|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Thinking of converting to Buddhism - 4/22/2008 1:39:18 AM
|
|
|
Real_Solitude
Posts: 328
Joined: 5/9/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: xc279
I just have to point out that Christianity has the same type of thing. Catholic and Protestant. Both have different sects within them.
Heh, that's what I was saying. If you're going to switch, you might as well find one without a fractured congregation. Make things easier in the long run.
_____________________________
"Instead of feeling alone in a group its better to have real solitude all by yourself."
~Faye Valentine
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Thinking of converting to Buddhism - 4/22/2008 1:42:00 AM
|
|
|
GrapeApe
Posts: 8543
Joined: 6/5/2006
From: the Land Where My Jokes come From.
Status: offline
|
There were two on a boat out into the vast open sea. One a Christian, the other a Buddhist. The Christian man pointed out that the Buddhist had a Buddha statue, made out of authenticity, within his hand. He walked up to him and stated, "my God can make that statue of yours float." Knowing what the statue was made out of, the Buddhist didn't hesitate to agree.
They walk over alongside the rail, he throws the statue into the water. A few seconds later, they see the statue resurfacing. Right at that moment, the Buddhist fell to his knees and accepted God's truth.
You might want to think twice about what religion or deity you want to serve, and what you're passing it up, because it doesn't appear like you fully understand what you're throwing away. And if you're aiming to be a "good person", sorry, but, no one is fully good.
God designed humankind as a triune being, possessing mind, emotion, and will with which they can respond to Him freely with worship and serve Him as Lord out of faith, loyalty, and gratitude. He doesn't send people to hell for "breaking a rule". Nobody can fully keep His laws, if such a person existed, they wouldn't be living in a flawed world. He presented us with a choice. He presented us with a reconciliation for our rebellion so we could keep those laws through Jesus Christ, His only begotten son.
He created us. He gave us choice. We chose sin.
He created an escape. He gave us Jesus. We chose to reject and spit in His face.
Who's fault is it really?
_____________________________
your love cuts like a knife into the darkest part of me.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Thinking of converting to Buddhism - 4/22/2008 2:39:13 AM
|
|
|
Konstantinos
Posts: 8520
Joined: 4/14/2005
From: Greece Thessaloniki
Status: offline
|
quote:
Hi, I was a Christian for basically all my life. I went to a Christian school until junior high at which point I moved and started going to public school. I read the Da Vinci Code which (I know it is fiction) was enough for me to start doubting. I did research on my own to try and figure out the truth. I discovered that there are no historical records of anything that Jesus did outside of the Bible. The Bible also had no proof to support it.
On a spiritual level I also had my doubts. I never asked to be created. How can a loving God send people to Hell just for not loving him? I know that the reason for this was because all have sinned and fallen short the glory of God. But if he created sin (since he created everything), he created hell, he made the laws and decided that if anyone disobeyed them and chose not to love him that they would spend eternity in hell, then why should I love him?
Can anyone shed some light on this?
you are assuming things that you shouldnt.
your idea of a "loving god" is one that does what you want. its not that way.
you should see the matter in a different way. God is God, He is the truth, so He definitely knows better than you and deserves everything. thats your answer to quote:
then why should I love him
hell doesnt mattter, death doesnt matter, sin doesnt matter, whether He is loving or not doesnt matter in this case. just the fact alone that He is God means that He deserves what He wants to have. if you cant understand that then you should think about it for a long time.
see the difference is that you take His love for granted. when you do that its no longer grace to you, its more of something that you expect and think that you deserve. when you receive love from God it should be felt as grace and you should be grateful for it rather than disappointed if you dont get it. not that you shouldnt want it, but its one thing to expect/demand it, its another to hope for it.
now God made some rules. the moment you break one you sin. and whats sin? sin is going against God's will in whatever way. by breaking a rule of God you are putting some desire of yours above what you should do, what God tells you you should do. is there any excuse for that? sure, plenty. but is there any good enough excuse so that what you did was right? no
if you are iin a class in school... if you suddenly get up and run out of the class its not really something you should do. you could have the excuse that.. you were bored and wanted to go out. that doesnt make it right. you could also have the excuse that the building is on fire. thats a good excuse and makes it right. but thats not like that with God. God's commands are absolute. there is NO good enough excuse.
btw since you mentioned your own rules.. im sure you've broken your own rules too. i know i have.
now since you've broken God's rules, which arent all that crazy demanding in the first place(He asks you to love Him?!? gee wow.. i wonder if He asked us to kill all infidels like the muslims are supposed to what you'd think)... what do you think you deserve? again what you DESERVE, not what you are HOPING you deserve. all people hope they get a second chance whether they break God's law or human law. if you've ever done something illegal im sure the moment you were worried if you'd get caught that they'd give you a second chance. take most adults for example and if they were speeding...
anyway.. you deserve hell.. you broke God's rules, not human rules. God's rules are absolute, perfect and true.
now despite all of that, God sent Jesus and carried all of our sins cause He chose to, and died with them for us, but being perfect and.. Jesus He got resurrected despite the sins. this part is kinda tricky to understand.. and not the most important part IMO... i think it probably was easier to understand in 33 A.D. (or actually 0 A.D. but whatever). the important thing is to love God, understand that you deserve hell, and need God for forgiveness. or something like that.
now you might be asking whats the big deal with all of those things.. its God so nothing is hard for Him so why not keep us all in heaven?
well then you should remind yourself to not have demands from God. He is God. you are human. you sinned against God, you betrayed Him and thought/acted/felt superior to Him.
if thats not a reason for going to hell then why onearth do people give other reasons like murder, abuse, drinking, etc? God is more important than any of these.
_____________________________
I'm best friends with the boogie man.
I'm a beast.
I'm a HH.
Tiger hug.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Thinking of converting to Buddhism - 4/22/2008 11:04:05 AM
|
|
|
maha
Posts: 1
Joined: 4/22/2008
Status: offline
|
There is an extraordinary amount of misinformation about Buddhism on this thread. It seems, well, un-Christian to hate and vilify something that you don't understand.
Buddhism is a 25-century-old religion. There is a great deal more to it than the five, eight, or ten precepts (the number varies by sect).
I was raised Christian but converted to Buddhism about 20 years ago. One reason I converted is that Buddhism does not claim to have a copyright on perfect truth. The absolute truth cannot be contained by human language or cognition, so from a Buddhist perspective simply believing in doctrines is a bit pointless. Rather than being a belief system, Buddhism is a practice for realizing truth for yourself.
I don't necessarily think everyone should convert to Buddhism. If you aren't called to the dharma, then I urge you to study Jesus' teachings and practice them sincerely.
In loving kindness,
maha
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Thinking of converting to Buddhism - 4/22/2008 2:50:22 PM
|
|
|
earthless
Posts: 4826
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: where bbq pigeons roast....
Status: offline
|
Maha,
You're right. The claims of Jesus Christ are indeed absolute. And the claims of the Bible are also absolute, for all of mankind.
_____________________________
Probing Today's Religious Movements | Promoting Doctrinal Discernment & Critical Thinking | Providing Reasons for Christian Faith & Ethics
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Thinking of converting to Buddhism - 4/22/2008 4:18:25 PM
|
|
|
FaithLegacy
Posts: 26
Joined: 4/9/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: xc279
Hi, I was a Christian for basically all my life. I went to a Christian school until junior high at which point I moved and started going to public school. I read the Da Vinci Code which (I know it is fiction) was enough for me to start doubting. I did research on my own to try and figure out the truth. I discovered that there are no historical records of anything that Jesus did outside of the Bible. The Bible also had no proof to support it.
On a spiritual level I also had my doubts. I never asked to be created. How can a loving God send people to Hell just for not loving him? I know that the reason for this was because all have sinned and fallen short the glory of God. But if he created sin (since he created everything), he created hell, he made the laws and decided that if anyone disobeyed them and chose not to love him that they would spend eternity in hell, then why should I love him?
Can anyone shed some light on this?
I question your desire for seeking the truth. It seems your title "Thinking of converting to Buddhism" was misleading. I am confused because you later state you have been buddhist for 20yrs. So you are not thinking about converting - you have 20yrs ago? From your post its plainly evident from my perspective that you have established yourself in this religion. As I read along I feel you already made up your mind so even the most eloquent or intelligent person can't change you. So my question is do you desire to seek the truth or would you like to engage in a Christianity/ Buddhism debate?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Thinking of converting to Buddhism - 4/22/2008 5:32:06 PM
|
|
|
xc279
Posts: 57
Joined: 4/21/2008
Status: offline
|
In response to FaithLegacy:
quote:
ORIGINAL: maha
There is an extraordinary amount of misinformation about Buddhism on this thread. It seems, well, un-Christian to hate and vilify something that you don't understand.
Buddhism is a 25-century-old religion. There is a great deal more to it than the five, eight, or ten precepts (the number varies by sect).
I was raised Christian but converted to Buddhism about 20 years ago. One reason I converted is that Buddhism does not claim to have a copyright on perfect truth. The absolute truth cannot be contained by human language or cognition, so from a Buddhist perspective simply believing in doctrines is a bit pointless. Rather than being a belief system, Buddhism is a practice for realizing truth for yourself.
I don't necessarily think everyone should convert to Buddhism. If you aren't called to the dharma, then I urge you to study Jesus' teachings and practice them sincerely.
In loving kindness,
maha
I was not the one that converted 20 years ago. That was another user. This has unintentionally turned into a debate and that was not my intention. I simply had large doubts that had been raised one year ago that no one had been able to answer so I was seeing if anyone here could help me. No one could so I have decided to convert to Buddhism.
I am not going to post anymore at the risk of possibly causing someone else to lose faith. To me it's more important that you believe in something than it is what you believe. I wish everyone the best.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Thinking of converting to Buddhism - 4/23/2008 1:30:29 AM
|
|
|
Ezra
Posts: 1982
Status: offline
|
Hi xc279
quote:
ORIGINAL: xc279
I discovered that there are no historical records of anything that Jesus did outside of the Bible.
The historical records that would be contemporary with the Bible (from about 1500 B.C. to 70 A.D.) are considerably inferior to the Bible (but they do echo some of the history within the Bible, such as the Flood).
But the Bible itself is a truthful historical record that goes beyond the capability of man. Christ was foretold in much detail in the Old Testament thousands of years before He came to this earth. No honest person can simply dismiss the Bible as either unhistorical or inaccurate. Christians believe that it is the very Word of God to man.
quote:
The Bible also had no proof to support it.
Really? The existence of the nation of Israel from the time of Moses to this present day should be proof enough. Many have tried to exterminate the Jews, but they are living proof that the Bible is a truthful record of Israel and God's dealings with it.
quote:
I never asked to be created.
So what? Gautama Buddha never asked to be created, and all he could offer his followers was "enlightenment". Christ is the Light of the world, and He also gave Buddha some light. Did you think about that?
quote:
How can a loving God send people to Hell just for not loving him?
That's not the reason why people end up in Hell. Only those who reject the Gospel and Christ (as you may be attempting to do) end up in Hell. Hell was actually created for the devil and his angels. That is why God provided Himself a Lamb from before the foundation of the world. The Lamb was for sinners just like you and me.
quote:
I know that the reason for this was because all have sinned and fallen short the glory of God.
Once again, you are somewhat mistaken. While all have sinned and come short of the glory of God, whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
quote:
But if he created sin (since he created everything),
That's a big "if". God created men and angels with the ability to make moral decisions. You can choose sin or righteousness. But God did not "create" sin. Sin is the result of making choices contrary to God's character and holiness.
quote:
he created hell, he made the laws and decided that if anyone disobeyed them and chose not to love him that they would spend eternity in hell, then why should I love him?
The Law is to show us that we are guilty before God. The Cross is to show us that God placed all our sins and guilt on His own beloved Son, so that you and I might have eternal life. And we love Him because He first loved us. God is not willing that any should perish [in Hell] but that all should come to repentance. But without faith and repentance, there is no salvation.
quote:
Can anyone shed some light on this?
Not Buddha for sure. Siddhartha was a man like all of us, and he did not die for our sins or rise again for our justification. It is only Christ who can shed light on this since He is both fully God and fully Man. He became our Savior so that you and I would not only be saved from Hell, but from ourselves. Only in Christ can one be seen as righteous and also become righteous. The Lord is our righteousness.
_____________________________
And whosoever will, let him take the Water of Life freely. Revelation 22:17
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Thinking of converting to Buddhism - 4/23/2008 2:58:33 AM
|
|
|
Sartrian
Posts: 54
Joined: 4/21/2008
Status: offline
|
What a fascinating thread. It's a shame I couldn't get here from the start, but I'll respond to the latest post!
quote:
The historical records that would be contemporary with the Bible (from about 1500 B.C. to 70 A.D.) are considerably inferior to the Bible (but they do echo some of the history within the Bible, such as the Flood).
Unfortunately, according to the planet and the geologists who bring its secrets to light, there was no great and global flood. However, Mesopotamia, the homeland of the Jewish religion, is riddled with flood-plains that (of course) flood catastrophically from time to time. To ancient eyes, this might have seemed like the end of the world, and may have inspired the myth of Utnapishtim-- which in turn, inspired the story of Noah.
quote:
But the Bible itself is a truthful historical record that goes beyond the capability of man. Christ was foretold in much detail in the Old Testament thousands of years before He came to this earth. No honest person can simply dismiss the Bible as either unhistorical or inaccurate. Christians believe that it is the very Word of God to man.
And the Zoroastrians believe the Vendidads are the very Word of God to man.
quote:
Really? The existence of the nation of Israel from the time of Moses to this present day should be proof enough. Many have tried to exterminate the Jews, but they are living proof that the Bible is a truthful record of Israel and God's dealings with it.
The Zoroastrians have existed longer, survived the purges of the Muslims, and currently exist. By your logic, their holy texts are just as valid as the Tanakh and the Gospels.
quote:
So what? Gautama Buddha never asked to be created, and all he could offer his followers was "enlightenment". Christ is the Light of the world, and He also gave Buddha some light. Did you think about that?
Siddhartha Gautama's enlightenment consisted of realizing the dubious nature of reality and urging others to take control of their own lives in a moral way that seperated them from the narrowness and self-aggrandization of human society.
quote:
That's not the reason why people end up in Hell. Only those who reject the Gospel and Christ (as you may be attempting to do) end up in Hell. Hell was actually created for the devil and his angels. That is why God provided Himself a Lamb from before the foundation of the world. The Lamb was for sinners just like you and me.
Why an omnipotent, omniscient being would need to torture lesser beings for all eternity is beyond me. Ironically enough, it was beyond Siddhartha Gautama too. Hence the secular nature of Buddhism.
quote:
Once again, you are somewhat mistaken. While all have sinned and come short of the glory of God, whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
And while you're in heaven forever, you'll get to look down and watch me and billions of other people being tortured until the end of time. Let's hope you enjoy it!
quote:
That's a big "if". God created men and angels with the ability to make moral decisions. You can choose sin or righteousness. But God did not "create" sin. Sin is the result of making choices contrary to God's character and holiness.
If god created a scenario in which sin could come to be, then yes, he did create sin. The question remains-- why would an omniscient, omnipotent being need or want to create a universe in which suffering and possible eternal misery could even *potentially* exist?
quote:
The Law is to show us that we are guilty before God. The Cross is to show us that God placed all our sins and guilt on His own beloved Son, so that you and I might have eternal life. And we love Him because He first loved us. God is not willing that any should perish [in Hell] but that all should come to repentance. But without faith and repentance, there is no salvation.
Why would an omniscient, omnipotent being need to sacrifice his own son to negate sin? Who is he sacrificing him to? Himself? Does that make sense?
quote:
Not Buddha for sure. Siddhartha was a man like all of us, and he did not die for our sins or rise again for our justification.
Right. Siddhartha Gautama told people to work mindfully towards bettering themselves without having to rely on the world or the gods therein.
quote:
It is only Christ who can shed light on this since He is both fully God and fully Man. He became our Savior so that you and I would not only be saved from Hell, but from ourselves.
Again, why does an omniscient, omnipotent being need to create an existence in which his creations could even potentially go to a torture pit for eternity?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Thinking of converting to Buddhism - 4/23/2008 3:20:34 AM
|
|
|
Sartrian
Posts: 54
Joined: 4/21/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
Wow, one day on a thread with anonymous strangers and he was unable to get immediate and satisfactory answers to life's biggest questions, and has chosen to change his entire belief system as a result.
That makes total sense.
No worse than believing that a carpenter from ancient Judea is a divine being that can send you to a pit of fire for eternity if you break his arbitrary rules.
Or that the ethnic rantings, biased histories, and half-intelligent moral judgments of a tribe of desert nomads from two thousand BCE have any worth in our time.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Thinking of converting to Buddhism - 4/23/2008 3:23:36 AM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 6771
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
No worse than believing that a carpenter from ancient Judea is a divine being that can send you to a pit of fire for eternity if you break his arbitrary rules.
Or that the ethnic rantings, biased histories, and half-intelligent moral judgments of a tribe of desert nomads from two thousand BCE have any worth in our time.
Well, yes, if someone believed those things based only on that information after a day of talking to anonymous strangers, then they too would be unreasonable.
_____________________________
Jack
“I mean to live my life an obedient man, but obedient to God, subservient to the wisdom of my ancestors; never to the authority of political truths arrived at yesterday at the voting booth”
William F. Buckley Jr. 1925-2008
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Thinking of converting to Buddhism - 4/23/2008 3:30:23 AM
|
|
|
Sartrian
Posts: 54
Joined: 4/21/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
Well, yes, if someone believed those things based only on that information after a day of talking to anonymous strangers, then they too would be unreasonable.
No, of course the Gospels and Tanakh are written by good sources. Other than the fact that the authors of the Tanakh were the people the Tanakh talks about and glorifies.
And nevermind that the Gospels claiming Jesus of Nazareth was god were written by the guys who supposedly followed Jesus of Nazareth.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Thinking of converting to Buddhism - 4/23/2008 3:34:07 AM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 6771
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
No, of course the Gospels and Tanakh are written by good sources. Other than the fact that the authors of the Tanakh were the people the Tanakh talks about and glorifies.
And nevermind that the Gospels claiming Jesus of Nazareth was god were written by the guys who supposedly followed Jesus of Nazareth
So, you think the history of the Jews and the record of the life of Christ would have been better written by people not present at the events?
_____________________________
Jack
“I mean to live my life an obedient man, but obedient to God, subservient to the wisdom of my ancestors; never to the authority of political truths arrived at yesterday at the voting booth”
William F. Buckley Jr. 1925-2008
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Thinking of converting to Buddhism - 4/23/2008 3:43:07 AM
|
|
|
Sartrian
Posts: 54
Joined: 4/21/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
So, you think the history of the Jews and the record of the life of Christ would have been better written by people not present at the events?
That's a ridiculous thing to say. The Tanakh records that the Israelites interacted with hundreds of different groups and civilizations, which would count as "being present at the events." Yet, none of these parties record things even vaguely like what the Israelites described. The Egyptians didn't record any plagues, their neighbors recognized them as a tiny, unimportant little kingdom, and the vast, miraculous events recorded in the Tanakh as going smoothly for the Israelites were never even mentioned in passing in any other Middle Eastern civilization.
And as for the Gospels-- Jesus did his work in Judea, a province of the Roman Empire. Even if you wanted to claim that the Jewish community was unwilling to record his "miracles," or even his very existence, the Romans would have undoubtedly written about any miracles (considering that they were a disinterested third party). Yet, there's absolutely nothing like that.
Get over yourself. The Tanakh and Gospels were written by people who had a vested interest in making their groups look good, and they were willing to be incredibly biased in order to do that.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Thinking of converting to Buddhism - 4/23/2008 3:51:04 AM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 6771
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
That's a ridiculous thing to say. The Tanakh records that the Israelites interacted with hundreds of different groups and civilizations, which would count as "being present at the events." Yet, none of these parties record things even vaguely like what the Israelites described. The Egyptians didn't record any plagues, their neighbors recognized them as a tiny, unimportant little kingdom, and the vast, miraculous events recorded in the Tanakh as going smoothly for the Israelites were never even mentioned in passing in any other Middle Eastern civilization.
And as for the Gospels-- Jesus did his work in Judea, a province of the Roman Empire. Even if you wanted to claim that the Jewish community was unwilling to record his "miracles," or even his very existence, the Romans would have undoubtedly written about any miracles (considering that they were a disinterested third party). Yet, there's absolutely nothing like that.
Get over yourself. The Tanakh and Gospels were written by people who had a vested interest in making their groups look good, and they were willing to be incredibly biased in order to do that.
You didn't really answer the question. Would those outside sources have given us a better record of this 'tiny kingdom' and the later, small 'Jewish sect' than the insiders?
_____________________________
Jack
“I mean to live my life an obedient man, but obedient to God, subservient to the wisdom of my ancestors; never to the authority of political truths arrived at yesterday at the voting booth”
William F. Buckley Jr. 1925-2008
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Thinking of converting to Buddhism - 4/23/2008 4:01:27 AM
|
|
|
Sartrian
Posts: 54
Joined: 4/21/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
You didn't really answer the question. Would those outside sources given us a better record of this 'tiny kingdom' and the later, small 'Jewish sect' than the insiders?
I answered your question perfectly. [Edited by moderator - TOS 6]
But since I'm compelled to answer your question, let me.
A group cannot be trusted to create an unbiased historical record of its own actions, due to the fact that human beings are prone to bias towards things that they favor. If an outside agency writes a historical record that corroborates the first group's testimony, then the first group's testimony becomes valid.
The Israelites were a tiny kingdom whose actions are relatively unimportant in the scheme of history. This much we know from the accounts of their neighbors. Would it not be in the Israelites' best interests if they wrote a historical testimony that presented them in the best possible light (blessed by their tribal god, conquering their neighbors ruthlessly, et cetera) instead of writing a testimony that presented them as the middle-class kingdom that they really were?
< Message edited by ta_mosquito -- 4/23/2008 6:06:55 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Thinking of converting to Buddhism - 4/23/2008 4:07:29 AM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 6771
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
A group cannot be trusted to create an unbiased historical record of its own actions, due to the fact that human beings are prone to bias towards things that they favor. If an outside agency writes a historical record that corroborates the first group's testimony, then the first group's testimony becomes valid.
So you would argue American history would best be written by the Chinese or Brazilians?
quote:
The Israelites were a tiny kingdom whose actions are relatively unimportant in the scheme of history. This much we know from the accounts of their neighbors. Would it not be in the Israelites' best interests if they wrote a historical testimony that presented them in the best possible light (blessed by their tribal god, conquering their neighbors ruthlessly, et cetera) instead of writing a testimony that presented them as the middle-class kingdom that they really were?
Perhaps, though anyone familiar with OT history knows that it is a record of a long string of failed kingdoms, foolish leaders and stubborn, sinful people. So this wouldn't bode very well for the "making themselves look better than they were" theory of Biblical interpretation.
_____________________________
Jack
“I mean to live my life an obedient man, but obedient to God, subservient to the wisdom of my ancestors; never to the authority of political truths arrived at yesterday at the voting booth”
William F. Buckley Jr. 1925-2008
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Thinking of converting to Buddhism - 4/23/2008 4:22:17 AM
|
|
|
Sartrian
Posts: 54
Joined: 4/21/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
So you would argue American history would best be written by the Chinese or Brazilians?
Did you completely skip over what I said? Not only are American histories written by people who are held to an academic standard, but third parties-- English historians, Brazilian historians, et cetera-- write histories too, and our histories are held to contrast against theirs. Americans aren't the only ones writing American histories. So in a sense, yes, the best American history would be by a scholar who had no vested interest in making America look good in favor of presenting the truth.
Also, as a secondary note, Americans aren't a racially and religiously homogenous tribe like the Israelites that'll execute you for disloyalty to the tribal god. We're allowed to have a smattering of groups in America that express different views of what America *is* and what America stands for, which allows for greater diversity in the testimonies presented of American history.
quote:
Perhaps, though anyone familiar with OT history knows that it is a record of a long string of failed kingdoms, foolish leaders and stubborn, sinful people. So this wouldn't bode very well for the "making themselves look better than they were" theory of Biblical interpretation.
Any time that Judea or Israel is presented in a negative light in the Tanakh, it's to threaten people back into xenophobic orthodoxy-- hence the term "Jeremiad." If you'd read the Tanakh, you'd note that the overwhelming majority of the text is dedicated to the glory of Israel, the power of their tribal god over their opponents' gods, and the detailed records of conquering their foes in massive numbers. Your "long string" is the occasional smack on the wrist for the Israelites when they would dare to be complacent and religiously tolerant towards the "enemy gods" and "enemy cultures."
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Thinking of converting to Buddhism - 4/23/2008 7:08:14 AM
|
|
|
facedown
Posts: 1014
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: the urban desert
Status: offline
|
xc29
greetings. it seems, from my reading, that possibly your main concern with christianity/the bible/jesus/christians/etc is along the lines of not being able to trust that which was written, and maybe even more to the point, not trusting that which is written, about that which is written. and that you're seeking something beyond yourself, you're looking for a path that seems authentic.
i ask this with all sincerity, when was the last time you read the gospels? is it possible, that much of what's written about the gospels, and the bible as a whole, is junk? when i read the gospels, i see a way of service, humility, a path that embraces life even in suffering, and a path of hope. i don't read about a "to-do" list that is rather extensive (if it exists at all, it is simply: love) as folks within christendom often create. i don't see the modernistic faith of logic, scientific reason, or self-sustainment often purported.
what does buddism mean to you? is it a guide to live rightly and do justly? is it a 'religion' to you? does it do or say anything to you about that which is unseen? does it represent historic facts? i ask this, again in all sincerity, as buddhism means so much to so many.
satrian
just out of curiosity, do you fellowship with any spiritual community?
and, it seems that you correctly note that writing 'history' is a rather difficult thing to do.
out of curiosity, did alexander write about the zorastrians after the conquest of the achaemenid empire in 330 bc?
as i understand it, there is very little, if anything, written from an outside source about zorastrianism, at least until timur the lame 'converted'. but hey, i'm no historian, and am more than open to being wrong.
point being, this scenario (little outside evidence) as being "it" in your argument against the christian perspective (maybe i'm being too assertive there, if so, i apologize), is ironic because of the way you speak of zorastrains and siddhartha as well.
i'm just saying that if your point is you can't trust histrorical records written only from an inside party, then why to point to other historical "facts" that also have little or no outside references? doesn't seem very logical, and it suggests that there is something else going on. is it that you cannot envision a "god" in the first place, or a "god" who creates a place of torment? or a "god" as explained by christians via popular media (christian book stores, christian radio, etc)?
pax
_____________________________
-| those who say, don't know. those who know, don't say |-
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Thinking of converting to Buddhism - 4/23/2008 10:39:20 AM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 6771
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
Did you completely skip over what I said? Not only are American histories written by people who are held to an academic standard, but third parties-- English historians, Brazilian historians, et cetera-- write histories too, and our histories are held to contrast against theirs. Americans aren't the only ones writing American histories. So in a sense, yes, the best American history would be by a scholar who had no vested interest in making America look good in favor of presenting the truth.
While there certainly are others who have written histories of the US, there is no reason to believe they have any less of a biased point of view about the US than Americans themselves; and no one could write a history about the US without consulting the documents written by the people involved in that history.
A better understanding of the formation of the Constitution is going to come from familiarizing oneself with something like the Federalist Papers and the lives of the authors of those documents, not what King George thought of the matter.
In the same way, the best knowledge about the life of Christ is going to come from those who witnessed it, who were intimate with His teachings, and had a context to understand them.
The next question would be ‘are those witnesses reliable’, and I think this is proved out as well.
quote:
Also, as a secondary note, Americans aren't a racially and religiously homogenous tribe like the Israelites that'll execute you for disloyalty to the tribal god. We're allowed to have a smattering of groups in America that express different views of what America *is* and what America stands for, which allows for greater diversity in the testimonies presented of American history.
Well, again, a brief perusal of the OT quickly reveals that for most of the history of the Jewish people, they weren’t particularly homogenous either in their belief systems and often not in their intermingling with those around them; this is by their own admission.
quote:
Any time that Judea or Israel is presented in a negative light in the Tanakh, it's to threaten people back into xenophobic orthodoxy-- hence the term "Jeremiad." If you'd read the Tanakh, you'd note that the overwhelming majority of the text is dedicated to the glory of Israel, the power of their tribal god over their opponents' gods, and the detailed records of conquering their foes in massive numbers. Your "long string" is the occasional smack on the wrist for the Israelites when they would dare to be complacent and religiously tolerant towards the "enemy gods" and "enemy cultures."
This is simply wrong. There is no character, no period, barely an instance of time when the Israelites weren’t rebelling against their own system of laws. Indeed, much of the history centers on times when they were going into or out of exile or being subjugated because of their many misdeeds! Hardly a mythos to hang ones national pride on.
_____________________________
Jack
“I mean to live my life an obedient man, but obedient to God, subservient to the wisdom of my ancestors; never to the authority of political truths arrived at yesterday at the voting booth”
William F. Buckley Jr. 1925-2008
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Thinking of converting to Buddhism - 4/23/2008 9:10:24 PM
|
|
|
Sartrian
Posts: 54
Joined: 4/21/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
just out of curiosity, do you fellowship with any spiritual community?
Atheists tend to avoid those. On a regular basis. In recent years, we've had problems with Catholic Atheists infiltrating our organizations.
quote:
and, it seems that you correctly note that writing 'history' is a rather difficult thing to do.
Sho'nuff. But verifying history is the harder task.
quote:
out of curiosity, did alexander write about the zorastrians after the conquest of the achaemenid empire in 330 bc?
I'm not sure that Alexander of Macedon wrote much at all.
quote:
as i understand it, there is very little, if anything, written from an outside source about zorastrianism, at least until timur the lame 'converted'. but hey, i'm no historian, and am more than open to being wrong.
Herodotus's Histories (440 BCE) talk about Persia in depth, and the religious practices of the Zoroastrians (who have been established there for an inordinately long time by the time of the Histories). Also, a great deal of Greek and Roman philosophers and writers (Plato--who possibly plagarized Zoroaster's On Nature, Pliny the Elder, Eudoxus) talk about or incorporate Zoroastrian ideas into their works. The Romans make many references to the "Magi," the the sorcerer-priests of the Zoroastrians-- in fact, the Roman poet Catullus, whose book is in front of me right now, lampoons the Zoroastrians' rituals in one of his poems, showing that he had knowledge of said Zoroastrians' rituals and activities, at least in part.
Plenty of people knew about Zoroaster and his teachings and philosophy. The Greeks and Romans, despite being enemies of Persia, ended up writing histories and texts that showed the Zoroastrian practices and beliefs. That's a darn good source, if I do say so myself.
quote:
point being, this scenario (little outside evidence) as being "it" in your argument against the christian perspective (maybe i'm being too assertive there, if so, i apologize), is ironic because of the way you speak of zorastrains and siddhartha as well.
What kind of outside evidence did you want other than the ones I provided for you?
quote:
i'm just saying that if your point is you can't trust histrorical records written only from an inside party, then why to point to other historical "facts" that also have little or no outside references?
Such as?
quote:
is it that you cannot envision a "god" in the first place, or a "god" who creates a place of torment? or a "god" as explained by christians via popular media (christian book stores, christian radio, etc)?
To be honest, I started out a nominal Catholic. But logic demanded that I cut away more and more of god as an extant being until there was nothing left to do but throw away the remains. Logic cannot coexist with religion. There's the short answer.
quote:
While there certainly are others who have written histories of the US, there is no reason to believe they have any less of a biased point of view about the US than Americans themselves; and no one could write a history about the US without consulting the documents written by the people involved in that history.
And we compare the first-hand documents with other documents from different viewpoints to triangulate the truth of history. Would a valid history of the Civil War come from only Union documents? No-- they have to be compared with the documents and testimonies of the Confederates, the free blacks, the enslaved blacks, foreign nations viewing the war, et cetera. In doing so, we can prevent leaks of bias into the records of history.
quote:
A better understanding of the formation of the Constitution is going to come from familiarizing oneself with something like the Federalist Papers and the lives of t | | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
