouble. Aight here's how I see it. Catholics can be Christians but a vast majority(At least from the one's in my town) use it like a crutch. They use it to sin and feel good about doing what ever they just want to do. Cause if they can just go to a preist and be forgiven then why worry about it? There seems to not be a large emphasis strictly on "We believe in Christ and wish to follow His teachings". Seems more focused on the rituals and stuff. A lot of Catholics treat it like a job or something seem required to do it and treat it like part of the routine, I mean don't get me wrong the protestant church also does this with their Sunday and Wednesday services sometimes. But not to the same extent usually.

 

The focus on Mary and the Saints are somewhat offensive to me also. Because our ONLY worship should be directed toward Christ. And also, I'm a saint according to the Bible, so why don't people treat me the same as those saints?

 

Now I do believe some Catholics are super on fire for Christ. And I know some that are. I also think that a lot of protestants aren't truly Christians either. A true Christian can't be determined by denomination and in some instances not even by their words and actions. A true Christian is made from the heart and the trust and belief in Christ and the willingness to follow Him in every way possible. So that's why I can decided in my mind whether I think a person is a Christian but I try not to trust in it with all my heart, because I can't see theirs.

 

Also, Christ is the only way to heaven. If you aren't following Christ, you are going to burn in Hell for eternity. I know a lot of people say that's intolerant, A good God wouldn't do that, blah blah blah. But here's the bottom line...Christ said "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." John 14:6-7 NIV

No if, and, or buts. The truth is the truth, whether you believe it is or not. Also the Bible is the story of history/future and life. I have read the beginning, most of the middle, and the end. Guess what!!! We win!!!!! Isn't it better to be on the side that wins?

Edited May 2, 2003 by ShadowCaster