|
Aswad -> RE: For those of a christian bent.... (6/6/2007 2:38:35 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: stella40
But usually this respect isn't reciprocated by Christians, many of whom feel that their beliefs take precedence over what I believe.
Nostra culpa. I'm always upset when people do this, but I hope you realize that some of them at least mean it well (those who do it without meaning well, have, IMO, missed the point of the message). Either way, an unfortunate tendency.
quote:
I have to take time off Dec 25 and Dec 26, but do I get time off for example on Dec 4?
This is very annoying to me, living in a country that has a state religion. We have the freedom to believe and practice as we like, but certain things like official holidays remain in effect. As someone who usually doesn't shop far ahead, it's impractical when I can't go to the store during Christian holidays, despite there being people of other faiths who would like to work those days. And, as you noted, it's really rather silly that the people who have other faiths can't have their holidays, when Christians get all of them.
My nephandi is a pagan, and celebrates the Equinoxes and Solstices, and if she worked, she would have to take unpaid leave on Yule, while the rest of the company would get paid leave two days later, and she would be forced to go on paid leave at the same time.
quote:
There's certain things I don't believe in, the Virgin Birth for example.
There's very little to indicate that it was virgin birth in the sense that Mary never had sex.
By the language used, and the cultural context, all that is really being said is that Mary conceived this child before being married, whether with Joseph, an angel, or some random stranger of the street (for all I know). It doesn't reflect on the figure of Jesus one way or the other, the way I see it. He was who he was, whoever that was, regardless of who his parent(s) was/were. So I'm not sure why people get all hung up on that, particularly why Christians would, given that it's the example he set that should be the gist of things, rather than the details of his birth.
Please forgive me for the comparison if it is inappropriate, and any inaccuracies in my knowledge of your faith, for I mean no insult, but it would seem that Jesus would be a sort of Christian Buddha. In that sense, the manner of his conception and birth would seem irrelevant.
Quite off topic, if your faith includes reincarnation, you might find interesting some thoughts along the lines of what some Gnostics have posited about this world being a sort of prison for souls, possibly a sort of "reformatory" or "purgatory" for souls that are in need of enlightenment. It would sort of "fit" the picture that a soul can "descend" to this world, be reincarnated in a cycle until purified/enlightened by its experiences, and then achieve freedom to return to a different plane, which might have been passed on as the notion of Nirvana. I hope you'll forgive me in implying that most faiths probably have elements to them that cannot be accurately represented, only sketched in a manner useful to those following the faith, until they are experienced, at which point words are superfluous.
quote:
Here we go again, there is one God, but he is to be called God and God is forgiving and merciful because they have faith and believe. What I just cannot accept is the Christian idea that Christianity predominates over all other religions and that they are speaking the Truth.
I'm not sure it's a matter of Christian faith, so much as a matter of YFINOK ("Your faith is not OK", like YKINOK in BDSM).
Christians are prohibited from worshipping other dieties, although it doesn't appear to be a "truly grave 'sin'". Much more, relevant, though, is that they are prohibited from the practice of idolatry; communion with G*d, or any god/goddess for that matter, should be direct for a Christian. Physical things are not divine in nature, and do not serve well as a channel to the divine, although some would argue that they can serve as an aid to concentration without being seen as a channel or intrinsically divine.
Anyway, the problem is, some take this to mean that nobody else should do so either.
And, of course, regardless of the theological arguments that crosses and so forth aren't anything more than aids to concentration, a lot of churches do make it something more. The very notion that defiling a cross is blasphemous indicates as much. It is ascribing something divine to a physical object, so such a denounciation of "blasphemy" is, in fact, blasphemous in itself, as an act of idolatry. One could note that, according to Jewish theology, idolatry is one of the three things that one should die, rather than do; the other two being murder and adultery.
As such, I think the two faiths probably have greater congruence than many realize.
IIRC, Buddhism also speaks of how physical things do not have spiritual value, and how attachment to them is a spiritually counterproductive practice. Again, please correct me if I'm wrong here, I'll admit Buddhism hasn't been among the faiths I've studied to any significant depth, though I'm more than happy to learn more.
As an aside, I could say YHVH or whatnot to make it a proper name and seem more respectful to other faiths, but I'm lazy in that regard, and the convention seems established, for better or worse; it's a "proper name" thing, not a value judgment, just that the actual name has been lost over the years, so G*d seems as good as anything
Purely speculation, but coming from a slightly Gnostic angle myself, I also wonder whether the prohibition against idolatry- as being an equal offense to murder- could be because the practice could somehow "trap" part of the essence of a spirit, or perhaps even lead a soul to become wrongfully incarnated in a physical object, that it is our attachment to things and our ascribing spiritual value to them that makes them a "suitable" host environment for a soul. It would make some sense; people have that kind of attachment to their babies, in general, and parents who lack that will often raise kids who seem less than "whole", though I'll admit to entirely mundane explanations for that as well. In either case, this is similar to the notion of a "fetish" in certain naturalistic faiths. And it has some similarities to how the Shinto faith builds "homes" for spirits to "reside" or "dwell" in, somewhat oversimplified.
If I were a diety, or even a discorporeal soul-being of a different nature, I would not want "my" people to do such a thing, if it could have such effects. (If getting out of the cycle of reincarnation to the "spirit world" is hard as a human, imagine what it would be like as an inanimate object.)
Nor would I be particularly keen on teaching "my" followers a way to "trap" me, or any part of me. So I wouldn't be giving them much in the way of an explanation in that regard. Many faiths that have the notion of "fetishes", in the sense of spirit-traps, have a belief that these spirits can be compelled to do things, when so trapped. Not something one would want the followers to know, neccessarily.
quote:
However unlike you I don't base my beliefs on a book but from what I experience and see in life, [...]
Such is the difference, IMO, between religion and spirituality, or by other terms, knowing the path, and walking the path.
quote:
Otherwise it's meaningless calling yourself a Buddhist.
~nod~
I think this applies equally to Christianity, although I've been known to be wrong about subjects that are far closer to my grasp in the past.
It does seem to me, though, that a notion that Christianity is about saying "we're screwed, but Jesus lives, and he'll take care of it all, and forgive us anything we do" is somewhat at odds with the faith. It would, IMO, at least be closer to the faith to say "we're imperfect, but Jesus set an example for us, and we should be more concerned with trying to do right in the future than with dwelling on our past mistakes, in order to progress toward the goal".
And I've been trying to dig into the subject, with what time I have for it, to better get an idea of what the spirit of the faith is all about. The Bible isn't infallible, as has been clearly demonstrated in the past, and I think the idea that authors will preserve the idea intrinsically because it's an inspired work is flawed, but it can be reworked into the more useful notion that, despite these errors, the meaning can be discerned by a careful combination of study, critical thinking, and life experiences along the way. And that the end result of that, through living it, can possibly be a step toward enlightenment.
quote:
Is this a sales pitch for 'The Easy Way To Heaven'? Is this what is written in the Bible or based on the teachings of Jesus? I think many Christians would have an issue with this POV somehow.
~nod~
And I think Jesus would, too.
He essentially urged people to be better Jews, trying to show them more about their own way. I don't think he meant to found a new faith, merely a movement within the existing faith. A movement centered on discerning the spirit of the faith, and living by that, rather than following laws, rules and books. And rather than simplifying things to the notion of "believe in Jesus and your mistakes will somehow magically correct themselves because you do".
quote:
I'm posting on this board because it was posted on this board and therefore open for discussion.
And an interesting discussion it is, IMO.
I, for one, certainly value your contribution.
Best wishes.
|
|
|
|
