Attention Gene [Archive] - Kung Fu Magazine Forums

Christopher M

06-07-2003, 10:43 AM

Originally posted by Ben Gash
There really isn't a huge deal of difference (as they are the same God).

IMHO, the difference is night and day.

BTW, there are Christian sects who explicitly state the god of the old testament is not the god of the new testament. However, regardless of literal identification to a godhead, ones conception of God is more truly defined by ones conception of their relationship with God; and in this sense, as the Christian relationship is fundamentally different, one could argue: so to is their god.

Indeed, as Jesus said, "I have not come to replace the law, but fulfill it". The Christian viewpoint is far more about the spirit of the law than the letter of the law, but it's still the same law (See Matthew chapter 5).

Then again, "Therefore, my brethren, you also are become dead to the law, by the body of Christ" (Romans 7:4). Jesus' "fulfillment" of the law fundamentally changes it; it is based upon a conception of the law as inherently flawed, as it is the law itself which introduces sin and which thus seperates man from God; thus the "fulfillment" of the law is like the filling in of this existential gap; the law is "fulfilled" in that it is no longer a relationship by which man can refer to God by his actions, but that man and God are one - the law is taken to it's ultimate conclusion, thus fulfilled; but also changed radically. For a thorough look at this topic, see these sources "against judaizers" (http://gnosia.tripod.com/stpaul.html#judaizers).

Indeed, the whole principle of the crucifixion is an elaboration on the "sin offering" requirements in Leviticus and Numbers.

Christianity can have occurred within the Jewish cultural context yet still become quite different from it, of course.

One of the ideas here is that, as it was Jesus' sacrifice which ended the old covenant, and it is the old covenant which defines the rules for sacrifice you mentioned, then Jesus' life (up to and including his sacrifice) must take the form of embodying the old covenant; thus, indeed, Jesus' crucifiction is the ultimate "sin offering" in the old testament sense.

Ben Gash

06-07-2003, 11:32 AM

"law itself which introduces sin"
Not so. Adam sinned, as did Cain, as did most of the characters in Genesis, and the law didn't come into being until the end of Exodus. Sin doesn't exist because of the law, law exists because of sin. Indeed, the Hebrew word that is usually translated as law is probably better translated as teacher or teaching. As Romans says "without the law, I did not know what sin was".
It is true that the Christian relationship with God is a far more personal relationship than the Jewish relationship, but this is far more of a theology vs faith issue, as discussed in Galatians. it must be assumed that God always intended for this type of personal relationship. Indeed, in the old testament David is an illustration of exactly this type of relationship. However, through the years the letter of the law and theological debate became more important to the priesthood than the relationship with God. This exact same phenomena can be seen in many Christian churhes today, a joyless, unforgiven, excessively legalist, spiritually dead congregation.
I agree that Judaising is a bad thing (as it says in Galatians), and it really upsets me when I see Christians not eating pork, or observing Shabbat, or other things in this vein.
I also agree that slavish observation of the law is missing the point. For none is saved by the law, it is by faith alone that we are saved. However, we must also strive to avoid sin. How are we to do this without guidance from the law? However, with the new covenant and the closer relationship with God we realise that it is the spirit of the law that is more important than following it to the letter. Matthew 5 provides several examples of how the law can be followed to the letter, but the spirit of the law is not followed. Jesus clarified this situation best when he said that the most important commandments were "Love God with all your heart, and love your neighbour as yourself. Through these commandments all others are met."
As for God's nature becoming more forgiving? He forgave Jonah for running from him, he forgave Job for doubting him, he forgave David murder and adultery, and he forgave the entire nation of Israel time and again for turning from him and slipping into idolatry. Don't forget, "The wages of sin are death" is a New Testament quote.

Christopher M

06-07-2003, 12:04 PM

Originally posted by Ben Gash
"law itself which introduces sin" Not so.

What I'm referring to here is:

"What shall we say, then? Is the law sin? God forbid. But I do not know sin, but by the law; for I had not known concupiscence, if the law did not say: Thou shalt not covet. But sin taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead. And I lived some time without the law. But when the commandment came, sin revived, And I died. And the commandment that was ordained to life, the same was found to be unto death to me. For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, seduced me, and by it killed me. " [Romans 7:7-11]

As Romans says "without the law, I did not know what sin was".

That's right, as mentioned above. But read the rest of Romans. He goes on to say that so long as the law lives in him, so also does sin, and thus he is truly dead. But through Christ it is not the law that lives in him, but grace, which banishes sin eternally and completely. Once again, he "does not know what sin is," but this is a good thing.

It is true that the Christian relationship with God is a far more personal relationship than the Jewish relationship

I agree. However, I meant to be referring to: that thew Jewish relationship is defined by the law, and the Christian relationship is defined by grace.

I agree that Judaising is a bad thing, and it really upsets me when I see Christians not eating pork, or observing Shabbat, or other things in this vein.

Is it any less upsetting then, when you see a Christian believing that we are under, through God, the 10 Commandments; or that it is through the Mosaic Law which we are saved from sin, which is alive in us?

However, we must also strive to avoid sin. How are we to do this without guidance from the law?

Is there no guidance for you in Christian scripture, rather than Jewish?

And is there truly guidance for you in the law? You've, in this very post, allready rejected some aspects of it. Do you mean, then, that you're going to pick and choose which parts suit you?

Of course, there's nothing wrong with getting some guidance from the Mosaic Law; just as there's nothing wrong with getting some guidance from the Upanishads, the Enneads, or Lieh-Tzu.

What is wrong (all from the Christian POV of course) is to believe that the Mosaic Law (or the Upanishads, Enneads, or anything else) are God's commandments to us; that we are under the Mosaic Law through God. This simply is contrary to the Christian conception.

Surely, find wisdom in these sources. But don't turn to them to understand your relationship with God; if you're a Christian.

With respect to that, we find that it is not the Christian conception to "avoid sin", but rather to realize that it does not exist. You can find ample elaborations on this in the life of Jesus; both on a shallow level concerning his association with the sinfull elements of life (up to and including the devil himself), and on a deep level concerning his not-avoidance of incarnation and crucifiction. You can find more examples and a complete theoretical position on this in Paul's writings, as allready mentioned.

However, with the new covenant and the closer relationship with God we realise that it is the spirit of the law that is more important than following it to the letter.

No we don't. We realize that the law is dead. This is expressed in no uncertain terms in my original reference: "you also are become dead to the law" [Rom 7:4]. And I provided links with plenty of discussion by theologians on this point.

Jesus clarified this situation best when he said that the most important commandments were "Love God with all your heart, and love your neighbour as yourself. Through these commandments all others are met."

Only, these aren't "the most important commandments", these aren't any of the commandments at all. And this is following Jesus himself going through the 10 commandments and explaining how they are inadequate.

Don't forget, "The wages of sin are death" is a New Testament quote.

Yes, it's Romans 6:23 and it leads into Paul's discussion of how the law gives birth to sin, and thus why, through grace and Christ, we are dead to both; thus, dead to death is reborn eternally. In other words, you have to read, say, Romans 5 and 7 if you want to understand what he's saying in Romans 6. ;)

Christopher M

06-07-2003, 12:20 PM

Er... I'm realizing now that you're probably a Protestant. Returning to your original claims regarding the similarity of Judaism and Christianity, I'd agree they're true of Judaism and Protestantism; but we have to remember that Protestantism evolved from "Traditional" Christianity... and that the similarities you're seeing between Protestantism and Judaism aren't present between "Traditional" Christianity and Judaism; which makes your original argument more complicated, but still questionable.

Ben Gash

06-07-2003, 12:23 PM

"Christian believing that we are under, through God, the 10 Commandments;"
Do not all but one (maybe 2) come quite neatly under the sins of the flesh defined in Galations.
Anyway, the point here was not to discuss the validity of the old testament in the Christian teaching, but the nature of God throughout the bible.

Ben Gash

06-07-2003, 12:23 PM

I'm a charismatic, why?

Christopher M

06-07-2003, 12:27 PM

Originally posted by Ben Gash
I'm a charismatic, why?

Only that I was arguing from the POV of "Traditional" Christianity (by which I mean the various Catholic and Orthodox churches). There are some key differences of belief between them and the Protestant churches, and we've been touching on them.

While what you're saying may make sense from the Protestant POV, it doesn't from the Catholic/Orthodox POV. In this sense, the similarities you are seeing between "Christianity" and Judaism are fairly new, rather than being constitutive of/fundamental to the history of Christianity.

Ben Gash

06-07-2003, 12:28 PM

Again, we're into theology vs faith:(

Christopher M

06-07-2003, 12:41 PM

What do you mean?

Ben Gash

06-07-2003, 12:45 PM

meaning all I really care is that you believe and you're saved :)

ZIM

06-07-2003, 01:27 PM

The Buddha was Faustian, Jesus was Promethean...all your base is belong to us! ;) Theology is nothing...literature is ALL! Obey your thirst, etc. :D

Why ask why?

Christopher M

06-07-2003, 02:04 PM

Originally posted by Ben Gash
meaning all I really care is that you believe and you're saved :)

Ah, well, that's certainly fair enough.

It's just a different sort of thing than academic discussion regarding differences/similarities between religions, eh?

As "devil's advocate", pardon the expression, I might suggest that "theology" is none other than an in-depth exploration of what you believe, and thus the distinction you're making between theology and faith doesn't truly exist.

I mean that faith shouldn't be like stamping your time card. Christian salvation shouldn't be concieved of as checking off the "Believes in Christ" box on your personality profile and leaving it at that. Rather, faith (paradoxically?) should be a continue struggle to understand and improve upon your relationship with God and Man. This is embodied in the much-maligned Moslem idea of "jihad" as well as the similar Orthodox concept of "spiritual warfare" and "constant conversion."

If you "believe in Christ", what does that mean? Are those words enough? Is "Christ" just a string of letters or sounds to which you apply belief in order to be saved? Or is it a specific concept? And if it's a specific concept, how are you sure that your belief is in that concept, and not in a production of your mind and society which you have labelled with this term (this, and not a use of statues or paintings, is the true meaning of idolatry)? If you are "saved" by "believing in Christ", and you're interested in salvation, then from the above it clearly follows one should deeply investigate the specifics of their beliefs and the specifics of what "Christ" means. All of a sudden, the differences which once were easy to dismiss as "theology" become crucially important.

Former castleva

06-07-2003, 02:05 PM

"Theology is nothing...literature is ALL! Obey your thirst, etc. "

Ha,ha,ha. :D
It should have been "is everything...".
That might be worth a signature.

ZIM

06-07-2003, 02:32 PM

Huh. I thought the initial part made more sense.

I mean: Faust wanted the power of a god, to experience that, but to do so he was extinguished in the process... the Buddha OTOH sort of short-circuits that archetype... he says: by Being, by being extinguished, one gains the power of a god.... but not if you "want" that. ;) :cool:

The twist on the Prometheus story is something you can work out on your own...'this is left as an exercise for the reader..." [little textbook joke there]

Ben Gash

06-07-2003, 02:57 PM

You know Chris, you're the most enlightened Catholic I've spoken to in quite some time. The problem with theology is it can sometimes be a bit of a spiritual dead end. Obviously I believe it is important to explore the nature of your faith, and to develop a better understanding of God's word. However, you mustn't go too far and become caught up in Pharisee like knitpicking over the letter of the law. I am an individual and my relationship with God is just that, MY relationship. I have to accept that I am not going to agree with every other Christian on all issues. But then why should I, if none are perfect? I mean off the top of my head we disagree on:
Charismata
Believer baptism
The divinity (and virginity) of Mary
Confession and pennance
purgatory
The necessity of Sacrement of the Sick
The contents of the ten commandments
The use of elctric guitar in worship :D
However, I have no doubt that you know and love Jesus, and you have given me serious food for thought this evening.
As for the salvation issue, this is something that I have been thinking about a lot recently. I mean John 3:16 says "that whosoever believes in him should not perish but have everlasting life" and 3:18 states "He who believes in him is not condemned". It doesn't say whoever is born again, confesses their sins, repents, is baptised in the Holy Spirit etc. It says believes.
However, 3:3 says "Most assuredly I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God" and 3:20-21 goes on "For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may clearly be seen, that they have been done in God."
So which is it? So then I have to go off and ponder the nature of belief. Does it mean to acknowledge existence, or does it mean something more. In believing do I have to change certain fundamental principles of my thinking? Does this have more to do with faith? Of course the great thing about the Gospels is that Paul wrote a user guide for them ;)
However, just in that one chapter, we've seen the danger of quoting small bits of the Bible.
Feel free to PM me any time.
BTW, we've managed to sneak a sly bit of evangelism in here ;)

Christopher M

06-07-2003, 10:16 PM

Originally posted by Ben Gash
I am an individual and my relationship with God is just that, MY relationship. I have to accept that I am not going to agree with every other Christian on all issues. But then why should I, if none are perfect?

Right, absolutely. In fact, I think we agree that this itself is one of the major "innovations" of the Christian faith.

To me, though, this doesn't mean in the least that we should de-emphasize out "theological differences" or that such discussion is a "a spiritual dead end" nor "knitpicking over the letter of the law."

Rather, to truly recognize our differences is the only way to have a real meaning to the fact that we do have a personal relationship with God, and that we ("we" in the general sense, not specifically you and I) do both struggle to understand our relationship with Man and the divine.

To argue from a respect for unique personal relationship to a de-valuing of theological differences is I believe, analogous to the approach to combatting racism which asserts that there are no differences between the races. This kind of ****geny, it seems to me, defeats the very reality of the thing it is trying to protect: the richness of our unique experience.

When I say that Catholicism differs from Protestantism, and even when I make a meal out of such a statement, I don't do it to distance the two movements; rather, I do it in utmost respect of the unique "spiritual warfare" and "constant conversion" that is at place in the minds of any believer.

If I adhere specifically and with rigor to stereotypically Catholic thought, it is only a reflection of my own personal journey. If I may vehemently defend a belief in say, purgatory, it is but a reflection of my own "spiritual warfare"; that I may disagree with you is not, perhaps contrary to appearances, in disrespect of your view, but quite the opposite: in utmost respect and understanding that we do have differences. Of course, I mean this in the general and universal sense, rather than regarding specifically you and I.

When I say the following, I do not mean it in the least to be a devaluation of Protestantism: Frankly, I find Buddhists, Moslems, and any other group as much "brethren in faith" as I do Protestants, insofar as they are participating honestly in "spiritual warfare." If I feel a particular attachment as a Catholic towards Protestants, under the rubric of shared Christianity, I liken it to the same sort of particular attachment I might feel towards the Irish and Scottish people of my ancestry: while there is a distinct connection there, an Irishman or a Scotsman is worth no more as a human being than a Nigerian or an Ainu.

So as strongly as I might adhere and argue, even preach, towards Catholic values, it is meant as a vindicaton of, not a refutation of, the true meaningfullness that I (and therefore, I presume, anyone else) has put towards their own spiritual relationships.

What a mouthfull! But we are trying to sneak in evangelism here, aren't we? :p

I mean off the top of my head we disagree on: Charismata... The necessity of Sacrement of the Sick

I assume you disagree with cessationism, as does Orthodox/Catholicism. Similarly, Catholics/Orthodox accept Sacrament to the Sick.

The divinity (and virginity) of Mary

Just for sake of discussion: the virginity of Mary is "symbolic" of Jesus' birth without the yolk of original sin, and hence without the yoke of the Mosaic law (both of which being representative of a function by which man is separated from God), and hence able to found the grace by which mankind attains the same condition.

As for the divinity of Mary, I know this is a regular Protestant complaint against Orthodox/Catholicism. Catholics don't believe Mary, nor the Saints, are divine as God is though. In the Catholic conception, prayers are offered with Mary (and/or the Saints) in the same way that prayers are offered up during church service with the congregation of the faithfull; specifically, it's representative of the idea that, what it is to be "the congregation of the faithfull" is not that a group of physical bodies are gathered in a physical building, but rather, this phrase has a meaning which includes heaven itself. The "specialness" of saints/Mary in this regard is that Catholics believe they "know" that they are in heaven (as opposed to other "dead" people).

purgatory

In the Catholic/Orthodox conception, God is characterized as "The Good" and "The One" (as elaborated on by the Platonists), rather than as "The Judge" (as elaborated on by the Jews, and arguably, the Protestants). From this point of view, it seems to me that Catholic/Orthodox must accept the doctrine of purgatory, as rejecting it is rejecting the primacy of God as the Good and the One.

As "The Good", God would never **** someone to eternal suffering (or, indeed, eternal seperation from Him). As "The One", there is no power in existance which can usurp this privelege from him (specifically, neither the devil nor man, nor the act of physical death).

The only complication here is of God's greatest gift to man - free will. Following this, one can argue that the only circumstance in which someone would be eternally seperated from God is if they truly did not want to unite with him (salvation).

This relates to the Catholic conception of mortal sin vs. venal sin; the former being one which results in ****ation (eternal seperation from God). Following the above then, the only mortal sin is not even wanting to be saved. All other sin is venal.

Who among us is free from venal sins? I assume you'd accept that no one is.

What, then, occurs at death? Are the sinfull united with God? Or is everyone ****ed to Hell save Jesus himself? Neither of these options seems tenable.

Then, if the something happens which cleanses the sinfull such that they become united with God, who among the sinfull become so cleansed?

Following the previous discussion and recalling the God is primarily "The Good" and thus eternally gracious, one must conclude that all but mortal sinners are so cleansed; specifically, all but those who do not wish to be.

In other words, quite simply, the only thing that holds back God's love is truly not wanting it in the first place; in other words, the noly thing that holds back God's love is his own greatest gift: free will.

What are the alternatives? That man can hold back God's love? Do you believe man to be so powerfull? That the devil can? Do you believe the devil to be so powerfull? That the physical act of death arrests God's power? Do you think God to be so weak? That God's love is limited, or that God's power is limited? Again, no good.

And thus, purgatory is born.

The contents of the ten commandments

I don't think they're a Christian conception to begin with, as previously discussed. ;)

The use of elctric guitar in worship

Hahaha, yeah that's gotta go. :D I'm a fan of Byzantine chant myself. Powerfull stuff.

As for the salvation issue, this is something that I have been thinking about a lot recently... So which is it? So then I have to go off and ponder the nature of belief. Does it mean to acknowledge existence, or does it mean something more. In believing do I have to change certain fundamental principles of my thinking? Does this have more to do with faith?

Yeah, I can relate to these struggles. I have a gut feeling that some answer may lie in an understanding of "salvation" as relating to the present rather than the unknown future. Can't say I can elaborate much at this point though.

Take care. :)

GeneChing

06-09-2003, 10:22 AM

As I mentioned in part 2 of my 4 part article with Shaolin Monk Shi Guolin (part 2 was in Sep Oct 2001 (http://store.yahoo.com/martialartsmart/kunmag20sepi.html)) Jesus is often considered as a Lohan or Arhat in Chinese Buddhism. Even Marco Polo is considered a lohan sometimes. Jesus is also considered as also considered an avatar by many Hindus.

There's a lot of speculation about the lost years of Jesus, and many point to the east, but I've always thought that was a bit silly. It implies that such wisdom came from only one source, and I like to think that wisdom is can be attained by more universal means.

But back to me, my article, my needs, me, me, me. ;) I often use Christian metaphors in my writing becuase I'm American and it is so embedded in our culture. And I've always been fascinated by apocalypse. In my recent Shaolin Trips piece (http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/ezine/article.php?article=357), given the war and SARS, it was a great metaphor and gave me an excuse to re-read Revelations, one of my favorite books of the Bible. I wasn't trying to draw any similarity between Buddhism and Christianity, at least not consciously, but it gives me great pleasure that it has opened this discussion. Anything that stimulates people to think a bit on this forum, I'm in favor of, second only to anything that makes people buy more at www.MartialArtsMart.com. ;)

norther practitioner

06-09-2003, 11:28 AM

I've seen the word believe, or beliefs etc. a few times now on this thread... I'll sum up my "beliefs" from a Chris Rock misquote....

Humans got it all wrong turning all this stuff into belief systems.... It was just meant to be a good idea....

MasterKiller

06-09-2003, 11:36 AM

You'd think that if he travelled several thousand miles to another continent they'd have mentioned it somewhere :rolleyes:

Kinda like how they mentioned his wives, or kids in the Bible...oh wait, they left those parts out. :rolleyes: right back at you.

I have heard that theory, but I cannot accept it based on the lanuage issue...when and where did Jesus become fluent in any dialect of the Chinese language (or Indian) to be able to have studied Buddhism? To do study, he would have needed a in depth understanding of the language, more than he would have gained in a few years. If he spent a long time in asia or India to learn the language, there would have been records more than just a dubious superficial reference.

Who built those statues of Buddha the Taliban blew up? What language did they speak? Yeah, I know they were built in 300 A.D., but I'm just using them as an example.

I'm sure there were plenty of Buddhist who spoke something Jesus, or his interpreters, could understand. I think 500 years was certainly long enough for that message to spread toward the Middle-East.

Besides, there aren't exactly a lot of records of Jesus in the Middle East, either.

I'm not saying that's the way it happened. But I'm not discounting it, either.

Christopher M

06-09-2003, 03:00 PM

Any quasi-Buddhist ideas in the Christian tradition are much more likely to have been introduced during the few hundred years following Jesus' death, rather than from Jesus himself. During this years, Christianity existed in a time and place of dramatic cultural exchange; arguably, it's one of the products thereof. Although the extent of far eastern thought present in this exchange is debatable, some of the active players (such as Persian thought) had allready cross-polinated with the far east, and could have carried these ideas to Christian ears.

David Jamieson

06-09-2003, 03:43 PM

cross polination of cultures and language had occured 100's of years before Jesus.

the silk road ran across asia india and into the middle east, straight to the mediterranean.

especially in the time of jesus there was plenty of activity and cultural exchange going on. Not to mention the whole roman empire thing.

afghanistan is a considerable distance from teh middle east and is only a hop skip and a jump from India. It's not a big leap to think about Buddhism getting into Afghanistan.

The Indus valley was another huge cradle for civilization.

Jesus certainly was a traveller in his own time. The 3 years of his life that are covered in the new testament only speak of his dealings in the fairly immediate vicinity of where Israel is now.

Most Europeans today are at the very least bi-lingual. Many in the middle east have also been into speaking more than one language, how else do you trade with your neighbours?

The bible was organized as a canon and there were a great deal of books that were left out entirely because of a number of reasons. The Apocrypha is a good example of what one church left out, but Augustine decided to leave in. There were great schisms over the books of the bible all through the dark ages and well into the renaissance era.

It really isn't such a big stretch that Jesus could have been at some point in time exposed to Buddhism.

How many people are highly proficient in kungfu but can barely speak any Chinese at all? Plenty.

Did Jesus speak english? I doubt it. It is said he spoke an arabic language. It stands to reason that he would have spoken the language of the Jews (Hebrew) as well seeing as he was a Rabbi.

Not to mention that there is the belief that Jesus was both man and god, in which case, language would have presented no problem at all.

cheers

Stacey

06-09-2003, 08:03 PM

your all nuts.

Jesus wasn't influenced by Buddism. He was a shaman. Like native American shamans.

He went into the dessert and had a 40 day vision quest. He took his vision back to the people and healed them with his medecine.

What exactly did he say that was so amazing that it must be buddhist? Love your neighbor? Pray for you enemies? Go out into the wilderness for 40 days and you'll say the same thing when you come back.

Gold Horse Dragon

06-09-2003, 08:05 PM

It is only in the latter half of the twentieth century that non-Chinese speaking people learned and did kung fu. Prior to that non-Chinese did not even know what Kung Fu was or that it existed...except for some soldiers during the late 1800s boxer rebellion when fighting against broadswords and spears...but that was all they knew. In fact to learn a certain style of kung fu in the past was very clannish...except for the Shaolin temple...where you had to be Buddhist. If you were not from that clan, you did not learn the style. And if you were not Chinese, forget it...you just did not learn any style of kung fu.
Jesus spoke a now dead language (not latin) and it was not the Hebrew we know of...it was another language spoken in the area at the time...I just cannot recall its name.
Anyway, to learn in depth about Buddhism would have required a solid understanding of the language which I do not believe Jesus would have had the opportunity to learn taking into consideration he would have to have found someone who knew both the language he knew and Chinese or Hindi.
I think more along the akashic principle or universe where all ideas are there and can appear almost simulataneously in different people in different parts of the world. This has indeed happened time and again with regards to inventions. So why not with different religions. In fact various time periods are associated with certain revelations of knowledge gained by the human race.

GHD

Stacey

06-09-2003, 08:09 PM

Jesus spoke Aramaic. The closest language to it now is Assyrian. These now liberated Iraqis were some of the first to accept Christianity.

Also, Jesus was in the cahoots with the Holy spirit and is the Holy Spirit could make Paul speak in tongues, I think he would hook Jesus up as well.

Lao Tse was around at the same time ennit?

According to Rael..this is a time when Aliens were coming to enlighten us.

Ben Gash

06-10-2003, 02:22 AM

"Kinda like how they mentioned his wives, or kids in the Bible...oh wait, they left those parts out. right back at you."
MasterKiller, I know you think you're making a point here, but I'm not sure what it is. Jesus didn't have a wife or kids (as his bride is the church and Christians frown pretty heavily on polygamy ;) ). If you think about it, the Bible talks about his mother, his adoptive father and his brothers. You'd think therefore a wife and kids would have been mentioned in there somewhere. Furthermore, he could hardly have gone off roaming around Israel, Jordan and Syria for three years if he had a family (or are you saying Jesus was a "dead-beat dad"?). Also, in turn of the millenium Jewish society, it would have been very difficult for him to be seen mingling with prostitutes or "fallen women" if he was married (without being stoned).
Basically, you have no evidence to support Jesus having a family, and the fact that you don't believe doesn't allow you to make stuff up to win a percieved argument :rolleyes:
"Most Europeans today are at the very least bi-lingual."
Sorry to shatter your illusions Kung Lek, but your average European chippy only speaks their native tongue, and probably not that very well (I mean I'm a graduate and I can just about struggle through a basic conversation in French- I certainly coudn't study philosophy in it).
This raises another point, travelling to India at that time would have been a major expidition requiring substantial financial backing. Hardly the kind of trip available to a carpenter in a small backwater town.
Chris, I should clarify that I do believe in the virgin birth, it's the continued virginity of Mary I don't believe in.

MasterKiller

06-10-2003, 07:43 AM

If you think about it, the Bible talks about his mother, his adoptive father and his brothers. You'd think therefore a wife and kids would have been mentioned in there somewhere.

The Gospel of John tells us that there were many other things which Jesus did which have not been recorded.

Basically, you have no evidence to support Jesus having a family, and the fact that you don't believe doesn't allow you to make stuff up to win a percieved argument

While the New Testament "appears" to be silent on the subject, it was not until Clement of Alexandria, from the 2nd Century, that any Christian leader denied that Jesus Christ was married. Clement believed that a married Jesus was inconsistent with His role as the Savior of the world, not that marriage would have disqualified Him, but rather, that His public ministry was too demanding to allow Him the opportunity for marriage.

Jewish customs of Jesus' day required married Rabbis. Unmarried men were considered a curse to Jewish society. Jesus would not have had much credibility as a leader had He not been married. Although Jesus was a non-conformist and had many conflicts with Jewish tradition, His parents, Joseph and Mary, were not. The Bible says that they were careful to perfectly obey the laws of their people. It also says that Jesus was "subject unto them". Since Jewish culture practiced arranged marriages and early marriage, as well (a Jewish boy was marriageable at age 16), it is reasonable to assume that Jesus' parents would have performed their parental duties faithfully and arranged a bride for the young Jesus.

This point is important because it shifts the weight of presumption. Given the cultural milieu in which Jesus lived and the supporting Biblical evidence, the burden of proof lies with those who do not believe Jesus was married. They must show why Jesus and His parents would have been derelict in their civic responsibilities and not contracted a marriage.

According to Josephus, descendants of the House of David felt a moral obligation to perpetuate their line, never knowing which one among their descendants would be the chosen Messiah. Jesus may or may not have known who He was, but regardless, He lived as a normal person until called by the ministry of John the Baptist.

Hippolytus, a Christian leader from the late 2nd Century, was followed by Origen in the 3rd Century in saying that the Song of Solomon was a prophecy of a marital union between Christ and Mary Magdalene. Although they believed Mary was symbolic of the Church, nevertheless, the notion presupposed a real, albeit a spiritual (meaning non-sexual), marriage between Mary and Jesus.

There are hints scattered in the Gospels of a special relationship between Jesus and Mary. If she is the same Mary of Bethany in John 11, then we can explain why Martha arose to greet Jesus and not Mary. Some scholars say she was sitting sheva according to Jewish custom. "Sheva" was when a woman was in mourning. Married women were not allowed to break-off from their mourning unless called by their husbands. In this story, Mary does not come to Jesus, until He calls her.

At the Resurrection, when Mary meets Jesus in the Garden, there is a degree of intimacy (see the Aramaic here) which one would expect between lovers, not friends.

The Greek word for "woman" and "wife" is the same. Translators must rely upon the context in deciding how to translate it. Sometimes, the translation is arbitrary. When Mary is referred to as a "woman" who followed Jesus, it can just as easily be translated as "wife".

The story of Mary with the alabaster jar anointing the feet of Jesus is cited by some scholars as the most direct witness to their marriage. It is in all four Gospels and was a story in which Jesus gave express command that it be preserved. This ceremony was an ancient one among many royal houses in the ancient world, which sealed the marital union between the king and his priestess spouse. We find it mentioned briefly in the Song of Solomon. Although we may not understand its significance, Jesus and Mary knew exactly what they were doing. To be the valid Messiah, He had to be anointed first by the Bride. They were by-passing the corrupt Jewish establishment.

Some interpretations of the Dead Sea Scrolls claim Jesus had 2 wives and several children.

Do some reading on the Marriage at Cana. There are a lot of interpretations of this event.

Is all this open to speculation? Sure...but so are you claims. No reason to get pizzy about it.

MasterKiller, I know you think you're making a point here, but I'm not sure what it is.

My point is that you should not get so caught up in the words that you miss the message. Jesus was a cool cat, but he was human; and even a perfect human is still only human.

BTW, Did Noah take the animals Two by Two, or Seven by Seven?

GeneChing

06-10-2003, 09:27 AM

I guess my Lohan post just went past everyone. Maybe it was the Marco Polo part. Polo has been included in the Lohan according to some references, but that's really obscure. Jesus however is often included among the 500 lohan. In fact, in the temple of four directions across form Shaolin Temple, they have a 500 lohan collection and amongst them is a lamb holding caucasian.

Soooo, while everyone debates whether Jesus went to study under Buddhists, the Buddhist take is that he was a lohan, just one that manifested in the West, and a minor one at that (the 18 are the major.) Now take this the next logical step. If one minor lohan could have so much impact on the western world, imagine the effect of the other 499 on China....

MasterKiller

06-10-2003, 09:32 AM

Gene,

You got any references on those 18? Websites, books?

GeneChing

06-10-2003, 09:45 AM

...I posted the link to our back issues sales. I did a four part series with Shaolin Monk Shi Guolin that revealed the entire Xiao Lohan form. Throughout the series, I define and describe the Lohan in the introduction. All 18 Lohan are represented - I used the Lohan images from Baimasi - White Horse Temple near Shaolin. The article series was sort of a FAQ response from me about Lohan, plus, of course, the traditional lohan form from as executed Shaolin monk.
JA 2001 (http://store.yahoo.com/martialartsmart/kunmag20juli.html)
SO 2001 (http://store.yahoo.com/martialartsmart/kunmag20sepi.html)
ND 2001 (http://store.yahoo.com/martialartsmart/kunmag20novi.html)
JF 2002 (http://store.yahoo.com/martialartsmart/kunmagjanisk.html)

Christopher M

06-10-2003, 02:35 PM

Originally posted by GeneChing
I guess my Lohan post just went past everyone... If one minor lohan could have so much impact on the western world, imagine the effect of the other 499 on China....

I think the reason no one here is too excited about that proposition is that it requires implicitly believing the Buddhist metaphysics.

ZIM

06-10-2003, 02:58 PM

MK beat me to the reply on that 'marriage at cana' thing. Good job! A decent book to check is "Holy Blood, Holy Grail".

WRT possible infl. of buddhism, et al on christ... can't say for certain, but there is the case of John the Baptist, who he most certainly visited... his location was, or possibly later became, Basra, in Iraq, which is right on the border of Iran at the top of the gulf [in case you didn't watch the war stuff].

The Iranians/Persians were Zoroastrians, which influenced Buddhism. ;) Its also possible that some Persians were Buddhist. Further, most of the early prophets tombs are located and still venerated in Iran, not anywhere near Israel. The Holy Land is the entire region, not just Israel.

Anyhow, Jesus was a capricorn. Yippity fwippity, who cares I'm out.

Christopher M

06-10-2003, 03:06 PM

Originally posted by Ben Gash
Chris, I should clarify that I do believe in the virgin birth, it's the continued virginity of Mary I don't believe in.

Yeah, there are Orthodox who feel the same way, as it wasn't introduced as a formal doctrine until relatively late (I believe after the schism with the Orthodox). Although there are other Orthodox who argue from the content of early homilies that it was still a regularly held belief within the early church, even if it wasn't a formal doctrine (the eastern churches in general have never been as big on making formal doctrines as are the western churches, perhaps for having been removed from the rationalist movement and it's legalist roots). I don't know enough history to assess either argument critically. For my own personal beliefs, it strikes me as something which has little impact either way, so I tend not to think about it at all. BTW, I'm a Byzantine, not a Roman, in affiliation.

Christopher M

06-10-2003, 03:11 PM

Originally posted by MasterKiller
Jesus was a cool cat, but he was human

This is a required belief of all Christians, of course! Not sure if you meant otherwise.

Ben Gash

06-10-2003, 03:41 PM

"Jewish customs of Jesus' day required married Rabbis"
Paul was a respected and highly traditional Rabbi. It states quite categorically that he wasn't married.
You know MK, there are an awful lot of "some's" and "possibles" and references to sources three hundred years after the fact in that post :rolleyes:
Chris, this is what I mean about theology.
I don't mean to be narcy, but it does annoy me when people throw theory at you as fact. All you've really said is that some people have a theory with little material evidence, and then claimed that your position is unassailible and the burden of proof lies with me:confused:
The joys of enlightened rationalism :rolleyes:

rubthebuddha

06-10-2003, 03:47 PM

not sure if anyone can validate this, but my old classic Greek prof (he's cert'ed to teach classic Greek, Latin, French and one other language at the college level) once said in class that the original term applied to Mary from which the virgin birth was sourced didn't necessitate virginity, rather that it meant something more along the lines of "young woman."

any thoughts? :confused:

Ben Gash

06-10-2003, 03:53 PM

Chris, surely Jesus was uniquely man and God, at once wholly human and wholly God? Hence virgin birth, hence John 3:16, hence trinity, hence Emmanuel (God amongst us).
As far as I'm aware the deification of Mary in the Catholic church stems from the period of the black death. Faced with an aggressive illness with an 80% fatality rate, some felt that Christ was angry and only Mary could appease him (you've just gotta love that theology).
Where the eternal virgin thing came from I don't know (but then Catholics always seem to have strange attitudes about sex). The Catholic explanation of James is always a good laugh though :)
I heard a good thing about theology tonight. When the serpent tempted Eve, he did it by encouraging her to question God's nature.
MK, 7 clean and 2 unclean why?

Ben Gash

06-10-2003, 04:06 PM

"My point is that you should not get so caught up in the words that you miss the message"
After the mass great spiel you just gave about possible interpretations of words? Trust me, I'm more than OK with the message.
Rub the Buddha, that is in itself true, and a common rationalist argument. However, contextually it can only be applied to the prophecies of Isiah "Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel"
In the gospel of Matthew, it is far more specific about Mary's condition. 1:20 "...for that which is concieved in her is of the Holy spirit." 1:25 "...and did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn son."

Christopher M

06-10-2003, 04:15 PM

Originally posted by Ben Gash
Chris, surely Jesus was uniquely man and God, at once wholly human and wholly God?

Yes. This is consistent with the statement "Jesus was human." It doesn't make alot of sense at first glance, but it's considered heretical to say "Jesus wasn't human because he was God, or the son of God." Like you said, he's wholly human. Also other stuff, but that's not what was being discussed. :D There might be a good reason why we have this seemingly-paradoxical emphasis on him really being wholly human though...

the deification of Mary in the Catholic church stems from the period of the black death

I'm not sure what you mean by "deification" here.

Catholics always seem to have strange attitudes about sex.

More the Romans than the eastern churches. In other words, it's more a Roman thing than a Catholic thing.

Ben Gash

06-10-2003, 04:19 PM

"Hail Mary"s, statues etc...

Christopher M

06-10-2003, 04:29 PM

Ah... like I said, that's not "deification." It's a conception of the Church as wholly including [worship in] heaven. A Catholic prays with Mary in the same way a Protestant prays with his congregation. Which is why the Holy Mary says "pray for us" (just like a congregation is asked to pray), and not "save us" or something like that.

As for statues, I understand the Protestant aversion towards "idols"; but I consider idolatry to mean the worship of a false image of something rather than the thing itself. The most deceptive form of idolatry occurs entirely within our minds. Regarding physical idols, we can either allow them and run the risk of treating them inappropriately; or not have them, and run the risk of people being fundamentally unfamiliar and uncomfortable with how idolatry really works (as described above). Personally, I find the obsession with eliminating physical "idols" to be far more dangerous than the alternative.

BTW, the eastern traditions have as much reverance towards Mary, as well as practices Protestants would criticize as idolatry; though they were not exposed to the culture of the plague and similar things you mentioned.

Gold Horse Dragon

06-10-2003, 04:42 PM

Originally posted by GeneChing
I guess my Lohan post just went past everyone. Maybe it was the Marco Polo part. Polo has been included in the Lohan according to some references, but that's really obscure. Jesus however is often included among the 500 lohan.
But the question that needs to be answerd is 'When was he included in Chinese/Shaolin History?

GHD

David Jamieson

06-10-2003, 05:08 PM

There is a quote in the Bhagavad Gita, that conforms to the Buddhist and Hindu traditions considering Jesus as one of the avatars of the lord of heaven through time.

It says:

For the protection of the good,

For the destruction of the wicked,

And for the establishment of dharma,

I assume a body in every age.

But the question that needs to be answerd is 'When was he included in Chinese/Shaolin History?

It is likely that he was introduced in the mid 1500's by the Jesuit order. At least, most profoundly and not in an obscure way like through other wandering Christians who predated the Jesuits in the Far east. From that I guess we can surmise that Shaolin would have made the inclusion during the Ming dynasty.

cheers

Serpent

06-10-2003, 05:52 PM

Originally posted by Ben Gash
I don't mean to be narcy, but it does annoy me when people throw theory at you as fact. All you've really said is that some people have a theory with little material evidence, and then claimed that your position is unassailible and the burden of proof lies with me:confused:

The same could be said of everything you believe in. Where's your incontrovertible evidence to back up your faith?

It's all theory, so MK's views and beliefs are just as valid as yours. And just as unsupported.

David Jamieson

06-10-2003, 07:45 PM

As a point of interest, it is well known that the jesuits entered China in the guise of... Buddhist Monks. :D no kidding.

So, as possible it is that Jesus learned of buddhism, it is equally possible that the other way round was the actuality.

With the silk road, I'm sure that many were aware of many religions at the time. The Jewish people weren't totally insular and traveled far outside the region for as long as their own recorded and traditional histories.

It's also worthy of note that Jesus wasn't a christian, he was a Jew and a Rabbi to boot and therefore in his sermons and evangalizing he drew from the traditional stories of Judaeism. That would be the Old testament and its stories and particularly the relationship of Jews to the god of Moses.

Anyway, in the end, it's all good, if god is going to come in an avatar, god will come in an avatar that is culturally relative and relevant to the people who are intended to see and hear it.

cheers

Ben Gash

06-11-2003, 06:28 AM

Serpent, the difference is I have primary sources to support my belief.

dwid

06-11-2003, 06:42 AM

As a point of interest, it is well known that the jesuits entered China in the guise of... Buddhist Monks. no kidding. So, as possible it is that Jesus learned of buddhism, it is equally possible that the other way round was the actuality.

It's funny you bring this up.

I read in a chinese philosophy/culture class I took as an undergrad that the original Jesuits were treated by the Buddhist monks as sort of mendicant buddhists, and their evaluation of the Chinese spiritual beliefs when they reported back to the vatican or whatever was that there was nothing inconsistent between the indigenous beliefs and the practice of Christianity. This finding led to the temporary abolition of the order, I believe.

Former castleva

06-11-2003, 06:47 AM

I passed this Jesus-Buddhism question on and so far,nobody seemed to think there was any connection.

edit:on theory;
Theory by definition needs a considerable amount of evidence to support it and an exposure to falsification.
When we call something a theory,outside your everyday meaning of theory,we mean it can be/has been proven over REASONABLE doubt.

dwid

06-11-2003, 06:55 AM

Passed it on to who?

Former castleva

06-11-2003, 06:59 AM

Asked around.
I won´t reveal my sources,sorry. :cool:

MasterKiller

06-11-2003, 07:32 AM

Asked around.
I won´t reveal my sources,sorry
Well, I don't know about the rest of you guys, but the weight of that indisputable evidence has convinced me.

:rolleyes:

dwid

06-11-2003, 07:41 AM

Theory by definition needs a considerable amount of evidence to support it and an exposure to falsification.

That is generally true.

However, the requirements in different areas are intrinsically different. Theology and philosophy do not and cannot have the same requirements as say, cognitive neuroscience.

Also, without giving your sources, or at least explaining how they have any authority in this specific area, your statement adds absolutely nothing to the discussion. Even the worst theory is generally given with an explanation that suggests its intuitive validity. You aren't even offerring that much.

Former castleva

06-11-2003, 07:45 AM

I´m well aware that it does not really add too much,was not meant to.

I despise these kinds of discussions anyway though.
I´ve laid my words.

dwid

06-11-2003, 08:00 AM

I despise these kinds of discussions anyway though.

Strong words. Why participate then?

The fact is people like to think and talk about stuff that can't be scientifically analyzed or deduced.

So it goes...

Initially, it's very easy to worship at the altar of academia, but sooner or later, most people really care about the questions science is least fit to answer. I don't say this to diss science. It's tools are the first ones I go to myself. However, it's very easy to hide from the meat of existence in the lab.

David Jamieson

06-11-2003, 08:20 AM

no connection?

hmmmn, may i offer these pieces that will clearly show a connection between the two (buddhism and christianity) and even some connection pre-jesuit.

T.W. Rhys Davids, Nineteenth century Professor:
There is every reason to believe that the Pitakas [sacred books containing the legends of Buddha] now extant in Ceylon are substantially identical with the books of the southern canon, as settled at the Council of Patna about the year 250 B.C. As no work would have been received into the Canon which were not then believer to be very old, the Pitakas may be approximately placed in the forth century B.C. and parts of them possibly reach back very nearly, if not quite to the time of Gautama (Buddha) himself.

Samuel Beal, Nineteenth century:
We know that the Fo-pen-hing was translated into Chinese from Sanskrit (the ancient language of Hindstan) so early as the eleventh year of the reign of Wing-ping (Ming-ti) of the Hans Dynasty, ie., 69 or 70 A.D. We may, therefore, safely suppose that the original work was in circulation in India for sometime previous to this date. These points of agreement with the Gospel narrative arouse curiosity and require explanation. If we could prove that they [the legends of Buddha] were unknown in the East for some centuries after Christ, the explanation would be very easy. But all the evidence we have goes to prove the contrary....

Ernest de Bunsen, Nineteenth century:
With the remarkable exception of the death of Jesus on the cross and of the doctrine of atonement by vicarious suffering, which is absolutely excluded by Buddhism, the most ancient of the Buddhisitic records known to us contain statements about the life and doctrines of Gautama Buddha whic h correspond in a remarkable manner and impossibly by mere chance with the traditions recorded in the Gospels about the life and doctrines of Jesus Christ...

Max Muller, Nineteenth century Professor:
Between the language of Buddha and his disciples, and the language between Christ and his apostles, there are strange coincidences. When some of th e Buddhist legends and parables sound as if taken from the New Testament, though we know that many of them existed before the beginning of the Christian era.

Kenneth Scott Latourette, Twentieth century:
Approximately five centuries older than Christianity, by the time of the birth of Christ, Buddhism had already spread through out much of India and Ceylon and had penetrated into Central Asia and China.

M. LAbbe Huc, Nineteenth century:
The miraculous birth of Buddha, his life and instructions, contain a great number of the moral and dogmatic truths professes in Christianity.

T.W. Doane, Nineteenth century:
...nothing now remains for the honest man to do but acknowledge the truth, which is that the history of Jesus of Nazareth, as related in the books of the New Testament maybe a copy of that of Buddha, with a mixture of mythology borrowed from other nations.

Both Buddha and Jesus were baptized in the presence of the spirit of G-D.

Both went to their temples at the age of twelve, where they are said to have astonished all with their wisdom.

Both supposedly fasted in solitude for a long time: Buddha for 47 days and Jesus for 40.

At the conclusion of their fasts they both wandered to a fig tree.

Both were about the same age when the began their public ministry: When he [Buddha] went again to the garden he saw a monk who was calm, tranquil, self-possessed, serene, and dignified. The prince determined to become such a monk, was led to make the great denunciation. At the time he was 29 years of age....Jesus when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age... Luke 3:23

Both were tempted by the devil at the beginning of their ministry: To Buddha, he said: Go not forth to adopt a religious life but return to your kingdom, and in seven days you shall become emperor of the world, riding over the four continents. To Jesus he said: All these [kingdoms of the world] I will give you, if you fall down and worship me. Matt 4:9 Buddha answered the devil: Get away from me Jesus responded ...begone Satan! Matt 4:10.

Both experienced the supernatural after the devil left: For Buddha: The skies rained flowers, and delicious odors prevailed in the air. For Jesus ..angels came and ministered to him. Matt 4:11.

The multitudes required a sign from both in order that they might believe.

Both strove to establish a kingdom of heaven on earth.

Buddha represented himself as a mere link in a long chain of enlightened teachers. Jesus said: Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfill them.Matt 5:17.

According to the Somadeva (a Buddhist holy book), a Buddhist ascetic's eye once offended him, so he plucked it our and cast it away. Jesus said 'If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and throw it away;...' Matt 5:29.

Buddha taught that the motive of all our actions should be pity of love of our neighbor. Jesus taught: ...love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.... Matt 5:4.

Buddha said: Hide your good deeds and confess before the world the sins you have committed. Jesus said: Beware of practicing your piety before men to be seen by them;...Matt 6:1 and Therefore confess your sins one to another and pray one for another, that you may be healed... James 5:16.

Both are said to have known the thoughts of others: By directing his mind to the thoughts of others, [Buddha] can know the thoughts of all beings. But Jesus, knowing their thoughts, said: Why do you think evil in our hearts? Matt 9:4.

Both were itinerant preachers with a close group of trustees within a larger group of disciples.

Both demanded that their disciples renounce all worldly possessions.

Both sent their disciples on missionary assignments: The number of disciples rapidly increased and Gautama sent forth his monks on missionary tours hither and thither, bidding them wander everywhere, preaching the doctrine, and teaching men to order their lives with self -restraint, simplicity, and charity. And Jesus called to him twelve apostle and began to send them out two by two....So they went out and preached that men should repent. Mark 6:7,

Both had a disciple who walked on water: To convert skeptical villagers, Buddha showed them his disciple walking across a river without sinking. He said: Come So Peter got out of the boat and walked on the water and came to Jesus but when he saw the wind, he was afraid, and beginning to sink he cried out: Lord save me! Matt 14:29-30. 21.

One day Ananda, the disciple of Buddha, after a long walk in the country, meets with Matangi, a woman of the low caste of the Kandalas, near a well, and asks her for some water. She tells him what she is, and that she must not come near him. But he replies: My sister, I ask not for your caste of your family, I ask only for a draught of water. She afterwards became a disciple of Buddha. There came a woman of Samaria to draw water. Jesus said to her give me a drink. For his disciples had gone away into the city to buy food. The Samaritan woman said to him: How is it that you a Jew, ask a drink of me, a woman of Samaria? For Jews have no dealings with Samaritans. John 4:7-9

Both men received similar receptions: The people swept a pathway, the gods strewed flowers on the pathway and branches of the coral trees, the men bore branches of all manner of trees and the Bodhisattva Sumedha spread his garments in the mire, and men and gods shouted All hail. And they brought the colt to Jesus mad threw their garments on it, and he sat on it. And many spread their garments on the road and others spread leafy branches which they has cut from the fields. Mark 11:7 -8.

When Buddha died: The coverings of [his] body unrolled themselves and the lid of his coffin was opened by supernatural powers. When Jesus dies: And behold, there was a great earthquake; for an angel of the LORD descended from heaven and came and rolled back the stone and sat upon it. Matt 28:2

In the year 217 B.C. Buddhist missionaries were imprisoned for preaching; but and angel, genie or spirit came and opened the prison door, and liberated them. They arrested the apostles and put them in the common prison. But at night an angel of the LORD opened the prison doors and brought them out. Acts 5:18-19.

Both men's disciples are said to have been miracle workers.

So, all I can say about the whole "no connection" comment is that it is clear that there hasn't really been any thought or study placed into that comment. Nothing personal, but it is hard to make such statements and not be called to the carpet on them.

cheers

Former castleva

06-11-2003, 08:28 AM

"no connection?"

Fortunately for me,I was not making an argument out of something like this but did comment on my own "heresay" so to speak.

"Strong words. Why participate then?"

Made a minor point.Done.

"The fact is people like to think and talk about stuff that can't be scientifically analyzed or deduced."

This,and what you typed below I had nothing to say about.

David Jamieson

06-11-2003, 08:39 AM

Regarding the introduction of the Christianity to the Shaolin.

The Shaolin are Ch'an buddhists, which sprang forth from the Mahayana Buddhism.

Mahayana was the second iteration of Buddhism, while the original form of buddhism is Hinayana.

The radical difference between the two is that Mahayana buddhism developed the Bodhisattva. The Bodhisattva is also a figure that is identified with a "suffering saviour".

There is a strong likelyhood that Christianity influenced this concept in the new form of buddhism which is the form of Buddhism that the Shaolin practice(d).

I say there is a strong case in point for one particular reason. the scripture of the Mahayana buddhism is written in Sanskrit while the Hinayana buddhism is written in the more ancient Pali.
Sanskrit did not arise until after the time of Jesus. So, it is possible that through the silk road, the teachings of jesus and his disciples, apostles and followers made it through to India.

food for though and definitely a point of interest. Also, there is strong study of the connections going on now. Especially with the minds and thoughts of theologians being a little more open in this day and age than ever before.

cheers

GeneChing

06-11-2003, 09:23 AM

An alligator gar is a fish that looks exactly like an alligator, except it has fins for feet and gills. It's a strong case for what evolutionists call 'parallel development' - Two individual separate cases that arrive at a parallel conclusion. If fish and reptile can do it, why not human religious beliefs?

Many of the great thinkers came out of the axis age (500 BCE) - the pre-Socratics, Socrates and Plato, Zoroaster and the Hebrew prophets, the Buddha, Confucius and Lao Tsu. Maybe this is when the aliens landed. Maybe this is when we were closer to god. Maybe this is when our brains evolved to a new level of comprehension. Whatever the case, it was parallel development.

So the parallels between the Jesus and Buddha aren't that surprising. I mean after all, what's good is good. What I find more interesting is that Jesus has been encorporated into other religions, as a lohan in Buddhism and an avatar in Hinduism. Good Christians might take heart at that. Many progressive Christian are quite open to the other religions, but you'd never see Buddha become a saint. Herein lies a classic East is east, West is west situation.

Former castleva

06-11-2003, 10:42 AM

"Maybe this is when our brains evolved to a new level of comprehension. Whatever the case, it was parallel development. "

While I fail to see what one could consider invidual development of a certain structure,I see not a single reason whatsoever to assume there would have been any kind of "cerebral hypertrophy" or what one ever wishes to consider brain evolution.
(Taking into account that you might not have been that serious about it)

"An alligator gar is a fish that looks exactly like an alligator, except it has fins for feet and gills. It's a strong case for what evolutionists call 'parallel development' - Two individual separate cases that arrive at a parallel conclusion. If fish and reptile can do it, why not human religious beliefs?"

Mmmmm.
I kind of prefer platypus over this species in related terms.

dwid

06-11-2003, 11:00 AM

FC,

No offense intended, but you strike me as a bit like a "born-again" atheist. You claim to have no interest in the discussion at hand and in fact to dislike such discussions, and yet continue to argue just for the sake of applying criticisms that are irrelevant to an abstract discussion.

"Brain" for example, in the context Gene used it as well as in the context it is typically used in this kind of discussion is meant to describe mind or culture, not the physical structures of the brain. Yet you retort as though he is making a literal argument about biological evolution.

All I'm suggesting is that perhaps you could lighten up a bit. Maybe respond from the gut and not from the head, so to speak.

I generally very much appreciate your cut-to-the-quick criticisms of the science behind supposed qigong trials and what not, but the argument here is more philosophical than medical or biological.
:D

Former castleva

06-11-2003, 11:12 AM

"I generally very much appreciate your cut-to-the-quick criticisms of the science behind supposed qigong trials and what not, but the argument here is more philosophical than medical or biological."

You may be right.
I´m a bad philosopher.

"No offense intended, but you strike me as a bit like a "born-again" atheist. You claim to have no interest in the discussion at hand and in fact to dislike such discussions, and yet continue to argue just for the sake of applying criticisms that are irrelevant to an abstract discussion."

I seek for regions to invade,in case it might have value.
I don´t consider myself "born-again" but rather "born to be" but sad of me it would be to attend only in order to push forwards my (lack of) beliefs,which I try to avoid.

"All I'm suggesting is that perhaps you could lighten up a bit. Maybe respond from the gut and not from the head, so to speak."

Uh.I do not think I understand that well.
Some consider enteric nervous system another brain but unlikely cabable...

GeneChing

06-11-2003, 11:14 AM

Actually, I was thinking about a literal brain development that allowed humans to comprehend such things. And I wasn't being too serious about it. It was just something I was throwing out for the sake of argument.

I love being Devil's advocate, especially in a religious debate ;) .

Former castleva

06-11-2003, 11:22 AM

He,he.
I see.Thanks for clarifying that one.

I do not think it has changed that much for some,even up to 50 000 years.
Resources have been there,and considerable plasticity allows gradual rise that we keep still seeing today but anatomically,blah.

dwid

06-11-2003, 11:32 AM

Uh.I do not think I understand that well. Some consider enteric nervous system another brain but unlikely cabable...

:D
Very good. Methinks there is a humor to your posts I may sometimes be too dense to appreciate.

Former castleva

06-11-2003, 11:40 AM

lol
Well that´s positive I think.

How about this?

Now that human genome project is seemingly complete.
We can really start looking for that "Attention Gene".

dwid

06-11-2003, 11:49 AM

Maybe it's similar in structure to the "moderator gene"

:D

Christopher M

06-11-2003, 02:58 PM

Originally posted by GeneChing
Two individual separate cases that arrive at a parallel conclusion. If fish and reptile can do it, why not human religious beliefs?

Right. Or, more specifically, parallel evolution and parallel beliefs aren't the result of random circumstance, but rather the result of an underlying structure. In the case of one the underlying structure is described by the principles of genetics. What of the other? It's quite reasonable, no matter what your stance, to conclude that religious beliefs aren't random cultural events, but rather evolve to address some kind of universal construct. Whether you take this construct to be a divine order, the principle of societal interaction, a fundamental construct in the developing human mind, or some combination thereof... well, that can vary.

Maybe this is when we were closer to god. Maybe this is when our brains evolved to a new level of comprehension.

At least within the so-called "west" and "near east", what we're describing is a time of an explosion on cultural exchange; particularly between Hellenism, Persianism, Egyptianism, Judaism, and the burgeoning thought of Christians. Neoplatonism, Gnosticism, Christianity, and philosophical Hermetica are the obvious fruits of this event.

Good Christians might take heart at that. Many progressive Christian are quite open to the other religions, but you'd never see Buddha become a saint. Herein lies a classic East is east, West is west situation.

If what you're suggesting is that religious veneration should be assigned to objects dictated by ecumenical respect for other cultures, I'll have to strongly disagree with the sentiment.

Christopher M

06-11-2003, 03:04 PM

Originally posted by Kung Lek
"With the remarkable exception of the death of Jesus on the cross and of the doctrine of atonement by vicarious suffering, which is absolutely excluded by Buddhism..."

This is a pretty important exception. Moreover, it's phrased from the viewpoint of Buddhism; which in itself highlights the differences. Conceptualizing Christianity in Buddhist terms is going to make them seem alot more similar than they are.

"Buddha represented himself as a mere link in a long chain of enlightened teachers. Jesus said: Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfill them.Matt 5:17."

Same thing here. From the viewpoint of Buddhism, these beliefs might seem comparable; but that doesn't have anything to do with what a Christian believes.

Plenty of other examples, but those ones are particularly dramatic.

Serpent

06-11-2003, 05:11 PM

Originally posted by Ben Gash
Serpent, the difference is I have primary sources to support my belief.

Really? What are they?

David Jamieson

06-11-2003, 05:36 PM

Well Chris, you raise up something interesting with what you say about the buddhist viewpoint and what a Christian believes.

What does a christian believe? Isn't that dependent upon the doctrine they adhere to that is formed by the church the attend?

Some Christians don't believe in the trinity. Some don't accept one form of the septugant but accept another.

Some don't accept some books of the apocrypha and others do.

The Coptic church is wholly differnet from the baptists and the catholics are different from these both.

There are even sects of Christianity who see Jesus as very much akin to a Buddha figure and see the figure as enlightened and a special entity endowed with supernatural powers, but not a god per se. (Unitarians)

I would put the spin that a Christian is actually Jewish, but equipped with a new testament that was not accepted by the traditionalists. Schism. Otherwise, the essentials for how to live ones life are all there in both faiths.

Hinduism begat Buddhism like Judeaism begat Christianity. There are many elements of both that are inclusive of their former.

cheers

Christopher M

06-11-2003, 06:13 PM

Originally posted by Kung Lek
What does a christian believe?

There are certainly different sorts of Christianity, as previously discussed with respect to Protestantism vs Orthodox/Catholicism.

If you mean your remarks to have any sort of objective meaning though, you have to define what you mean by "Christian", and "people calling themselves Christian" and "people influenced by Christian thought" are both candidates for very inappropriate definitions.

The Trinity is an example of a core belief which is shared across Christianity. Unitarians are not largely considered, even among their own ranks, as being Christians in the formal sense. In fact, that they'd be your example just goes to my point: it's not surprising they're drawing the same conclusion as you, as they're doing the same thing as you: approaching Christianity from the standpoint of universalism. This is by their own admission.

There are even sects of Christianity who see Jesus as very much akin to a Buddha figure...

Of course this is the very thing under question. As has been mentioned, like the Trinity, another core belief across Christianity is that Jesus was indeed wholly man. Another is that we are all children of God. From this point of view, it's very easy to argue, even restricting yourself to traditional Christian thought, that Jesus is basically similar to Buddha. However, if you leave it at that, you're not including the whole picture, from the point of view of Christianity. It's equally heretical for a Christian to claim Christ was not God as it is for one to claim Christ was not man.

As a Buddhist or universalist, you're choosing to approach this mystery from only one side so as to accord with your perspective.

And that's completely fine. Just: it's not the Christian approach.

I would put the spin that a Christian is actually Jewish, but equipped with a new testament that was not accepted by the traditionalists. Schism. Otherwise, the essentials for how to live ones life are all there in both faiths.

Really? They seem fundamentally opposed to me.

Judaism believes in the concept of a chosen people; Christianity believes all are equal under God. Judaism is an apocalyptic religion (fundamental doctrine of waiting for a future event), Christianity is not (fundamental doctrine that the key event has allready happened). Judaism characterizes God's relationship with man as primarily being cultural, Christianity defines it as primarily being personal. Judaism characterizes God's relationship with man in the context of God's creation of laws that describe behavior in emulation of holiness, Christianity characterizes God's relationship with man in the context of God's self-sacrifice that make man a fundamentally holy creature.

All of these are undeniably dramatic and extraordinary changes, whether or not one agrees with them.

Aside from these and related changes, which are wholly the product of the innovative Christian message, early Christianity evolved in a cultural environment unique from Judaism, and this had long-lasting effects upon it's world-view. Particularly, the cross-polinations between Christianity and Hellenic philosophy (particularly Neoplatonism) further differentiated it from the purely Judaic traditions. We should remember that there are sects of Christianity (ones that actually resemble the word, unlike the Unitarians) other than the popular Judeo-Christianity most of us are familiar with. The Christian Gnostics come to mind. They're pretty explicit about their relationship to Judaism; and it's not ecumenical in the least!

David Jamieson

06-11-2003, 07:17 PM

I think that Judaeism prescribes to a personal relationship with God and describes this in the old testament.

I think that from a standpoint of spiritually, the faith that is Judaeism is a very personal relationship with god + complex social structure.

Having said that, Early Chrsitians were not considered seperate from judaesim until Constantine corca 300 ce. They were still a sect of Judaeism until the point of seperation by the Roman ideology and the selection of Christianity as the official state religion.

Furthermore, these influences in the work to absorb the peoples into a likened mind, in turn absorbed the peoples religious practices. (Christmas, Easter etc were layered atop auspicious times already being recognized and practiced.) The Jews, did not subscribe to this paradigm and like the Muslims, remained seperate -because- of faith.

I know that what I've just put down is a simplified version, but in essence it covers the facts.

Christianity is still evolving as a religion. Clearing more and more each day, interpreting and reinterpreting what little there is written that actually came from Jesus. What he had to say is vague and instead what we get is the gospel according to - MML&J - with a further selection of reading and doctrine specifically chosen by the same church that was busily adopting the pagans and keeping their rites but adding a Christian meaning.

In fact, Christians are monotheistic and believe that there is only one true god and that he walked the earth as man. (an avatar).
The trinty, is the mystery that proves god is omniscient and omnipresent in the Catholic church doctrines. This includes many other churches not of the roman order.

The pre and post question is how things are seen in Christian theology as well. pre -easter- being how things were and post -easter- being how things are now.

Gnostcism comes in a few different varieties these days. Not anywhere near the form it was in during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. There are still remnant groups from these time periods as well.

Anyway, it's an interesting discussion. Certainly will be interesting to see what comes of it all :D

In the end a leap of faith is required on the individuals part to indeed "believe".

cheers

ZIM

06-11-2003, 08:17 PM

In the end a leap of faith is required on the individuals part to indeed "believe". Kierkegaard

GeneChing

06-12-2003, 09:42 AM

I think we should all be careful not to split hairs of Buddhism and Christianity. There are different sects in each, and by analyzing a specific sect with too much scrutiny to make a point, well, given the variations, we can really talk in circles for a long, long time. Not that this is a bad thing. I mean, it's a forum after all. Most of that scrutiny is an exercise in literate name dropping anyway. Not that this is a bad thing, either. Better literate than just saying Jesus would choke out Buddha.

So far, we've been looking at the similarities and differences between Buddhism and Christianity, postulating on possible cross-fertilization. Personally, I don't see it. I see parallels, but then I see parallels in most major religions. After all, religions generally espouse good behavior, so things like the ten commandments or Buddhist vows are bound to be parallel. Killing, stealing, deceiving are universally bad - at least on the level where the human brain can distinguish morality (although there are some who postulate morality in animals, but that's a whole other subject.)

Now where I see a big difference is the founding principles of Buddhism and Christianity. Christianity, barring the Gnostic gospels (which reads as almost a shamanic exploration seeking a personal experience to the divine to me) strikes me more as faith-based. Buddhism, barring Pure Land (which reads as very faith based to me) is a discipline for monks. Jesus spoke to the population at large. Buddha spoke to monks. Now certianly Jesus had his disciples and Buddha did speak to common people at times, but to me the intention of these two religions is very different. Buddhism is more of a recipe for clarity, a science of mind transformation. This is why a Buddhist can be Christian or Jewish or whatever. Ultimately, by the time you get to Zen, the Buddha can be taken out of the equation. This is where Buddhism can be very dangerous, because like any science, it can fall prey to immorality. Can a Christian be Buddhist? Fair question. Fair question, indeed. That's my whole point with Jesus as a Lohan.

Christopher M

06-12-2003, 04:14 PM

Originally posted by Kung Lek
I think that Judaeism prescribes to a personal relationship with God and describes this in the old testament.

Being a Jew means being an inheritor of Abraham's lineage and, as such, being under the Mosaic covenant. Being a Christians means you're a child, and one with, God. Disregarding all else, this core bit of theology by itself supports describing Christianity as having provided an innovative emphasis on personal relationship. This doesn't mean that Judaism has nothing to say about a personal relationship with God. It's simply one example of how Christianity has emphasized and innovated upon the issue theologically.

Having said that, Early Chrsitians were not considered seperate from judaesim until Constantine corca 300 ce.

Early Christians were demonstrably seperate from Judaism starting at the Council of Jerusalem (50-51 AD) where it was clearly stated that Christians were not under the Mosaic law. I'd be curious to know how you could consider them Jews following this.

Furthermore, these influences in the work to absorb the peoples into a likened mind, in turn absorbed the peoples religious practices. The Jews, did not subscribe to this paradigm and like the Muslims, remained seperate -because- of faith.

This is simply incorrect revisionist history. As many traditions drew from Christianity as did Christianity draw from traditions (eg. Voudun, as allready discussed). The major motivations behind Christianity drawing from other traditions were i) under a feeling that each cultural tradition was but an attempt by man to relate to an underlying phenomenon which was a relationship to God, and thus within the confines of Christianity (eg. Neoplatonism), ii) under a feeling that those cultural aspects not under the confines of Christianity, but neither contrary to it, should not by persecuted against (eg. as an important example with respect to the above, Mosaic law), iii) to enrich the Christian tradition with clearly valuable sources of knowledge (eg. Neoplatonism again), and iv) so as to understand and speak the jargon of other traditions (including simply to understand and assess, to preach to, to encoporate, and yes, also to persecute) (eg. Naturalism). Finally, Jews and Moslems have both participated just as much in this process as have Christians (eg. another pertinent one; Moslem encoporation of Neoplatonist thought). All of this taken together should be enough to show the failing of your position here. Let me know if you'd like more examples of any of these points, and/or references to the examples listed.

Christianity is still evolving as a religion.

As is Judaism, Islam, and Buddhism.

interpreting and reinterpreting what little there is written that actually came from Jesus. What he had to say is vague

Sure, and there's nothing wrong with that. At some point in reinterpretation, a message stops being Christian though. A Taoist reading the Bible is no more a Christian than a Christian reading Lao Tzu is a Taoist. Reading a book does not an active-member-of-a-religious-community make.

Moreover, you're arguing here from the Protestant perspective, which in many ways is quite distinct from the historical perspective of Christianity. Until the Reformation, no one ever considered Christianity to be a "religion of the book." Christianity does not establish itself from an interpretation of the Bible. A Christian is established through participation in the living tradition of Christianity. This changes the argument quite a bit; as the living tradition of Christianity has quite alot to say. (I should say; this is the Catholic and Orthodox perspective)

with a further selection of reading and doctrine specifically chosen by the same church that was busily adopting the pagans and keeping their rites but adding a Christian meaning.

This is the same incorrect revisionist stance I addressed above. It's not clear to what you're referring here, but most people making this statement are referring to the sort of paganism popular today which is an evolution of post-Renaissance magical orders, whose rituals were drawn from a combination of directly-from-contemporary-Christian ritual and medieval texts which themselves were penned by Christians. So, ironically, it was actually the other way around.

In fact, Christians are monotheistic and believe that there is only one true god and that he walked the earth as man.
The trinty, is the mystery that proves god is omniscient and omnipresent in the Catholic church doctrines. This includes many other churches not of the roman order.

The pre and post question is how things are seen in Christian theology as well. pre -easter- being how things were and post -easter- being how things are now.

I'm not sure what you're replying to, or trying to say, in these places.

Gnostcism comes in a few different varieties these days.

Yes it does. And did. Which is why I emphasized "the Christian Gnostics." A deeper meaning behing my statement here was the suggestion that Christianity is, in a sense anti-religion (not my term, I prefer meta-religion as a description of this phenomenon), and that a wide variety of cultural religious traditions can be [re]interpretated in light of the Christian message. In the early years, exactly this happened, and quite overtly: there were Neoplatonic-Christians and Gnostic-Christians for instance, both of whom were purely Christian in every sense (unlike our Unitarian friends), but who were not in the slightest judaic. In the eastern churches, this kind of thing is much more evident than in the western ones. However, even the Vatican recognizes this in principle, if not in [historical] practice [and implementation within their own tradition], and welcomes as equals in Catholicism, Christian/Catholic traditions from cultural contexts much different than the Roman (without requiring any change in their practice).

In the end a leap of faith is required on the individuals part to indeed "believe".

In a sense, yes. But also in a sense, no. Of course, that could be my Christian appreciation for paradox and unification of opposites talking.

Why, possibly, no? Because Orthodox/Catholicism (ie. all pre-Reformation Christianity) have always been "mystery" religions (ie. centering around mystical practice). The point here is an emphasis on personal experience rather than faith by authority.

Why, possibly else, no? Because, following some amount of foundation (which is required for any philosophical position), the tenets of a believer may end up being quite logical. Perhaps the extraordinary modern source for logic and Christianity, Kierkegaard, has allready been mentioned. He's also got a bit to say about the concept of Christianity as the anti-religion, previously mentioned. IMHO, the ultimate source for logic and religion (a religion which is completely amenable to Christianity; and indeed, ended up "becoming" much of Christianity) is Plotinus.

P.S. Jesus would choke out Buddha.

Christopher M

06-12-2003, 04:32 PM

Originally posted by GeneChing
Personally, I don't see it. I see parallels, but then I see parallels in most major religions.

I agree completely; this is also my position. There are parallels because in each case the traditions developed as a reflection of a "real" underlying phenomenon. While people may disagree as to the nature of this phenomenon, I've never heard a reasonable argument against this position in general.

Christianity, barring the Gnostic gospels (which reads as almost a shamanic exploration seeking a personal experience to the divine to me) strikes me more as faith-based.

You're betraying yourself as a westerner here, by equating Christianity with Protestantism. Protestantism a) changed quite a bit about Christianity, and b) dominates the Christian culture in America. The Orthodox and Catholic churches have always been primarily religions of mysticism. I would add to this that Roman Catholicism, following the currents of the counter-Reformation, has become increasingly influenced by Protestantism; and, as such, it's stance on this issue is changing. An important and controversial example here would be the changes made to the mass during Vatican II (1965), many of which were oriented towards eliminating some elements of mysticism. I would add further that recently in Protestantism, conversely, there have been a minority of sects moving towards mysticism; an example of which would be the charismatic movement.

Buddhism is more of a recipe for clarity, a science of mind transformation.

Differently interested in mind transformation? Certainly. More? Certainly not. I'm not sure where you got this impression, so I'm at a loss as to how to phrase a reply.

This is why a Buddhist can be Christian or Jewish or whatever.

By definition, if a Buddhist can be a Christian, so too can a Christian be a Buddhist. Moreover, any individual may belong honestly to any number of religions and quasi-religious movements so long as none of their tenets are conflicting. This logic applies equally to Christianity as to Buddhism or Judaism.

GeneChing

06-13-2003, 10:02 AM

CM - Fair point on the second quote of mine, although my initial point was that we shouldn't quibble secular differences. But I concede that. As for the third quote, if what you say is true, and given that Jesus is interpreted as a Lohan, why haven't any of the Buddhists figures become saints?

This have been a great discussion, by the way. I'd like to hear how people define themselves spiritually. What's you faith? I'm a zennist (with rasta leanings, thus my fascination with Revelations.)

@PLUGO

06-13-2003, 10:20 AM

Moreover, any individual may belong honestly to any number of religions and quasi-religious movements so long as none of their tenets are conflicting.

Reminds me of what Gandi said (at least in the movie about being a Hindu, Muslim, Christian & Jew...

There are parallels because in each case the traditions developed as a reflection of a "real" underlying phenomenon.

This comes back to our chat on Catholic Saints/Santeria/Vodoo Loa.... was that on this thread?

My Faith?

I used to call it Zen Pop Shamanism...

these days I might call it Red Gold & Green Pop Taoism

;)

Chang Style Novice

06-13-2003, 10:23 AM

Best Gandhi quote ever:

"Mr. Gandhi, what do you think of Western Civilization?"

"It is a wonderful idea whose time has come."

ZIM

06-13-2003, 10:34 AM

"As soon as I get done with this hunger strike, I'm gonna have a steak thiiiiis thick!"

Christopher M

06-13-2003, 02:57 PM

Originally posted by GeneChing
given that Jesus is interpreted as a Lohan, why haven't any of the Buddhists figures become saints?

Why would they? Sainthood isn't a catalog of good, righteous, or wise people. The conception of a saint is simply as an active participant in the tradition of Christianity, directly analogous to the person standing next to if you happen to go to church. I'm not sure why such a conception should extend to Buddhist figures.

What's you faith?

This is a difficult question to answer. It seems to me that most people mean by this, something akin to "What is your theory of human subjectivity?" or "What metaphysical position do you adopt?" Neither of these would be answered, even with remote adequacy, by a response of religious affiliation. And regardless of what your meaning is here, a sincere person could only ever answer honestly, "A work in progress."

If you're asking simply about a matter of religion, then I'd say: See Byzantine Catholicism (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Rites) (2) (http://www.byzantines.net/), Greek Orthodoxy (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodoxy) (2) (http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/), and Old Catholicism (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Catholic_Church) (2) (http://www.oldcatholic.com/). This is provided you understand the above caveat, though, in it's strongest sense.

David Jamieson

06-13-2003, 03:13 PM

When you think of the criteria for becoming a saint, it's hard to say that it is for only being an overtly active participant in the Christian faith.

There generally is a connection to a supernatural occurance similar to those miracles that Jesus performed thereby linking this person with the godhead.

Indeed, there are Buddhas and Bhodisattvas that have met these criteria. And, by definition, Christianity would see this. Although, it is not necessarily so of the Christian Churches.

It is worthy of note that sainthood is an idea that preceeds the Churches of Christianity. IE: prophets, holy men, etc that are now saints even though they came before the established Church of Christianity.

cheers

Christopher M

06-13-2003, 03:29 PM

Originally posted by Kung Lek
When you think of the criteria for becoming a saint, it's hard to say that it is for only being an overtly active participant in the Christian faith.

I never claimed this to be the case. When one goes to church, one prays with the congregation. By the same token, one prays with the saints. The difference is that the congregation is a bunch of warm bodies around you, and the saints are not. The principle is that what it means to participate in Christian worship is not limited by such things. This is what it means to be a saint in the Christian tradition. I'm not sure how else to phrase this.

Going back to the topic at hand, it seems not only misleading, but arrogant to presume that Buddhist figures would be active participants in Christian worship, as is clearly required of saints.

There generally is a connection to a supernatural occurance similar to those miracles that Jesus performed thereby linking this person with the godhead.

"Supernatural occurances" are the providence of every Christian, as every Christain is linked with the godhead. In fact, Catholic/Orthodox believe they participate in such an occurence every time they go to church.

Indeed, there are Buddhas and Bhodisattvas that have met these criteria.

Only if they were Christians.

This kind of faux-ecumenicalism is avidly popular these days. It's the same logic that has white people proclaim we should end racism by treating everyone else as if they were white. True ecumenicalism comes from adopting a loving stance towards differences, not from denying their existance. Denying the existance of differences is the ultimate form of bigotry; and all the more insiduous for being so veiled in it's presentation.

David Jamieson

06-13-2003, 04:38 PM

Denial of the existance of differences is not the intent.

What is worship but commiting acts of goodness?

I certainly don't tie it to a particular dogma, and by what I understand of Christianity, in a purist sense, it is not dogmatic or doctrinal either.

Especially when it is removed from the context of the multiple churches. Which more than seeing and appreciating differences seems to be about claiming the better way to worship Jesus and God.

But I'm not making an argument for the inclusion of saints into either.

If anything, I am completely in agreeance with the message of Christianity.

cheers

Stacey

06-13-2003, 04:40 PM

I'm an ordained pastor, please direct questions on christianity to me.

Worship is sumbission, supplication and saying , "Good boy" to god. Its not for his/its benefit, its for ours. Its so we can let go, let flo and leggo the ego.

Christopher M

06-13-2003, 06:34 PM

Originally posted by Kung Lek
What is worship but commiting acts of goodness?

All worship is commiting acts of goodness? :confused:

David Jamieson

06-14-2003, 06:51 AM

Chris-

Yes. By your deeds you do god right.

An act of penitence with full intent is different but it is also a deed.
Asking for forgiveness with true intent is also a deed.

ergo, commiting acts of goodness=worship.

I also think that the primary function of any religion is to bring community to humanity.

The act of congregating together and with good intent is also worship.

But it all circles back to the individuals actions and intentions that define their own goodness.

cheers

chen zhen

06-14-2003, 09:01 AM

For the jesus/Buddha thing, Jesus did'nt have to travel to India to study Buddhism.
In that period, Buddhist missionaries traveled far and wide, to spread the religion, but it was not all places they liked it.. some of these traveling Buddhist monks have been recorded to travel as far as to western europe. So maybe a Buddhist traveled to the middle east..
+, the silk route was also spreading different religions far and wide, and it went through the middle east. maybe some buddhist traders went through there..

but all that is just speculation

ZIM

06-14-2003, 11:33 AM

you could just ask (http://www.crucify.com/)
I got: 'Why are you concerned with My lost years, my Child?'

so i went here (http://www.angelfire.com/nb/j2siteca/askjesus/)
i got 'undefined'...so i figure thats like one of those magic 8 balls.

so, in search of truth and meaning, i went here (http://pub72.ezboard.com/ftheonlinechurchofcyberjesusfrm3)

no answers yet... ;) :p

chen zhen

06-14-2003, 11:52 AM

try to type "F*ck you as a question.

in the first he said "you would like to **** me, my child?"

in the second: "jesus sez: hitler was a catholic."

ROFLMAO:D :D :D

Former castleva

06-14-2003, 11:59 AM

Hitler was more likely to have been religious than an atheist like some claim.

chen zhen

06-14-2003, 12:02 PM

Jesus answers,:

"So I s*ck /&%, my child?

:D :D

Christopher M

06-14-2003, 12:56 PM

"All worship is commiting acts of goodness?"

Originally posted by Kung Lek
Yes.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this. If someone does an evil act as worship, in my view, this doesn't make it an act of goodness. And, frankly, I can think of a very long list of examples of this. If we disagree on such a fundamental point, there's no reason to discuss further, as obviously our further conclusions will also be much different.

David Jamieson

06-14-2003, 01:09 PM

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this. If someone does an evil act as worship, in my view, this doesn't make it an act of goodness.

I'm not 100% sure what you mean by this, but it is contrary to what I stated.

You cannot commit an evil act and call it "good", regardless of intent. Evil is the absence of good and therefore cannot be a form of worship. Not in the Christian sense, or in the general sense of recognition of a god or godhead.

Acts of kindness, compassion and goodness are a form of serving a higher goal, Jesus or god or what have you. Therefore, when you commit acts that serve god or your fellow man, you are worshipping through doing.

One can "do" a religion as much as "be" religious.

cheers

Christopher M

06-14-2003, 01:14 PM

Are you saying that it is the content of actions which makes them worship and/or acts of good?

I was a little confused when you said that all worship was goodness, which seems like a different position.

David Jamieson

06-14-2003, 02:04 PM

Hey

Yes, the content of the actions is what carries the inherent goodness. The intent of the actions is what makes them worship.
IE: a selfless act with intent to bring something better to someone else.
Or a philanthropic act with the correct intent, or any number of other deeds which in turn serve others.

I don't think i said that all worship was goodness. I said that good actions are worship. Some people worship evil for instance and commit evil acts as well.

cheers

Christopher M

06-14-2003, 02:34 PM

I understand now, sorry for the confusion; just got tangled up in the wording.

So if we take some random act of selfless kindness; let's use a stranger giving me money for the bus last night, or perhaps someone volunteering in a soup kitchen. For sake of discussion, let's ignore the various destructive personality traits which can lead to such actions as easily as can honest selfless kindness.

If our hypothetical person has never heard of Buddhism, nor contemplated nor practiced anything remotely resembling Buddhist thought, are you maintaining that they are, in fact, a Buddhist? And, indeed, if our person turns out to be a world-class scholar of Buddhism, who for some person reason strongly wants not to be associated with Buddhism (other than in a scholarly way), let alone be considered a Buddhist; is this person still, nonetheless, a Buddhist by your conception?

David Jamieson

06-15-2003, 08:33 AM

Chris-

The problems with understanding, come into play with the deliniation of the concepts.

Does a tree know it's a tree?

The idea is that the -badge or banner- is not what's important, but intent and action are all that matters. Yes, that person described fits the buddhist ideal in his act of compassion, he also fits the Christian Ideal, the Muslim ideal, the jewish ideal, etc etc.

The only place where the badge and banner of ideological expression is important is in the ranks of the followers of that ideology.

In other words, you can very easily have someone who goes to a say, catholic church, pays their tythe, gives to the poor through the Church and is generally an upstanding community member in the eyes of that church. But that same person can be walking down the street and avoid and ignore someone in need like a homeless person. This same person can be afraid of community outside of the insulated group that is his congregation.

In my eyes, this is not Christianity, or Buddhism, or any of it. It is seeking the protection and shelter of like mindedness.
This does not destroy the persons acts of goodness while in the confines of their congregation, but it doesn't "spread the word" so to speak and ultimately it turns what should be for everyone into something that is only for the few.

From my perspective, this is where organized religion falls apart. It's veiled elitism and exclusionary actions. THis was not the intention of the establishment of the Christian church, or any of a number of other faiths.

It seems there is an innate human tendency to become insular and territorial instead of being open and accepting and seeking to bring together. This unity of mankind is the goal afterall and so long as we seperate ourselves with dogma and doctrine that nurtures these innate fears and tendencies we as humanity will not achieve that which Jesus and the Buddha and the rest were telling us.

cheers

Christopher M

06-15-2003, 10:45 AM

So what is the purpose of Buddhist writing, philosophy, metaphysics, solitary practice, and ritual?

I mean, the first thing that comes to most people's minds when Buddhism is mentioned are purely self-centered meditation and prayer practices, as well as a complex metaphysics of karma, reincarnation, and cycling universes. Not that there's anything wrong with that; it's just a pretty far cry from the position that dogma and ritual are empty and the true call of the religion is compassionate action.

As a specific example, there's a Buddhist who has posted to this very forum a number of times, asking people to, to help a certain cause, intone a mantra a number of times - in a language they don't even know, in the name of a supernatual figure they're never heard of. It would be difficult to think of a better example of dogma and ritual than this.

So is all of this faux Buddhism? Have all these people been misled?

David Jamieson

06-15-2003, 01:16 PM

So is all of this faux Buddhism? Have all these people been misled?

The same can be said for any religion really.

Buddhism manifests itself as a religious practice in as many varieties and forms as any other religion. But, like any other religion, through time, it's clergy exacts new doctrinal law and dogma in order to have people conform to the practices and actions expected of the original teachings. At least according to the zeitgeist they live within and how the written word and traditional practices fit with that. In some cases, these man made laws seek to enforce a codefied discilpline and it is these laws that obfuscate the original teachings.

On the Orthodox end of any religion, you'll find that the process is much slower, but is essentially in that same pattern of growth and acceptance.

It's interesting that when you look at clergy and monastics how they are very different even in their own respective religions.

Clergy will argue the minutia of the most insignificant point, whereas monks won't argue at all and instead will just enjoy the company. :D

cheers

Christopher M

06-15-2003, 01:50 PM

So you do think all of that is faux Buddhism?

Aren't dogma and ritual more evident in Buddhism in the far east than in North America and Europe? If so, how do you explain this in terms of your model that evolution away from the original teachings is what generates this dogma and ritual?

David Jamieson

06-15-2003, 05:18 PM

Aren't dogma and ritual more evident in Buddhism in the far east than in North America and Europe?

Do you mean is there more dogma and ritual in far eastern buddhism as opposed to western buddhism?

If so, I don't think so. There are strict religious buddhist orders in the west as there are in the east and, there are more , shall we say leaning to the secular orders in the far east.

Because of the amount of time Buddhism has been practiced in the East as compared to the West, we see a cultural ingranation same as we see euro-centric cultural ingranation in the Christian churches of the west compared to say the Coptic Christians of Egypt.

But in North America, there are temples, the saffron robes, the greater and lesser vehicles being studied and all that other stuff that is recognized as buddhism.

But there are secular peoples in every faith who hold the faith as a core belief system.

There are also converts and people who have simply rejected the line of the church and chosen another path that makes more sense to them as individuals, and they seek their solice and community in this new found way.

I am not certain that a more simplistic approach is a bad thing if that's what you mean by faux buddhism. There are more secular jews, christians, muslims et al and for the most part it is the more secular groups who pay most of the lip service to the underlying tenets of any faith.

It doesn't make them bad, it's just how it is.

Half a loaf is better than no loaf at all.

cheers

Christopher M

06-15-2003, 06:04 PM

At least one of us isn't following what the other one is saying.

You described Buddhism as rejecting ritual and dogma, and claimed that the core of Buddhism is any good action.

By any standard, this is a secular definition of Buddhism, and a simplistic one.

What I am trying to do is understand your logic with respect to real-world observations of Buddhism; notably, that an awful lot of Buddhism doesn't corrospond to this description. In other words, that there's alot of non-secular and complex Buddhism out there - Buddhism which doesn't reject ritual and dogma.

This non-secular, complex, dogmatic, ritualistic Buddhism is what I was referring to tentatively as "faux Buddhism." But this was not meant as an attribution being made by me; but only as a means to prompt you to justify your position with respect to the above-mentioned real-world observations of Buddhism.

By asking you if you considered it "faux Buddhism", I'm trying to determine, for instance, if you don't consider it to be properly Buddhism; as it clearly conflicts with the descriptions of Buddhism you gave yourself.

I can't understand your reply at all, as you seem to be assigning the attributes of "secular" and "simple" and so on inappropriately. For instance, you're treating the approach that rejects religious ritual and teaching as "non-secular", which just doesn't seem to make any sense.

I'm assuming here either I simply don't understand your phrasing here, and hoping you'll clarify; or else that you didn't understand mine previously, so I'm offering up this as clarification.

Originally posted by Kung Lek
Do you mean is there more dogma and ritual in far eastern buddhism as opposed to western buddhism?

If so, I don't think so.

And this point, I'm simply confused about. Are you honestly asserting that Buddhist temples, "saffron robes" and such are a mainstay of western, not eastern Buddhism; and moreover, that they're even an invention of western Buddhism as it deviates over time from the original teachings? I'm having trouble justifying this to real-world observations.

Because of the amount of time Buddhism has been practiced in the East as compared to the West, we see a cultural ingranation same as we see euro-centric cultural ingranation in the Christian churches of the west compared to say the Coptic Christians of Egypt.

Coptic Christianity is far older than "western" Christianity, so it seems like you've misapplied all the comparisons to an extent that I can't understand what you're trying to say.

There are also converts and people who have simply rejected the line of the church and chosen another path that makes more sense to them as individuals, and they seek their solice and community in this new found way.

Right, but this is the exact opposite of saying that such people are following the original teachings and everything else is just a product of cultural deviation away from those teachings, as seemed to be your earlier position.

David Jamieson

06-15-2003, 09:26 PM

Right, but this is the exact opposite of saying that such people are following the original teachings and everything else is just a product of cultural deviation away from those teachings, as seemed to be your earlier position.

Chris, I don't understand where you are getting mixed up with what I am saying. It is fairly cut and dried.

Be good, do good and you are serving the truth.

If you want to call it god, then by all means.

If you want to attach ritual to further make concrete your will to carry out acts through life, then do so.

If you commit acts of evil, then that is what you are.
If you commit acts of good, then that is what you are. And people can change and in fact do change. People at 20 are not necessarilly what they are at 35. They don't hold the same beliefs, they don't take the same stances they once did and for the most part, their actions and daily activities will change and change again through life.

It's really simple. I am neither for or against any form of religious practice so long as it does no harm.
I am not speaking specifically of Buddhism or Christianity or any of it. To me, they are all the same except for the man made laws and trappings that are lumped in with the -original messages- of each.

The original message of peace and goodwill towards others that appears to be universal in all religious thinking is as far as I'm concerned the message worth looking at. Not the church, or the heirarchy or whether or not one is enlightened or believes that Jesus is the only way to enlightenment or heavan or nirvana.

The thing is, the more we discuss, teh further we go from the point.

My point is that by doing good, you are doing good by jesus and you are doing good by the buddhist traditions, jewish, islamic etc etc. That's it. That's all there is from where I look at it.

Granted, my life is not this continuous path of good actions. I am like anyone else. Ups and downs. Why do you seek to compartmentalize all this stuff when it's right there on the table?

Mankind is a soup of thoughts and actions through time. In some way , shape or form, we have all influeneced the next to come along. No religion really began tabula rasa. They all seem to have built over time and adopted thought from other areas outside and grown from that.

To say that the middle east wasn't effected by buddhist thought during the messianic period that was teh time of Jesus is in my opinion a mistake.

It's like saying the Sumerians didn't effect the Egyptians and the Egyptians didn't effect the Hebrews and Hebrews haven't effected Christians and Muslims.... well you get the point.

cheers

Christopher M

06-15-2003, 09:40 PM

Originally posted by Kung Lek
Chris, I don't understand where you are getting mixed up with what I am saying. It is fairly cut and dried.

Be good, do good and you are serving the truth.

I understand the premise of your personal philosophy here.

What I'm confused about is how you are equating it with Buddhism, which seems to me like something else.

I am not speaking specifically of Buddhism or Christianity or any of it.

Ah, I see. This was not evident.

Specifically because this started out of your position as to the specifics of Buddhism's and Christianity's recognition (or not) or each other's spiritual figures.

And also because you claimed people adhering to your personal philosophy were following "the Buddhist ideal", which seems now like a misleading misapplication.

To me, they are all the same except for the man made laws and trappings that are lumped in with the -original messages- of each.

Fair enough. So long as you realize that, by your own admission, this is neither the Buddhist nor Christian view, but your own personal philosophy.

Bringing this back to how it started, while your personal philosophy may be interesting, it really has nothing to do with any comparison of Buddhism and Christianity, as it is neither.

Specifically, your reply of 06/13/2003 11:38AM regarding this topic now seems like a non sequitur if you meant it to simply be your personal conception, divorced of any affiliation to Christianity and Buddhism.

David Jamieson

06-15-2003, 09:53 PM

Specifically because this started out of your position as to the specifics of Buddhism's and Christianity's recognition (or not) or each other's spiritual figures.

Well, that's not exactly how it started out. It was brought up in the course of this thread though.

And also because you called people who followed your personal philosophy "Buddhists", which seems to me like a misleading misapplication.

I don't think i said that anywhere Chris. I've pretty much always operated from the viewpoint of my own p.o.v, same as anyone else really.

Fair enough. So long as you realize that, by your own admission, this is neither the Buddhist nor Christian view, but your own personal philosophy.

Well, not exactly. There are Christians and Buddhists who share this view I have.

Bringing this back to how it started, while your personal philosophy may be interesting, it really has nothing to do with any comparison of Buddhism and Christianity, as it is neither.

It Draws from both. Ultimately it is distilled and manifested in my own actions. It's not a big stretch to attach the similarities of the tenets of each of these to what I am saying. One could quote scripture or sutras I guess, but then, that would be yet more interpretation.

Because I have drawn a point of view based on my exposure to both these religio-philosophies does not make my pov more or less valid than anyone elses.

There are aspects of all religions that I do, and do not agree with. Generally, these are the writings of men who are trying to make one accept a belief based on their own interpretation and perception of events. It is not the teachings of the masters. The teachings o the masters are without error as far as I'm concerned, because they are inspired by something more. Call it god, the Tao, the force, it doesn't matter. :D

cheers

Christopher M

06-15-2003, 10:00 PM

Originally posted by Kung Lek
I don't think i said that anywhere Chris. I've pretty much always operated from the viewpoint of my own p.o.v, same as anyone else really.

I'm referring to my post of 06/14/2003 9:34AM where I specifically asked you this question and you replied in the positive.

Well, not exactly. There are Christians and Buddhists who share this view I have.

They may share your view, but that doesn't make it the Christian or Buddhist view. You probably share alot of things with various Christians and Buddhists; this doesn't make those things constitutive of Christianity or Buddhism.

Because I have drawn a point of view based on my exposure to both these religio-philosophies does not make my pov more or less valid than anyone elses.

You're certainly right here.

Going back to the previous topic, I had commented "it seems not only misleading, but arrogant to presume that Buddhist figures would be active participants in Christian worship, as is clearly required of saints."

To which you'd replied "What is worship but commiting acts of goodness?"

Following the clarification that you mean this to apply only to your personal conception, I would reply: we now have three conceptions of worship: yours, the Buddhist, and the Christian. It would be inappropriate for any one of these to presume that their standards apply to the others. Thus, my original argument regarding the cross-incorporation of Buddhist and Christian religious figures stands insofar as it is based upon respecting the differences of these conceptions as applying within their own domains, rather than applying beyond their domains to supersede the conceptions of the others. This is the very "arrogance" to which I'd previously alluded.

David Jamieson

06-16-2003, 01:26 AM

Chris-

The Christian view can be seen as what I describe.
Here comes that scripture part. :)

John 3:21 - But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.

Luke 23:41 - And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds

2 Corinthians 12:12 - Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds.

Jude 1:15 - To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.

John 4:24 - God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

The Buddhist spin is different but puts a lot of value in actions when it comes to living.

The Eight Fold path speaks of this.

Right Speech
Right Action
Right Livelihood
Right Exertion or right effort
Right Awareness
Right Concentration
Right Aspiration
Right Understanding

If we think of worship only as falling prostrate and saying how great god is, then we have missed the idea. It's not a popularity contest after all, it's about how do we get along with each other and do we treat each other well in order to alleviate our suffering.

spiritually and physically.

cheers

Christopher M

06-16-2003, 01:53 AM

Originally posted by Kung Lek
The Christian view can be seen as what I describe.
Here comes that scripture part.

The logic error you seem to be making is of the same form made here: all dogs have four legs, cats have four legs, therefore cats are dogs.

I'm not challenging your ability to defend your view with Christian or Buddhist scripture. I'm simply saying that that doesn't mean your view is the Christian or Buddhist view.

ZIM

06-16-2003, 04:06 AM

Nikola Tesla, 1937 "A Machine To End War":

"Today, the religions of Christianity and Buddhism are the greatest religions both in number of disciples and in importance. I believe that the essence of both [in one] will be the religion of the human race in the twenty-first century. "

:) ;) :cool:

Former castleva

06-16-2003, 04:26 AM

You wish religion was a machine to end war.

ZIM

06-16-2003, 04:41 AM

ha! no- the title referred to a machine tesla claimed to have invented and locked up in his hotel safe... the essay was his predictions for the twenty-first century. few have happened, but then we've just started the 21st c.

David Jamieson

06-16-2003, 09:07 AM

I'm simply saying that that doesn't mean your view is the Christian or Buddhist view

Hey Chris. That is straight enough. But I wasn't selling my view as that of Christianity or Buddhism. By refering to the gospels and the eight fold path, I was merely pointing out, that my view does not conflict with these life philosophies.

I would lean more towards my view not meshing with some christian churches as opposed to the tenets of Christianity.

I would also add that the 'christian' and 'buddhist' life philosophies are so varieted in form an delivery now that there are other views that would conflict far more than what I would put on the table here. :)

Thanks for the discussion so far, it's a subject I obviously enjoy talking about.

cheers

GeneChing

06-16-2003, 10:20 AM

You're taking my comment on Buddha as a saint too literally, losing it's essence. Let me break it down so we're speaking more in generalities. You asked how Buddhists can be Christians and not vice versa. I replied that Christ has been included in some Buddhist iconography, but Buddha has yet to be included in any Christian iconography. Therein lies an intrinsic difference in these religions - acceptance of outsiders. The same exists in Hinduism and some fusion religions like Santeria and Tibetan Buddhism. It's a critical point, possibly one of the most criitcal.

As for my question of faith, I'm just curious where people are coming from. Obviously you're well read, MK, and I respect that. Obviously some others here aren't. I respect that too. But whether you get your Gandhi from a movie or his actual writings makes a difference. As to you reply, I think your'e thinking about this way too hard.

This is a difficult question to answer. It seems to me that most people mean by this, something akin to "What is your theory of human subjectivity?" or "What metaphysical position do you adopt?" Neither of these would be answered, even with remote adequacy, by a response of religious affiliation. And regardless of what your meaning is here, a sincere person could only ever answer honestly, "A work in progress."

Some of us just have faith - sincere faith. I can still say I'm a work in progress, but I've defined where my work lies. I have faith in Zen. There's still a lot of work to be done in Rastafarianism obviously, since we still can't pinpoint stuff like the Kebra Negast but it's a really young religion and might need a few centruies to work out the kinks. But if you ask me what my faith is, it's zen. Simple question, simple answer. That's zen too. :cool:

David Jamieson

06-16-2003, 10:42 AM

Therein lies an intrinsic difference in these religions - acceptance of outsiders.

I think that this is a point I was trying to make as well.
Non acceptance is in direct contrast to the base message it seems.

cheers

Christopher M

06-16-2003, 03:22 PM

Originally posted by GeneChing
Christ has been included in some Buddhist iconography, but Buddha has yet to be included in any Christian iconography. Therein lies an intrinsic difference in these religions - acceptance of outsiders.

I understand your position. It's just misfounded.

You're treating sainthood as if it is a vehicle for communicating ecumenical respect and acceptance. It's not. I'm not sure how much more clear to be about this; you're simply working under an incorrect assumption here. Obviously, this completely undermines the conclusion you've made above.

You don't claim Crayola is based upon non-acceptance because none of it's crayons are Buddha. Because you realize a) that Buddha isn't the kind of thing which can be a crayon, and b) the contents of Crayola packages aren't intended as a statement of ecumenicalism. Same deal here; the only difference is that, while you're probably comfortable with what Crayola and crayons are, you seem unfamiliar with the actual definition of sainthood. When people are unfamiliar with something, they let their preconceptions fill in the gaps. It seems to me like this is what is going on here.

In short, the "non-acceptance" you guys are seeing here requires an interpretation that departs from the Christian viewpoint. As such, it is certainly an inappropriate method for characterization of the religion.

David Jamieson

06-17-2003, 05:37 AM

I think the point on the Lohans vs the Saints deals more with the exclusionary position of the RC Church.

The RC order of Jesuits enters Asia, encounters buddhism and Hinduism, does not find them lacking, returns home, says this, gets in trouble because this is now schism material and the next foray is made only to evangelize Christianity with no more Jesuit recons.

This reflects poorly on the RC churches method of spreading the word. As they are the first Church of Christianity, It is interesting at how they shut out the rest of the world with dogma and doctrine and not until you are under the thumb of teh pope in rome are you to be accepted and even then, you are not accepted for who you are or where you came from, you are accepeted only as a new member of the Church.

The posistion of not including any and all humans who have made contributions to the service of a higher power and mankind because they are not jews or christians is a load. It looks bad and it reflects the stench of stodgy and arrogant traditionalism in the Catholic Church.

It's not an 'expectation' that the Lohan become saints and vice versa, It's a question of why is one belief system open to the world and the other closed? Almost militantly and clearly stubbornly. When the tenets of that religion state otherwise?

cheers

Shaolin-Do

06-17-2003, 06:31 AM

I find christianity pretty self contradicting actually, and if you actually look at what the bible has to say, you can determine that sin is a manly issue, never decided by "god". The bible states that
A. Humans were created in the image of who? God.
B. God is what? Perfect. Therefore, if god created man in his image, man to god is what? Perfect.
And the whole adam and eve VS. Incest issue is out the window to me.
I really really disagree with how discriminatory and non accepting of other religions christianity tends to be also. I feel accurate in saying this because I grew up going to christian churches with my friends, and I read the entire bible in 5th grade for the hell of it. Do christians not believe that anyone worshiping a "false diety" will go to hell? All others who believe in god are wrong, unless jesus christ is the figurehead for the religion? Just because Jah is the "spokesperson" for rastafari doesnt make it any less right, doesnt make their god any different from christianity's god. I think the american indians had it best when they told the americans "one day we hope the white man will realize that your land is our land, our sky is your sky, and our gods are one in the same."

GeneChing

06-17-2003, 09:54 AM

Kung Lek expressed my point well, but I'll concede to Christopher M that saints might have been a poor choice to draw the parallel. I'm not sure if anything in Christianity equates well to lohans. My limited understanding of the catholic saints - and keep in mind that I've never studied Catholicism - seemed like the most parallel. I based this impression on my experience of touring Mexico and looking at the statuary. It is so reminicent of the lohans.

As for Shaolin-Do's comment about self-contradiction, such is often the case when dealing with the spiritual. Don't go into Buddhism. We love paradox. It'll rape a logical mind.

@PLUGO

06-17-2003, 09:59 AM

Buddhism AND rape in the same phrase...

Not many can pull that off.

Now, Catholicism & rape . . .well, why bother . . . going there.

Former castleva

06-17-2003, 10:22 AM

I´m afraid catholicism is getting quite too close already.

Christopher M

06-17-2003, 03:48 PM

Originally posted by Kung Lek
Hinduism, does not find them lacking, returns home, says this, gets in trouble because this is now schism material and the next foray is made only to evangelize Christianity with no more Jesuit recons.

Where did you get this idea?

The claim that the Jesuits made about Chinese academia is the same claim the Christians made about classic Greek academia; and neither of which is "schism material", nor was even widely controversial. Both of them were percieved to be rich (and wise) in topics that appealed to Christian academics (eg. metaphysics, ethics). The only challenge this makes to the authority of the church is the challenge to learn from and form a cross-dialog with these movements.

Your confusion is understandable, as it results from a bias we've discussed previously: you [re]read history under the assumption that when Christians encounter new ideas, their purpose is to subvert. The history is against you though. This isn't what they did with the "pagan" Greeks, and it's not what was going on here.

You're similarly confused about the "evangelizing." First of all, it was the Jesuits who "converted" the bulk of the Chinese Christians. The distinction you're making between evangelizers and recons isn't just flawed in conception; the distinction itself didn't exist.

Moreover, why shouldn't Christians (Jesuits or not) spread the Christian message to China? The distinction you make above makes it sound like there's something cruel and subversive going on. These "evangelizers" were doing nothing more than spreading an intellectual movement (and not just Christianity; they were important in a wide variety of non-secular subjects wrt the meeting of "east" and "west").

This reflects poorly on the RC churches method of spreading the word.

In absence of your misconceptions, I don't see what you're remarking negatively about.

As they are the first Church of Christianity...

They are? There's quite a large number of Orthodox who would dispute that.

It is interesting at how they shut out the rest of the world with dogma and doctrine

You've yet to demonstrate how they've done that. The two arguments you've offered up, those of exclusionary sainthood and the Jesuits in China, both required you to disagree with the Christian (even Roman Catholic) position in order to conclude any sort of "shutting out" was going on. While that might make for an interesting discussion in it's own right, it's certainly inappropriate to hold the Catholics responsable for the products of your own musings.

not until you are under the thumb of teh pope in rome are you to be accepted and even then, you are not accepted for who you are or where you came from, you are accepeted only as a new member of the Church.

This seems like it's gone wildly off topic; and for a severe characterization, not a single reason for it is offered.

I'm not sure what "under the thumb of the pope" is meant to mean, so I can't comment on it.

As for not being accepted, it's the Catholic position that every man and woman is a child of God, and equally are saved by salvific grace; there is no requirement to be Catholic for this salvation. As a foundational doctrine, that's a pretty hefty step you'd have to "argue over" in order to prove your point. And the implicit comparison you're offering here seems clearly incorrect now, as this bit of doctrine is very far from being held universally by the world religions - including the other Christian churches.

With regard to respecting you for "who you are and where you came from", other Roman Catholic doctrines are that Christ's message is universal, that cultural developments of Christ's message are unavoidable and even desirable, and that the Catholic church must universally include all cultural conceptions. As such, the Roman Catholics welcome into their church all the appropriate religious movements without requiring them to change any aspect of their worship. An example is the "Uniate" churches, who I provided links upon earlier in this thread. They are churches with far different cultural practices who have nonetheless joined the Catholic church (in the formal sense, ie. what you are calling the Roman Catholic). They did not change their practices to do this, and Rome considers it a single church (you don't have to convert to switch between Roman and Byzantine Catholic, even though their practice is quite different). So not only does doctrine go against your conception here, even practice [now] does.

As before, it sounds like you simply don't have any real understanding of Catholicism, and you're letting your preconceptions fill in the blanks. In short, it seems like your antagonism is coming from ignorance. IMHO, this is it's usual source!

The posistion of not including any and all humans who have made contributions to the service of a higher power and mankind because they are not jews or christians is a load.

Not including them in what? And what special privelege are you presuming Jews have now? :confused:

It looks bad and it reflects the stench of stodgy and arrogant traditionalism in the Catholic Church.

Again, removed from your misconceptions, I don't see anything negative going on here.

It's not an 'expectation' that the Lohan become saints and vice versa, It's a question of why is one belief system open to the world and the other closed?

I'm not sure how to explain this, since I've tried a few times and obviously failed. Could you perhaps point out what part of my position here you're not understanding so I can clarify?

Saints are not a catalog of respect, holiness, wisdom, love, or indeed, any sort of exclusionary catalog at all. A saint is a participant in a conception of Christian liturgy which transcends space and time, different from the person next to you in Church who you relate to as a body in a specific place and time.

Including Buddha in Christian ritual would be the equivalent of going to one of your african or oriental friends and telling him you consider him an "honorary white guy." It might have sounded nice in your head, but it's the epitome of bigotry and arrogance. Presumably, you like your friend for who he is (which includes being african or oriental or inuit or whatever) and not because he comes close to being like you are. By the same logic, Christian ecumenicalism comes from an appreciation of Buddhism as Buddhism, not as being like (or unlike) Christianity.

Christopher M

06-17-2003, 04:00 PM

Originally posted by Shaolin-Do
Therefore, if god created man in his image, man to god is what? Perfect.

Sure, before the fall. Should have paid more attention to the Adam and Eve thing. :p

Do christians not believe that anyone worshiping a "false diety" will go to hell?

Some Christians might. Catholics/Orthodox don't.

ZIM

06-17-2003, 04:13 PM

CM- [and KL too, if you want]

Something that's been niggling at me for a little while...

I don't remember nor want to actually look up your exact wording [so bear that in mind now], but you wrote something that caught my eye.

You noted that there is a seeming 'universality' to belief in a 'higher power', a kind of functionality that this serves, perhaps, for the human mind. You noted that [IIRC!] there seems to be a consistency of feature throughout the world, cultures, etc. and that this seems to point towards evidence of that 'higher power' or maybe 'reality'.

None of this is something I'm questioning, BTW.

But you've also [more recently] made a distinction between ritualistic and 'faux' Buddhism, although I can't necessarily be sure which you are labelling 'faux', the ritualistic or the popular. I suspect the popular.

Again, no question there. ;)

So here's the question: Is the Ritualistic approach needed? Many, I would suppose, hold to their faiths in a Spiritualistic, rather than Ritualistic, fashion. Is it your position that these are invalid in some way?

on edit: this comes as a radical protestant interpretation, sure. "no stone church needed- the church is the body of believers". I do understand that, as a Catholic/Orthodox, you might have issues with that- I just was curious to see your views on it.

Christopher M

06-17-2003, 04:22 PM

Originally posted by ZIM
you've also [more recently] made a distinction between ritualistic and 'faux' Buddhism

No I didn't. My phrasing was "is this faux Buddhism?" not "this is faux Buddhism." It was a means to prompt Kung Lek for an explanation regarding how his characterization of Buddhism differed radically from my observations of it, not a characterization itself.

Is the Ritualistic approach needed?

For what?

Many, I would suppose, hold to their faiths in a Spiritualistic, rather than Ritualistic, fashion.

I'm not sure I know how you mean to be using your terms. Can you explain the proposed distinction?

ZIM

06-17-2003, 04:42 PM

No I didn't. My phrasing was "is this faux Buddhism?" not "this is faux Buddhism." It was a means to prompt Kung Lek for an explanation regarding how his characterization of Buddhism differed radically from my observations of it, not a characterization itself. Got it. But this [the ritualized aspects] was an observation on your part, something you took notice of. I was wondering if this was somehow important or a source of validation for that belief-system, in your eyes. Again, I'm coming from a radical protestant POV [to the point of admittedly being non-Xian, more Xian-based], thus I tend to think that churches are less necessary.
For what? For this connection to the Godhead, however defined.
I'm not sure I know how you mean to be using your terms. Can you explain the proposed distinction? I can see how it would be vague. I mean: is a 'sacred space' needed? Is a formalized rite needed? Liturgy? For a Spiritual-ized approach, its more dependent on belief/faith alone. For example, I believe that for 'gathering in the Name of Christ', a Ritual is not required, beyond *perhaps* the Eucharist. Indeed, I see ritual and, to a degree, theology as an impediment, though not everyone would or should agree with that.

EDIT: OUCH! I just realized that I have another thing to clarify: I'm asking if you are seeing this [ritualism] as a universal imperative, if other faiths should be held to that standard, if that is the only or best way to 'connect', as it were.

Christopher M

06-17-2003, 05:07 PM

Originally posted by ZIM
But this [the ritualized aspects] was an observation on your part

Actually, it was an observation on Kung Lek's part. He put forth a model explicitly contrasting dogma/doctrine with something else. I don't believe such a juxtaposition exists in the first place, which is why I was asking him to define it.

I'm coming from a radical protestant POV [to the point of admittedly being non-Xian, more Xian-based], thus I tend to think that churches are less necessary.

I don't understand the association you're making here with Protestantism. In Protestant thought, "the church" is tied fundamentally to the Bible; whereas in Catholic/Orthodox thought, "the church" is tied fundamentally to a cultural tradition. Different, certainly, not no less important. In some ways, more important: Protestant thought associates salvation with scripture and hence with the church; this association has no analog for Catholicism/Orthodox.

For this connection to the Godhead, however defined.

In Catholic/Orthodox thought there's no such thing as not-connected to the Godhead. My personal beliefs would accord with this.

is a 'sacred space' needed?

IMHO sacredness as an axis of being isn't correlated with the geographical axes. Again, this correlates to Catholic/Orthodox thought: Eucharist can be offered in ditches as readily as in churches.

For a Spiritual-ized approach, its more dependent on belief/faith alone.

If this is your belief, surely you mean to find parallels here with Catholicism/Orthodox, not Protestantism? Catholic/Orthodox thought follows the tenets of "faith and good works." Protestant thought follows the tenets of "faith and scripture." The former seems more like what you're describing.

For example, I believe that for 'gathering in the Name of Christ', a Ritual is not required, beyond *perhaps* the Eucharist.

The Eucharist is the very purpose for mass.

Indeed, I see ritual and, to a degree, theology as an impediment, though not everyone would or should agree with that.

I'll pretend like I'm talking about something else:

Idolatry is an impediment; but idolary has nothing to do with the presence of statues or other artwork.

Or, taking an utterly different tack: feel free to conceptualize "theology" as "being told what to think and thinking it questionlessly" and "ritual" as "being told what to do and doing it questionlessly", but don't presume that everyone else follows your standards.

ZIM

06-17-2003, 05:19 PM

The parts I am not responding to are those that I understand or don't need to clarify.

I don't understand the association you're making here with Protestantism. In Protestant thought, "the church" is tied fundamentally to the Bible; whereas in Catholic/Orthodox thought, "the church" is tied fundamentally to a cultural tradition. Different, certainly, not no less important. In some ways, more important: Protestant thought associates salvation with scripture and hence with the church; this association has no analog for Catholicism/Orthodox. Well, Protestantism naturally stems from the Catholic church in some way [hence protest]. My faith [hearer @ liberal wing, society of friends currently ;)] is not scripturally based, but faith based, so in that sense, that stream from Catholicism is kept to.
In Catholic/Orthodox thought there's no such thing as not-connected to the Godhead. My personal beliefs would accord with this. Same.
The Eucharist is the very purpose for mass Theres the difference. No rite= no mass.
Idolatry is an impediment; but idolary has nothing to do with the presence of statues or other artwork. Here, I think I'm beginning to see your position. My conception of 'theology' is closer to 'obfuscation' than dogma, BTW

David Jamieson

06-17-2003, 05:25 PM

Chris-

This is something I found from the Roman Catholic Church.

Before the formal canonization process began in the fifteenth century, many saints were proclaimed by popular approval. This was a much faster process but unfortunately many of the saints so named were based on legends, pagan mythology, or even other religions -- for example, the story of the Buddha traveled west to Europe and he was "converted" into a Catholic saint! In 1969, the Church took a long look at all the saints on its calendar to see if there was historical evidence that that saint existed and lived a life of holiness. In taking that long look, the Church discovered that there was little proof that many "saints", including some very popular ones, ever lived. Christopher was one of the names that was determined to have a basis mostly in legend. Therefore Christopher (and others) were dropped from the universal calendar.

Also, besides this, John Paul II made the big change himself and excluded all others in the list of saints that were not Catholic.

Also, as mentioned above, those deemed too steeped in Legend.
Interesting to note that the Buddha was at one time a Saint in the Catholic Church. Talk about revisionism.

Your confusion is understandable, as it results from a bias we've discussed previously: you [re]read history under the assumption that when Christians encounter new ideas, their purpose is to subvert. The history is against you though. This isn't what they did with the "pagan" Greeks, and it's not what was going on here.

I have to disagree with you here. Apparently we see this point differently. You say "convert" I say "subvert".

You're similarly confused about the "evangelizing." First of all, it was the Jesuits who "converted" the bulk of the Chinese Christians. The distinction you're making between evangelizers and recons isn't just flawed in conception; the distinction itself didn't exist.

I see a flaw here. The jesuits always did a recon and a report before they set about to do any converting, historically speaking, that's how they went about things. All scriptural sermonizing to those who are otherwise unaware amounts to evangelism.

Moreover, why shouldn't Christians (Jesuits or not) spread the Christian message to China? The distinction you make above makes it sound like there's something cruel and subversive going on. These "evangelizers" were doing nothing more than spreading an intellectual movement (and not just Christianity; they were important in a wide variety of non-secular subjects wrt the meeting of "east" and "west").

I don't think we need to discuss the cruel and subversive history of the Catholic church. It's well recorded. I didn't say they "shouldn't" do anything. But I did infer that the agenda was skewed by their own ideas on how people should be according more to their own law rather than the message of the gospels.

I agree the Jesuits are likely the most learned group in the catholic order. It was their mission to be so.

They are? There's quite a large number of Orthodox who would dispute that.

Well, the coptics have been around longer than the Catholic church, but the Roman Catholic Church does have a Unique place in the realm of Christianity. It is recognized as the Church of Peter, ergo the First Church of Christianity. It could be disputed that the Essenes are the first Church too. It is generally recognized that the Church of Rome is the first iteration of the Church of Christianity for all the western world.

As before, it sounds like you simply don't have any real understanding of Catholicism, and you're letting your preconceptions fill in the blanks. In short, it seems like your antagonism is coming from ignorance. IMHO, this is it's usual source!

Hardly Chris. As for the doctrinal attributes compared to what is put in practice, well, those are two different things. All people are NOT accepted until converted and the thinking is, codefied or not, not practiced in the way you mention.

Have you heard nothing of residential schools? Wherein children are removed from their families, forbidden to speak their language and forced to live in the way deemed acceptable by the Catholic church?

Certainly doesn't sound accepting and tolerant to me. If you need more info on these schools and the practices of the Roman Catholic church, I will be happy to dig up a few resources.

Saints are not a catalog of respect, holiness, wisdom, love, or indeed, any sort of exclusionary catalog at all. A saint is a participant in a conception of Christian liturgy which transcends space and time, different from the person next to you in Church who you relate to as a body in a specific place and time.

Not true. A saint is a Martyr or a miracle worker and that's the only ones who can be a saint in the RC Church.
Beatification comes only with proof of a miracle taking place.
As for a catalog, there actually is a catalog of Saints, around 10,000 of em from St.A to Saint Z + Patron Saints. New and Revised listings can be found at various places. :)

Btw and fwiw, the whole idea of saints was a carry over from the Jewish tradition of honouring the prophets. Much the same way that Christianity is a carry over from Judeaism. Or, for that matter Buddhism from Hinduism.

Chris, while there is a lot of information to absorb and attempt to understand through interpretation, I wouldn't consider myself any more confused than you or the next person about it.

What is written and what is done are 2 completely different things in the realm of Christianity. This is the gist of the whole thing.

cheers

Christopher M

06-17-2003, 05:32 PM

Originally posted by ZIM
Protestantism naturally stems from the Catholic church... that stream from Catholicism is kept to.

It sounds like you're picking bits from each. Not that there's anything wrong with that; just that I generally suspect people aren't as aware of the distinctions as they think.

Theres the difference. No rite= no mass.

Well, I meant this as a remark regarding your tentative acceptance of Eucharist; and not as a remark pertaining to any sort of necessity for other faiths or individuals or so on.

Again with the differences though: for Orthodox/Catholic the "gathering" you speak of is specifically to have the Eucharist; for Protestant this isn't true.

Here, I think I'm beginning to see your position. My conception of 'theology' is closer to 'obfuscation' than dogma

I understand. My conception of theology is of a living tradition reflecting mankind's striving to understand. Obviously, different conceptions of theology will effect how different people deal with it.

GeneChing

06-17-2003, 05:42 PM

Got a better lead on this?

Before the formal canonization process began in the fifteenth century, many saints were proclaimed by popular approval. This was a much faster process but unfortunately many of the saints so named were based on legends, pagan mythology, or even other religions -- for example, the story of the Buddha traveled west to Europe and he was "converted" into a Catholic saint!
I'd like to chase that one down a little more. Citation? Reference?

ZIM

06-17-2003, 05:43 PM

It sounds like you're picking bits from each. Not that there's anything wrong with that; just that I generally suspect people aren't as aware of the distinctions as they think. You're the theologian here. ;) :p Thanks for clarifying your POVs on this.

one link for gene (http://home.c2i.net/monsalvat/josaphat.htm)

Christopher M

06-17-2003, 05:53 PM

This is something I found from the Roman Catholic Church... Also, besides this, John Paul II made the big change himself

Am I supposed to be noting something which goes contrary to my explanations here? Perhaps you could elaborate upon it.

I have to disagree with you here. Apparently we see this point differently. You say "convert" I say "subvert".

I'm not sure what it is these remarks are aimed at, sorry.

The jesuits always did a recon and a report before they set about to do any converting, historically speaking, that's how they went about things.

If you mean the Jesuits travelled alot of places, investigated and learned alot of things, and wrote about it; yeah they did. Your nomenclature for this is curious, and I'm unsure about what you mean it to indicate.

All scriptural sermonizing to those who are otherwise unaware amounts to evangelism.

Otherwise unaware of what? :confused:

I don't think we need to discuss the cruel and subversive history of the Catholic church. It's well recorded.

Has the Catholic church done some cruel and subversive things? Certainly. Does this mean we re-read everything they've done to understand it as cruel and subversive? Certainly not. In other words, that they've done something subversive does not go towards proof that something else, a thing in question, is itself subversive.

But I did infer that the agenda was skewed by their own ideas on how people should be according more to their own law rather than the message of the gospels.

What you mean here is that they were preaching their understanding of the gospels rather than yours. I'm not sure what else you expect.

It is generally recognized that the Church of Rome is the first iteration of the Church of Christianity for all the western world.

All people are NOT accepted until converted

Accepted into what? :confused: If you mean, "all people are not accepted into the Catholic church until they join the Catholic church", I'm wondering again what else you expect.

As for the doctrinal attributes compared to what is put in practice, well, those are two different things.

I recognize this. I'm basing my position on doctrine. I'm not sure what else you expect.

Have you heard nothing of residential schools? Wherein children are removed from their families, forbidden to speak their language and forced to live in the way deemed acceptable by the Catholic church... If you need more info on these schools..I will be happy to dig up a few resources.

If you mean to be saying that the Catholic church, as a formal institutional act, is doing this currently; yes I would like some resources on that please.

A saint is a Martyr or a miracle worker

Perhaps if you could make some argument as to why you believe this to be the case, I could respond constructively.

I've allready pointed out that Catholic/Orthodox consider every individual a miracle worker; and moreover, that Catholic/Orthodox believe they participate in the greatest miracle, Eucharist, each time they attend mass. This seems like a reasonable enough counter-argument to at least warrant a reply.

If you're saying simply that historical evidence of [other] miracles is used in the process of beatification and cannonization, you're completely right. If you're concluding from this that being a miracle worker is constitutive of being a saint, you're incorrect. I've allready explained what is constitutive of being a saint. Being a devout Christian miracle worker gives the earthly authorities reason to believe you may be lifted up from Purgatory after death to be among the heavenly host, such that you can participate in the principle position in the communion of saints (the atemporal aspatial union previously described). Recall that Catholic/Orthodox believe [even] Christians are [almost always] end up in Purgatory upon death; hence this requirement.

ZIM

06-17-2003, 06:05 PM

in re: the argument over inclusion/exclusion of saints: a possible telling aspect might be the exclusion from consideration of martyrs or miracle-workers [bad term, but hey..] from other christian denominations, rather than to expect them to include those from religions not related to christianity.

eg., if the RCs don't recognize Orthodox saints, then there's a better case for exclusivity in this instance. I'll give the catholics one thing: they don't by and large condemn all miracles NOT sanctioned by their church, unlike *some* non-mainstream protestant churches who might say that all miracles not from the[ir] church are from the devil.

Christopher M

06-17-2003, 06:19 PM

ZIM - To perhaps respond more directly.

I don't believe there's any requirement for humans to do any sort of religious activity, whether you consider it ritualistic or spiritual. There is a deep body of religious work for people who are interested in it, and people are able to develop that side of themselves, but it doesn't make God (or whatever) love them any more. Just as there is a deep body of physical exercise, or plant biology, or classical music, with which people can develop themselves. There are constructive (and destructive!) religious avenues for any level of interest and commitment.

Regarding ritual, I've never met someone who has started to exert some interest and effort in religious practices (by any interpretation) who is not immersed in ritual. From my POV, ritual can be analyzed and categorized a wide number of ways; one way is to note that it's practice can be constructive or destructive. What happens is that people analyze "ritual" a certain way, associate themselves along one axis, then assume everyone categorized differently is approaching ritual destructively. This is just human nature. It's curious to note that certain Christian churches and certain eastern meditation groups have mutually criticized one another for being practitioners of "ritual." Which one of them is right? Is every eastern meditator being constructive in their ritualistic behavior? Or destructive? Is every Christian being constructive? Or destructive?

It's my perspective that the constructive-destructive is related not to the external approach to ritual, but to a meta-approach. What do I mean as meta-approach? For instance, take our previous discussion on theology. We could say an "approach" to theology would be Christian vs Buddhist, or Rational vs Mystical, or whatever. By "meta-approach" I mean what we outlined earlier, that theology is a living tradition, or it's a means of obfuscation. Meta-approach is how we orient ourselves with respect to something. Obviously, this topic can get pretty complicated.

But it applies to ritual as well, and it's in meta-approach that things can get destructive.

Going back to idolatry; it's my conception that idolatry is the "addressing" of an image of something, rather than the thing itself. By image here, I mean specifically to imply [i]mental image (what images aren't mental anyway?). So being an idolater really has nothing to do with how you, for instance, address a statue of Mary. Rather, it has to do with your meta-approach towards that statue. Our friends the "eastern meditation practitioners" have written an awful lot on mental image idolatry I think!

It's the same thing with theology, ritual, and really, everything else. You can make it empty, or you can make it full. More realistically, you can strive to make it as full as possible as often as possible, or not.

I don't believe what external form your theology and ritual take dictate whether or not you'll be able to find a "full" meta-approach. Going back to idolatry, we can have Hindu idolaters as easily as Christian ones.

A further "principle" I have in this analysis is that there's nothing special about a belief that situates itself as a "negative" belief. In other words, I don't consider a devout atheist to be any less religious than a devout Christian. Going back to ritual, for instance, it's quite possible to ritualistically avoid ritual. In my POV, this is just as much ritual as any obvious ritual is. I suppose, again, because I'm trying my best to approach it more from the "meta" angle.

I hope that was the sort of thing you were looking for.

BTW, as per your previous question, I don't think anyone's standards should be enforced upon any other faith. And I think when you start doing that, you get very confused. That said, I recognize that that itself is a standard; and that meta-beliefs themselves are beliefs and so on. At this point, language fails me to properly clarify; I do not know if this is language proper or just me.

ZIM

06-17-2003, 06:44 PM

Wow, that was a lot.

In a sense, what you're saying is that a person who endeavours to live their life in the 'imitation of Christ', without recourse to church or rite or priest or intermediary of any kind, is engaging in perhaps the most pervasive ritual of all.

Inescapable, maybe, so- ritual [in a meta sense] becomes the necessary conduit... its an interesting thought, from the POV of the Godhead, presuming one could even do that.

Christopher M

06-17-2003, 07:56 PM

Originally posted by ZIM
what you're saying is that a person who endeavours to live their life in the 'imitation of Christ', without recourse to church or rite or priest or intermediary of any kind, is engaging in perhaps the most pervasive ritual of all.

Well... I wouldn't say that; that example brings to mind alot of "Well, what do you mean by..."'s. I will say that "living your life without recourse to church or rite or priest or intermediary of any kind" is an independant variable from "engaging in ritual." Does that make sense?

I will add that I believe associating "church or rite or priest" with "intermediary of any kind" is a "meta-approach" which not all will share.

Probably veering wildly off topic here again, but regarding the "necessary conduit:" a conduit connects two things, but if you're not sure the "two" things in question actually are distinct, the idea of a conduit between them becomes meaningless. There's no "necessary conduit" between the redness of an apple and the apple; that idea is meaningless.

Similarly, if you concieve of the changes being made by religious act as being in the "right here" rather than the "something else", the idea of the conduit again loses it's meaning. The redness of an apple may darken to indicate ripeness as appropriate for the color of the apple, but this is only the "redness of an apple" changing, not what it is that makes associates "redness of an apple" with "apple", this is eternal, as what it is to be "redness of an apple" is constitutive of being associated with the apple (and the apple is constitutive of having redness!). Color me amazed if that makes any sense.

ZIM

06-17-2003, 08:11 PM

Well... I wouldn't say that; that example brings to mind alot of "Well, what do you mean by..."'s. I will say that "living your life without recourse to church or rite or priest or intermediary of any kind" is an independant variable from "engaging in ritual." Does that make sense? Sure. Obsessive/compulsives, for instance.

See ya tomorrow- nice chatting. :)

Christopher M

06-17-2003, 08:12 PM

Take care. :)

David Jamieson

06-18-2003, 02:32 AM

Chris, I would suggest that you read some of the doctrine of the Catholic church.

Then read the gospels and the bible itself.
Therein you will find the conflicts.

The criteria for Sainthood is quite clear.
The Doctrine of the Catholic Church is not the same as what is said in the Bible in regards to so many subjects it si mind boggling.

The Idolatry, the diefication of non dieties, the transubstanation question and the list goes on and on. We could talk about this forever.

When the foundation of the house is weak, it will fall.

cheers

GeneChing

06-18-2003, 09:45 AM

Thanks for that link. Interesting. I love Wagner. I wonder how much of that version could be accounted for by universal concepts - sort of a Campbellian veiw of the hero's journey. Is that a cop out? I'm defaulting to parallel development again. I'll have to look a little deeper into the Josaphat. Damascus would have been a logical exchange point and 6 CE would work.

Shaolin-Do

06-18-2003, 09:47 AM

http://www.artcenter.edu
Gene- Any knowledge of this school? (Is in cali, wondering if you have heard anything about it, Im thinkin gof applying.)

Christopher M

06-18-2003, 10:14 AM

Originally posted by Kung Lek
Chris, I would suggest that you read some of the doctrine of the Catholic church.

Then read the gospels and the bible itself.
Therein you will find the conflicts.

:confused: I'm really confused by your approach here. I expect that if you have a position you wish to make, or a criticism of a position I have made, that you'll simply do so. I'm entirely unsure as to the purpose of an obscure authoritarian appeal such as the above. It does not suggest in even the loosest terms what your position or criticism is; and thus prevents me from offering any sort of reply other than dealing with you on an authortarian level as well, which I'm not willing to do.

The criteria for Sainthood is quite clear.

What do you mean by criteria? If you mean, the definition, or constitutive values of sainthood, yes this is quite clear:

Allow me to quote from the Catholic Encylopedia: "nothing else is defined than that the person canonized is in heaven" and "The communion of saints is the spiritual solidarity which binds together the faithful on earth, the souls in purgatory, and the saints in heaven in the organic unity of the same mystical body under Christ its head, and in a constant interchange of supernatural offices. The participants in that solidarity are called saints by reason of their destination and of their partaking of the fruits of the Redemption... . The solidarity itself implies a variety of inter-relations: within the Church Militant, not only the participation in the same faith, sacraments, and government, but also a mutual exchange of examples, prayers, merits, and satisfactions." (see Beatification and Canonization; Communion of the Saints)

This seems to accord itself directly and explicitly to the remarks I have made previously.

If you mean, by criteria, the judgement by which someone is declared a saint; and you mean to indicate here it is, as you have said previously, an office of miracle-workers and martys, I will quote again from the Catholic Encyclopedia which states on no uncertain terms "There is no question of heroic virtue in this formula [of canonization]" (see Beatification and Canonization).

As for the use, in general, of miracles and martyrdom in the decision process of canonization, I've allready agreed and commented that you need to differentiate between evidence looked for in an earthly pseudo-judicial process and qualities that are constitutive of a certain state. I'll return your attention to the quotes given above, with respect to those constitutive qualities.

[B]The Doctrine of the Catholic Church is not the same as what is said in the Bible in regards to so many subjects it

Of course it is: and quite explicitly. I've tried to explain numerous times on this thread that the Catholic/Orthodox conception of their religion is as a living tradition, and not (as the Protestants) as an interpretation of the Bible.

The Idolatry, the diefication of non dieties, the transubstanation question and the list goes on

:confused: Again here I am very confused with your approach. I have spoken at length here on the topic of idolatry/deification. Did you not understand? Did you disagree? Should I clarify the entire thing, or a specific point? Offer references? I have no idea, as you've offered no reply at all. You just continue to assert your position on these topics as if my argument was never presented. It seems to me that this usurps the possibilty of discussion, again; and the only reply I could give, again, would be to join you on the authoritarian level. I'm not interested in that manner of conversing.