Salvation - misconceptions

[Aikikai Novice]

I've been reading through some of the other threrads (like the thread about the nature of the devil) and I've noticed something that I see time and time again, everywhere. This is the notion (among almost everyone who believes in an afterlife, Christian, agnostic, or other) that "good" people go to "heaven" and "bad" people go to "hell."

Well, as a Christian, I can tell you that this is not part of Christian theology. In fact, churches that aren't mired down in tradition, rituals, or pandering to society would consider this to be one of the greatest heresies in the church.

Christianity says that saved people go to heaven. Now, before you just dismiss the rest of this post as being brainwashed idiocy, let me explain. Keep in mind, this is only analogy for salvation according to Christianity, not spiritual develpoment.

Imagine a 30 foot stone wall covered in bacon grease. You start at the top with a bunch of other people, but any deviation from perfection results in a slip and fall to the bottom. So, since you are not perfect, you fall. Meanwhile, a hellicopter comes down as close to the ground as it can get. As it so happens, it can get just barely close enough so that you could climb into it from from the top of the wall, but no further, because there's a cliff on either side, the ground is too rocky and uneven, there are trees everywhere and no way to get down, whatever. The point is, that's as low as it can get.

On the top of the wall is ONE guy who managed to balance perfectly and not slip. He climbs in the hellicopter and tosses out a rope that reaches the ground. "Sweet, a free ride," you think. But to your surprise, you look around and find people trying frantically to scurry up tthe wall, to jump up to the hellicopter, to reach it from a nearby tree, but to no avail. As you start climbing you yell to people who seem totally oblivious that there's a way up.

"Naw, that's way too easy to possibly work."
"I can get up there by myself, man. Look at how much better I'm doing than that guy!"
"I don't need to get up to the top. There's nothing important there anyway. Probably nothing at all."

A few of the people trying to climb the wall give up, swallow their pride, and climb up the rope after you.

Now you're all probalby smart enough to figure this out, but here's the explanation: We're all imperfect (fallen), unlike God (who is high up, above the mess). No matter how good we are (that is, no matter how high we manage to jump) we can't get to God (we can't reach the hellicopter) with our own power. God (the hellicopter) cannot descend into ungodliness and sin (cannot land in the mess where the fallen people are). In order to save the fallen, someone had to live a flawlwss life (someone had to balance perfectly) to create an alternate way to God besides perfection (to throw us a rope). To get to God (to reach the hellicopter) you must admit that you're a flawed, sinfull human being who cannot in any way redeem yourself to perfection, which is what is required to be with God (you have to know that you fell and that you can't climb up high enough by yourself to reach the hellicopter). And then you have to accept God's free gift (you have to choose to climb the rope).

The moral of the story? The only thing that's really required for salvation in Christianity is to throw up your hands and say "God have mercy on me, the sinner!"

Hitler could be saved. Judass Iscariot could be saved. ANYONE could recieve the free gift of salvation.

Then why lead any kind of "moral, upright life"? You certainly don't need to. Well, there are some good reasons, but this post is long enough as it is and I'll happily discuss that if and when it comes up.

If anybody's wondering, this Christian belief is actually the same thing believed in Judiasm. Christianity is Judiasm. I invite people to quote Levitican law or other Old Testament scripture in an attempt to prove that statement untrue, I'd love the intellectual exercise.

It's also kinda' sad what most people (including "Christians") think Christianity (and Judiasm) teaches about "heaven", "hell", and "the devil."

[WatchfulAbyss]

Christianity is Judiasm.

I thought Christianity contradicted Judiasm theology, for the simple fact that jews reject "Jesus Christ" as a messiah/savior.....

[Lily]

I'm of the opinion that the life we are living right now is our 'Heaven' or 'Hell' (and that your actions determine your next life). Simple huh?

[Capt Ann]

Thank you for taking the time to write that, Blind! Seriously, it's a common misconception. Just like there are different denominations in Christianity and different divisions within Islam, there are and have always been different beliefs within Judaism.

In the first century, AD, there were several main groups within the Jewish community: There were Pharisees (Jews who believed in a literal interpretation of Scripture, an afterlife, angels and spirit-beings, and a salvation through righteous-living and keeping of the commandments), Saducees (Jews who believed in a literal interpretaion of Scripture, but believed obedience to God was based on duty, with no reward in any afterlife, no spirits or spirit-beings, no angels), Zealots (Jews mainly identified by nationalistic beliefs and agitation for political freedom and a physical 'promised land' in the middle east), Hellenists (Jews who had become secularized and assimilated into the predominant Greek culture), Essenes (ascetic/mystic hermit types, considered heretics by all the other groups), and Nazarenes (Jews who believed that Jesus was and is the promised Messiah, the Holy One of God). These groups lived and practiced their beliefs side-by-side for about 100 years. In fact, all of the original apostles, most of the early disciples, and all but one of the authors of the New Testament were practicing Nazarene Jews.

Today, in most major cities, you can find congregations of Messianic Jews (2000 years later, Jews who still believe that Jesus is the promised Messiah). In fact, I found several Messianic Jewish congregations in Ohio. You might want to google a few up, see what's in your area. Visit one once, and I think you'll get a taste of something very different from anything you've seen or expected from either Judaism or Christianity.

For more info on Messianic Judaism, see lists of links here (http://www.hebroots.com/messcong.html), or for a few (I found others) Nazarene congregations near you in Ohio, try here (http://www.yashanet.com/mesconot.htm).

[holyheadjch]

I've been reading through some of the other threrads (like the thread about the nature of the devil) and I've noticed something that I see time and time again, everywhere. This is the notion (among almost everyone who believes in an afterlife, Christian, agnostic, or other) that "good" people go to "heaven" and "bad" people go to "hell."

Well, as a Christian, I can tell you that this is not part of Christian theology. In fact, churches that aren't mired down in tradition, rituals, or pandering to society would consider this to be one of the greatest heresies in the church.

Christianity says that saved people go to heaven. Now, before you just dismiss the rest of this post as being brainwashed idiocy, let me explain. Keep in mind, this is only analogy for salvation according to Christianity, not spiritual develpoment.

Imagine a 30 foot stone wall covered in bacon grease. You start at the top with a bunch of other people, but any deviation from perfection results in a slip and fall to the bottom. So, since you are not perfect, you fall. Meanwhile, a hellicopter comes down as close to the ground as it can get. As it so happens, it can get just barely close enough so that you could climb into it from from the top of the wall, but no further, because there's a cliff on either side, the ground is too rocky and uneven, there are trees everywhere and no way to get down, whatever. The point is, that's as low as it can get.

On the top of the wall is ONE guy who managed to balance perfectly and not slip. He climbs in the hellicopter and tosses out a rope that reaches the ground. "Sweet, a free ride," you think. But to your surprise, you look around and find people trying frantically to scurry up tthe wall, to jump up to the hellicopter, to reach it from a nearby tree, but to no avail. As you start climbing you yell to people who seem totally oblivious that there's a way up.

"Naw, that's way too easy to possibly work."
"I can get up there by myself, man. Look at how much better I'm doing than that guy!"
"I don't need to get up to the top. There's nothing important there anyway. Probably nothing at all."

A few of the people trying to climb the wall give up, swallow their pride, and climb up the rope after you.

Now you're all probalby smart enough to figure this out, but here's the explanation: We're all imperfect (fallen), unlike God (who is high up, above the mess). No matter how good we are (that is, no matter how high we manage to jump) we can't get to God (we can't reach the hellicopter) with our own power. God (the hellicopter) cannot descend into ungodliness and sin (cannot land in the mess where the fallen people are). In order to save the fallen, someone had to live a flawlwss life (someone had to balance perfectly) to create an alternate way to God besides perfection (to throw us a rope). To get to God (to reach the hellicopter) you must admit that you're a flawed, sinfull human being who cannot in any way redeem yourself to perfection, which is what is required to be with God (you have to know that you fell and that you can't climb up high enough by yourself to reach the hellicopter). And then you have to accept God's free gift (you have to choose to climb the rope).

The moral of the story? The only thing that's really required for salvation in Christianity is to throw up your hands and say "God have mercy on me, the sinner!"

Hitler could be saved. Judass Iscariot could be saved. ANYONE could recieve the free gift of salvation.

Then why lead any kind of "moral, upright life"? You certainly don't need to. Well, there are some good reasons, but this post is long enough as it is and I'll happily discuss that if and when it comes up.

If anybody's wondering, this Christian belief is actually the same thing believed in Judiasm. Christianity is Judiasm. I invite people to quote Levitican law or other Old Testament scripture in an attempt to prove that statement untrue, I'd love the intellectual exercise.

It's also kinda' sad what most people (including "Christians") think Christianity (and Judiasm) teaches about "heaven", "hell", and "the devil."
Sounds even ropier than the British Criminal Justice System,

[Kishu]

I think that it is great that you are thinking about this sort of thing, but I think you share a common misconception that many fundamentalist Christians have about Christian theology.

It is a very basic difference, but if you can't get past this basic belief than anything else you hear will not make sense.

First of all "faith alone" will not get you salvation. "Good works" will not get you salvation either. If you accept salvation, but don't mend you ways than you have not really accepted salvation.

THERE IS NO SIN THAT CAN NOT BE FORGIVEN. And none of us know who is in heaven or who truely repented for their sin before death.

The core difference between modern fundamentalist and original Christian belief is this. Both aggree that all people have sin. The fundamentalist seem to believe that people are basically "rotten at the core". We are bad on the inside at our most basic level. Sin "oozes" from the inside out. Salvation is somehow a "shield" or "cloak" we put over ourselves to shield us from judgment, i.e. God won't look past the "Blood of Salvation" and see us for what we really are. We sneak into heaven like Jason's men sneaking out of the blinded Cyclops’s cave covered in sheep skins.

Original Christian thought is that everyone is basically good at the core and that sin is like an outer skin (like a coating of grundge), but there is some good in every person. Like a flame deep inside. If that flame can be fanned and the flame grows it can help to burn the sin away. Christ is the fuel for the flame, and the more of Him you take inside (not outside covering) the more the flame grows and the "thinner" the skin of sin is as it is burned away.

Then when God sees you He can wipe away the thin skin of sin and say "Oh I know you, and I love you, welcome home." It is not a disguise that we put on, but us.

When you see your fellow man you should not be looking for a sinner, you should be looking for the flame of good that is in all men.

[Capt Ann]

Original Christian thought is that everyone is basically good at the core and that sin is like an outer skin (like a coating of grundge), but there is some good in every person.
.
.
.
Then when God sees you He can wipe away the thin skin of sin and say "Oh I know you, and I love you, welcome home." It is not a disguise that we put on, but us.
.
.
I'm going to have to disagree in part with this, but agree in another part. I guess that's what makes discussions like this interesting, and why these types of discussions hopefully help all of us to become clearer on what we believe and why.

We have a clear written record of 'early Christian thought' in the Bible. Although there is some debate on exactly when each of the New Testament books were written, certainly, the letters authenticated as from the Apostle Paul were written before his death in 64 AD. When I see the Apostle Paul write things like, "There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God," or "I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature," then I feel fairly confident that this represents 'early Christian thought'.

According to these (and dozens of other scritpures I've found), sin isn't just a surface coating that covers our otherwise 'good nature'. Sin has so corrupted and intertwined with who we are and what we do that it has become a very real part of our nature (and therefore, who we are and what we do). We aren't like little kids covered in dirt, who just need a good washing. We need a total change of that corrupted nature.

On the other hand, I think many people do forget about the inherent good still in people, still part of who they are (so I agree with you on this). All people (you, me, everyone reading this) were created "in the image of God". There is something in us and about us that is very much like God. This part of our nature and who we are can only be good.

The problem is that sin has corrupted that goodness. So, I think we're not at all like Jason's men, covered with sheepskin - we're more like moldy bread - once good and pure and still showing the signs of everything wholesome that we once were, but filled with this nasty gross stuff mixed right in with who and what we are.

That's why salvation isn't just a cover-up or a clean-up: it is (and can only be) a complete change of the very nature of what is at the heart of who you are. That's why trusting in Jesus is called being 'born again', or becoming a 'new creation' - we are recreated back to that wholesome, good thing that we were meant to be, before the whole 'sin' thing came up. AND, that wholesome, good thing is created once again in the image of God.

[Kishu]

I'm going to have to disagree in part with this, but agree in another part. I guess that's what makes discussions like this interesting, and why these types of discussions hopefully help all of us to become clearer on what we believe and why.

We have a clear written record of 'early Christian thought' in the Bible. Although there is some debate on exactly when each of the New Testament books were written, certainly, the letters authenticated as from the Apostle Paul were written before his death in 64 AD. When I see the Apostle Paul write things like, "There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God," or "I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature," then I feel fairly confident that this represents 'early Christian thought'.

According to these (and dozens of other scritpures I've found), sin isn't just a surface coating that covers our otherwise 'good nature'. Sin has so corrupted and intertwined with who we are and what we do that it has become a very real part of our nature (and therefore, who we are and what we do). We aren't like little kids covered in dirt, who just need a good washing. We need a total change of that corrupted nature.

On the other hand, I think many people do forget about the inherent good still in people, still part of who they are (so I agree with you on this). All people (you, me, everyone reading this) were created "in the image of God". There is something in us and about us that is very much like God. This part of our nature and who we are can only be good.

The problem is that sin has corrupted that goodness. So, I think we're not at all like Jason's men, covered with sheepskin - we're more like moldy bread - once good and pure and still showing the signs of everything wholesome that we once were, but filled with this nasty gross stuff mixed right in with who and what we are.

That's why salvation isn't just a cover-up or a clean-up: it is (and can only be) a complete change of the very nature of what is at the heart of who you are. That's why trusting in Jesus is called being 'born again', or becoming a 'new creation' - we are recreated back to that wholesome, good thing that we were meant to be, before the whole 'sin' thing came up. AND, that wholesome, good thing is created once again in the image of God.

Yes, I think yours is a better analogy. Sin is more like a cancer that goes through the whole of us, but we can if we choose do much to retard its spread. We can never be totally "cured" while we are alive. But there is still some good in everyone who is still alive, and if they choose to they can be saved.

God wants us to be more like Him, which is suposed to be our true nature, :Angel: rather then to "kick against the *****s". :bang:

~edit~ ha ha I never thought a term from the Bible would get ****ed out. lol

Kick against the p -r -i -c -k -s

[aikiMac]

I think the word you wanted was "goads."

[Thelistmaker]

:confused: I do not understand,

what is sin

why would it seperate someone from God?

I my family come from a very different culture and i do not undersand this concept of 'sin'

[Kishu]

I think the word you wanted was "goads."
yes that word will work too. the other as we all know now has a different connotation. I was using the word in it original meaning. :)

[Kishu]

:confused: I do not understand,

what is sin

why would it seperate someone from God?

I my family come from a very different culture and i do not undersand this concept of 'sin'

I will assume you are not trolling, and answer.

Sin is from a Greek word and it mean to miss the mark like with an arrow.

It means not doing what you are supposed to be doing, or doing things you are not supposed to do.

As in "I confess that I have sinned in my thoughts and in my words, in what I have done and what I have failed to do."

Sin simply means not doing what God wants you to do.

There are things that we want to do that God doesn't want us to do THAT is what seperates us from God.

[Thelistmaker]

To get to God (to reach the hellicopter) you must admit that you're a flawed, sinfull human being who cannot in any way redeem yourself to perfection, which is what is required to be with God (you have to know that you fell and that you can't climb up high enough by yourself to reach the hellicopter). And then you have to accept God's free gift (you have to choose to climb the rope).

The moral of the story? The only thing that's really required for salvation in Christianity is to throw up your hands and say "God have mercy on me, the sinner!"

The idea of confessing ones wrong doings and asking for help to do better through moral guidance is common to most religions.

Perhaps this was not intentional but you seem to being implying that not becoming a Christian has something to do with pride.

The truth is all main stream religions regard the ego and excessive pride as a problem and have strategies to help the practitioner develop away from such things.

In my own form of Buddhism a practitioner will acknowledge all previous negative actions, often meditating on their motives and shortcomings, and then going for refuge to the path of knowledge for themselves and all sentient beings.

[Kishu]

The truth is all main stream religions regard the ego and excessive pride as a problem and have strategies to help the practitioner develop away from such things.


Christians believe that too. Pride is the worst sin.

These are the sever deadly sins;

Pride is excessive belief in one's own abilities, that interferes with the individual's recognition of the grace of God. It has been called the sin from which all others arise. Pride is also known as Vanity.

Envy is the desire for others' traits, status, abilities, or situation.

Gluttony is an inordinate desire to consume more than that which one requires.

Lust is an inordinate craving for the pleasures of the body.

Anger is manifested in the individual who spurns love and opts instead for fury. It is also known as Wrath.

Greed is the desire for material wealth or gain, ignoring the realm of the spiritual. It is also called Avarice or Covetousness.

Sloth is the avoidance of physical or spiritual work.

[Capt Ann]

what is sin[/U]

why would it seperate someone from God?

List, I hope someone else can answer this question very well for you. It is a very important question, and it deserves a much better answer than anything I can give or say. I will try to give two examples to help explain as best as I can.

First, sin is a rejection of what God wants (His will and desires), in favor of your own will and desires. It is anything short of His standard of what is right, good, perfect, and pure. However, it is usually more than just making a 'mistake'. The sins that separate us from God are willful, deliberate choices to do what we know is wrong.

Why would sin separate someone from God? I will try my best to give two examples.

First, sin separates us from God because sin is so totally alien to the way God is. It is opposite of His purity, perfection, goodness, and love. It does not separate us from God because He 'leaves', but more like it chases us away from Him because we are so totally different from Him when we choose to sin. Imagine that God is like light. When we sin, we are choosing to embrace the shadows. But anywhere the light is, there cannot exist any shadows. The light, by the very way that it is, chases away all shadows. Shadows have no way of 'coming closer' to the light.

Second, sin separates us from God because it destroys our ability to have a relationship with Him. God loves us, and wants to have a true friendship with Him, more real than any friendship you've ever had. But because sin is against the way God 'is' (His perfect nature), we cannot have any friendship with Him when we hold onto it. If you are a citizen of the US, but you refuse to pay your taxes, you will be destroying your relationship with your country. You will be subject to arrest and prosecution if you see a policeman, try to get a driver's license, vote, or any of the other things you should be able to do as a citizen. If you have a friend, but they stop talking to you, start spreading rumors about you, steal your things, and vandalize your car, they would probably not still be your friend - they have destroyed your relationship. Sin does the same between us and God.

[aikiMac]

Perhaps this was not intentional but you seem to being implying that not becoming a Christian has something to do with pride.

One could say that the assertion, "I can make up for my bad acts all by myself. I don't need you to do it for me," is a prideful assertion. One might call it arrogant, even.


In my own form of Buddhism a practitioner will acknowledge all previous negative actions, often meditating on their motives and shortcomings, and then going for refuge to the path of knowledge for themselves and all sentient beings.
Indeed, there's an example right there! From one point of view, this attitude could be seen as prideful. Consider: By believing the Buddhist teaching, you believe and affirm that by yourself, from within yourself, you can make up for all the bad things, the "sins", that you have done in the past. Somehow, someway, through your own merit and work, you're going to make it right.

The contrary view held by some non-Buddhists is that you cannot do this. Period. Can't happen. Your merit, your work, was and is and always will be insufficient. To say otherwise is to boast, according to the non-Buddhist viewpoint, and to be puffed up with pride.

So, with that in mind, it makes sense for someone to say that "not becoming a Christian has something to do with pride."

[LJoll]

Indeed, there's an example right there! From one point of view, this attitude could be seen as prideful. Consider: By believing the Buddhist teaching, you believe and affirm that by yourself, from within yourself, you can make up for all the bad things, the "sins", that you have done in the past. Somehow, someway, through your own merit and work, you're going to make it right.

The contrary view held by some non-Buddhists is that you cannot do this. Period. Can't happen. Your merit, your work, was and is and always will be insufficient. To say otherwise is to boast, according to the non-Buddhist viewpoint, and to be puffed up with pride.

So, with that in mind, it makes sense for someone to say that "not becoming a Christian has something to do with pride."

Well you seem to be assuming that everyone wants to make up for their "sins". You also seem to be assuming that people are not Christian because they would rather obtain salvation by themselves.

Don't you feel it is a bit arrogant to tell other people that they have "sin", but only your's is being repented?

[aikiMac]

Well you seem to be assuming that everyone wants to make up for their "sins".
I was in line with Listmaker's post: "The idea of confessing ones wrong doings and asking for help to do better through moral guidance is common to most religions. ... The truth is all main stream religions regard the ego and excessive pride as a problem and have strategies to help the practitioner develop away from such things."

It's okay to assume things that the other guy has already assumed in your conversation.


You also seem to be assuming that people are not Christian because they would rather obtain salvation by themselves.
Listmaker mentioned Buddhism. I addressed Buddhism. My "assumption" was a reasonable interpretation of Buddhism as contrasted to competing beliefs. Read it again.


Don't you feel it is a bit arrogant to tell other people that they have "sin", but only your's is being repented?
You talk as though the idea of there being "sin" is not objective. The boundaries of "wrong" may be disputed and argued, but the fact that all people everywhere do wrong things is beyond rational dispute. With that in mind I would say it's arrogant to not tell other people that they have sinned, for doing so puts you alone in a position to amend for those sins.

[LJoll]

I was in line with Listmaker's post: "The idea of confessing ones wrong doings and asking for help to do better through moral guidance is common to most religions. ... The truth is all main stream religions regard the ego and excessive pride as a problem and have strategies to help the practitioner develop away from such things."

It's okay to assume things that the other guy has already assumed in your conversation.

You replied directly to the statement Perhaps this was not intentional but you seem to being implying that not becoming a Christian has something to do with pride.
by saying
One could say that the assertion, "I can make up for my bad acts all by myself. I don't need you to do it for me," is a prideful assertion. One might call it arrogant, even.

That sentence had nothing to do with Buddhism. The only thing in question was not becoming a Christian, so nothing about repenting "sins" was assumed.

You talk as though the idea of there being "sin" is not objective. The boundaries of "wrong" may be disputed and argued, but the fact that all people everywhere do wrong things is beyond rational dispute.

Really? How can you rationally prove something to be wrong?

[Thelistmaker]

aikiMac -
Getting a bit defensive? Just for the record I was insulting the tone of aikikai’s post not Christianity in general

you can make up for all the bad things, the "sins", that you have done in the past. Somehow, someway, through your own merit and work, you're going to make it right.
*sigh* not some way some how, through the Dharma path. This statement betrays your woeful ignorance about Buddhism so please don’t post again on this subject without becoming more informed.

As I stated earlier on this thread I do not have a concept of ‘sin’. Or in other words I have read the definition at school but to me it is nothing more than an alien looking glass, but that’s just me and my culture.

If you consider my beliefs arrogant then yours are equally so, I have heard some non Christians, particularly other Abrahamic faiths, ask how dare you separate God from his creation, and declare yours the only path to become closer to God.

I’m sure your confident in your beliefs over mine and I’m confident in my beliefs over yours, that’s how the world works get over it.

[aikiMac]

Really? How can you rationally prove something to be wrong?
Observe other people. Think of your own life. Consider Natural Law.

[aikiMac]

As I stated earlier on this thread I do not have a concept of ‘sin’.
No, you said that you don't understand it. You didn't say that you have no concept of it. As your post rightly implied, the fundamental idea behind sin can be separated from a particular God. The fundamental idea is that you've done wrong. To say that you don't have a concept of "sin" is to say that nobody has ever done wrong. That idea necessarily implies that there's no need for the Dharma path, because to one who has done nothing wrong there is nothing to fix, right? But wait, there is a Dharma path because people have done things wrong. Example: Wrong thoughts is a Buddhist concept, is it not? And wrong desires also?

There's your "sin." The Christian will put the trinity God as the lawgiver who decides what is wrong, and the Moslem will put unitary Allah in that position, and the Buddhist will have yet a third standard for what is wrong, but the idea is all the same. It's just different words for a shared fundamental concept.


If you consider my beliefs arrogant then yours are equally so
That was my point exactly. :D

[Thelistmaker]

To say that you don't have a concept of "sin" is to say that nobody has ever done wrong. That idea necessarily implies that there's no need for the Dharma path, because to one who has done nothing wrong there is nothing to fix, right? But wait, there is a Dharma path because people have done things wrong. Example: Wrong thoughts is a Buddhist concept, is it not? And wrong desires also?

This is not the case. you seem to have your understanding of Buddhist concepts a little skewed
Sin, and thus the idea of judgment is just one way of interpreting observations of the world around us. Another interpretation is the law of karma.
From past experience many people have a distorted idea of what karma is and get it confused with circumstance so I will provide a definition if you wish

There is no ‘wrong’ or ‘right’ actions only actions which cause suffering and keep us in samsara. Don’t worry if you don’t get the distinction, its subtle when expressed in symantics but represents a diffrent way of thinking

P.S. don’t be memorised by the word 'wrong' it holds slightly different connotations in a mainstream Buddhist context

[LJoll]

Observe other people

If other people do it it must be right?

[aikiMac]

There is no ‘wrong’ or ‘right’ actions only actions which cause suffering and keep us in samsara.
Suffering ---> judgement.
Different words for a common fundamental belief. From here we talk about the specifics of how one will be judged, and how one will suffer. The fact that there will be suffering has been established.

Actions which cause suffering ---> sin.
By definition, that which causes suffering ought not be done. We now have a standard for what is "wrong" and, by its contrast, what is "right. From here we debate which standard we should use, and we debate the boundaries of the standard. The fact of a standard, and therefore the fact of "wrong" behavior, has been established.

"Wrong behavior" is synonymous for "sin." If you have the concept of wrong behavior then you have the concept of sin.

[Thelistmaker]

[QUOTE=aikiMac]Suffering ---> judgement.
Different words for a common fundamental belief. From here we talk about the specifics of how one will be judged, and how one will suffer. The fact that there will be suffering has been established.
Judgment implies some external judge, karma is a natural law, I will now present a very simplified simplification of karma

Every physical or verbal action results from a mental intention

Every mental intention and action leaves an imprint on our very subtle (deep subconscious) mind.

Every imprint eventually gives rise to its own effect

This is by no means a full explanation but its late and I’m going to bed


Actions which cause suffering ---> sin.
Again you have failed to pick up on the subtle distinctions

By definition, that which causes suffering ought not be done.

Its not a question of ought and ought not, it’s a question of samsara, I’m beginning to suspect I lack the langue to describe the distinction, but words such as sin and judgement all imply external things, words like karma imply internal things.

[Strafio]

If it was that simple that Buddhism and Christians would be the same.

Suffering ---> judgement.
Different words for a common fundamental belief. From here we talk about the specifics of how one will be judged, and how one will suffer. The fact that there will be suffering has been established.
Judgement implies a specific cause of suffering, one that Buddhists reject.
Is judgement the only possible explanation of suffering?
Then suffering doesn't imply suffering.

Actions which cause suffering ---> sin.
By definition, that which causes suffering ought not be done. We now have a standard for what is "wrong" and, by its contrast, what is "right. From here we debate which standard we should use, and we debate the boundaries of the standard. The fact of a standard, and therefore the fact of "wrong" behavior, has been established.
This is what I used to think "sin" is, but Christians cannot mean that.
Why would God respond to "actions which cause suffering" by causing more suffering? Unless you are doing what you did in the other one and suggesting that the cause of suffering is a result of the Christian conception of sin. Again, you don't need the mystical Christian concept of sin to understand how actions can cause suffering.

"Wrong behavior" is synonymous for "sin." If you have the concept of wrong behavior then you have the concept of sin.
There's a different "right" and "wrong" here.
With Buddhism, the "wrong" is a "I don't think you really want to do this..."
In fundamentalist Christianity the "wrong" is breaking mystical laws with the most dire of consequences...

[aikiMac]

Judgment implies some external judge

Why must it be so? I don't see why that must be so.


Every physical or verbal action results from a mental intention
I said that somewhere in the aikido forum. :D


Every mental intention and action leaves an imprint on our very subtle (deep subconscious) mind.
This is biblical.


Again you have failed to pick up on the subtle distinctions
Or, perhaps you are not recognizing common ground. I have never said that all religions are equal, but I have said and still believe that we have common ground. Right now you are denying common ground. I've never known a Buddhist to do that. :confused:


but words such as sin and judgement all imply external things, words like karma imply internal things.
To a Christian, yes, sin and judgment are external. But why can't we say that there is a fundamental underlying principle common to both Christianity and Buddhism? I'm not saying that the two religions are identical, and I'm not saying that they are both correct. I am saying that both religions have the ideas that (1) there is a standard of right and wrong, and (2) all people everywhere on the planet have violated that standard. What is wrong with my assertion? :confused:

[Strafio]

I am saying that both religions have the ideas that (1) there is a standard of right and wrong, and (2) all people everywhere on the planet have violated that standard. What is wrong with my assertion? :confused:
Buddhism doesn't have this "standard" as such.
A moral wrong is similar to why it's wrong to hold a knife by it's sharp side.
Hold a knife by it's sharp side and you get cut.
Buddhism treats ethics purely by this principle.
People are clumsy and hurt themselves, more enlightened people are a bit more careful and stub their toes less often.

There's no perfect standard though.
Infact, I think it's generally agreed that expecting some kind perfection is bad when it's much better to appreciate life as it is. You can make things as good as you want without having a "standard".

This standard would be the minimum conditions you find acceptable?
The Buddhist ideal is to have this minimum standard as low as possible (i.e. being able to accept and handle the worst of situations) while naturally trying to make life as good as it can be. It's another reason why the idea of a perfect God judging people and condemning them for sin seems so weird to Buddhists.

[Topher]

To say that you don't have a concept of "sin" is to say that nobody has ever done wrong.
So the next question is “what is wrong?”

What person A might consider wrong and sinful, person B might not.

I don’t have a problem with homosexuality for example, yet many religious people say it is wrong and sinful.

Actions which cause suffering ---> sin.
In which case, the Catholic Church’s anti-contraception stance is sinful. Not using a condom, which they encourage, can cause suffering. By doing this they are committing sin (according to your above quote).

By definition, that which causes suffering ought not be done. We now have a standard for what is "wrong" and, by its contrast, what is "right.
I agree here, kinda, however I see no reason to involve a God anywhere in this.

Morality…right and wrong etc, is simply an innate feature of social animals. If something impairs our survival (both as individuals and as a species) we consider it wrong, hence we consider violence wrong for example, likewise if it aides our survival we consider it good, hence we consider discussion and helping to be good. Of course, this is not simply a black and white thing.

[Topher]

Buddhism doesn't have this "standard" as such.
A moral wrong is similar to why it's wrong to hold a knife by it's sharp side.
Hold a knife by it's sharp side and you get cut.
Buddhism treats ethics purely by this principle.
People are clumsy and hurt themselves, more enlightened people are a bit more careful and stub their toes less often.
Interesting analogy. I like it.

Are you saying that its more individual/subjective based? Can you elaborate on the comparion with the knife?

There's no perfect standard though.
Infact, I think it's generally agreed that expecting some kind perfection is bad when it's much better to appreciate life as it is. You can make things as good as you want without having a "standard".
I agree. I believe the mistake is trying to make such issues black and white.

[WatchfulAbyss]

Thank you for taking the time to write that, Blind! Seriously, it's a common misconception. Just like there are different denominations in Christianity and different divisions within Islam, there are and have always been different beliefs within Judaism.

In the first century, AD, there were several main groups within the Jewish community: There were Pharisees (Jews who believed in a literal interpretation of Scripture, an afterlife, angels and spirit-beings, and a salvation through righteous-living and keeping of the commandments), Saducees (Jews who believed in a literal interpretaion of Scripture, but believed obedience to God was based on duty, with no reward in any afterlife, no spirits or spirit-beings, no angels), Zealots (Jews mainly identified by nationalistic beliefs and agitation for political freedom and a physical 'promised land' in the middle east), Hellenists (Jews who had become secularized and assimilated into the predominant Greek culture), Essenes (ascetic/mystic hermit types, considered heretics by all the other groups), and Nazarenes (Jews who believed that Jesus was and is the promised Messiah, the Holy One of God). These groups lived and practiced their beliefs side-by-side for about 100 years. In fact, all of the original apostles, most of the early disciples, and all but one of the authors of the New Testament were practicing Nazarene Jews.

Today, in most major cities, you can find congregations of Messianic Jews (2000 years later, Jews who still believe that Jesus is the promised Messiah). In fact, I found several Messianic Jewish congregations in Ohio. You might want to google a few up, see what's in your area. Visit one once, and I think you'll get a taste of something very different from anything you've seen or expected from either Judaism or Christianity.

For more info on Messianic Judaism, see lists of links here, or for a few (I found others) Nazarene congregations near you in Ohio, try here.




I see where I messed up. Main stream judaism does reject Jesus. I don't believe you can be a Christian if you reject Christ. I just worded it wrong, he said judaism and christanity are one and the same. Their not, atleast not judaism in it's original form.

[Aikikai Novice]

This is a good conversation.

I've had some discussions about Taoism, so I can understand Thelistmaker's concept of right and wrong (or rather, lack there of) to some extent. AikiMac, I completely understand and agree with your point of view, but I'm not really surprised that it's being resisted. In Taoism, everything is relative, everything is about balance and cycles.

I think Taoism is a beautifully intellectual philosiphy, and and it's almost identical to Christianity with one significant difference - in Taoism, everything adds up to nothing; in Christianity, everything adds up to something. That's an over simplification, but it's fairly close.

Anyway, lots of eastern religions have a concept of perfect rightness, or balance, or harmony, or whatever. In the Tao Te Ching (an interesting read that I do recommend) to follow this way is to be a "person of Tao." Admittedly, to the Taoist or the Bhuddist, it's not so much about "rejecting wrong" and "doing right," but about acting in a way that... how to put this... is harmonius? Well, you propably understand this, aikiMac, the philosiphy of aikido stems from Taoism. So, as nage deals with uke, there's no trandendant divinity declaring "right" and "wrong" ways to move, just ways that blend with uke and harmonize with his energy, and ways of colliding with uke and opposing that energy.

So the same is true of all life as we know it and all the universe (according to the Taoist).

So, you have a bhuddist trying to explain to you why "wrong thoughts and actions" arent wrong in the sense that they're evil, and the opposite of good, just sorta' incorect in that they don't really go with the flow.

Anyway, here's the way I see it.

God is not really so much sitting back and comdemning us because we're evil. God is like the Tao, perfect unity and harmony and oneness. Use a point in space as an analogy. Now all of us are "sinners" - that is, we've all opposed that perfect, harmonius way, and instead of being centered on that perfect place (where God is) we've moved. In some direction. Away from that.

And THAT is how sin separates us from God.

It's not that good is on one one side, evil is on the other - it's not a fight between good and evil. God is like the Tao, the perfect, balanced culmination of everything throughout all the universe and all time. "Sin" is anything that opposes that harmony. And it just so happens in the universe we live in (the one possibility that has concreted itself out of an infinity of things we can and can't imagine), that we as human beings (created in the likeness of God - that is, having something fundamental in our nature and our existance that is LIKE God) have a tendancy to allign things that are harmonius and "Godly" with justice and good, and to allign things that are conflicting and "sinfull" with injustice and evil. So it's not really a duality at all.

Kishu - I can tell that you're a Catholic, or at least the most familiar with Catholic ideology. That's not an offensive statement or anything, it's just my guess based on what you've said so far.

Anyway about this statement you made in particular - "First of all "faith alone" will not get you salvation. "Good works" will not get you salvation either. If you accept salvation, but don't mend you ways than you have not really accepted salvation."

I've got to tell you, this is hash. The Bible says that salvation is free, regardless of any works good or bad. HOVEVER - there are parts of the Bible that imply that repentance and a changed life are required for salvation. How can this be? The answer is this - every single reference in the Bible that seems to imply that works are a requirement in ANY way is talking about the KINGDOM of Heaven. Not salvation. Most modern Christians don't know the difference, but Jews knew plainly. The Kingdom of Heaven refers to the period of time mentioned in Revelations when Christ is ruling. The "Millenium."

Therefore, salvation is free, but not all saved people are equal. Not by a long shot. That's where justice and grace come together. You know the parable of the talents? All three were "the Master's servants" - saved people. Yet the one who squandered the opportunity to invest his talent (the one who wasted his life) was thrown out to where there was "weepeing and gnashing of teeth". "This is what the Kingdom of Heaven is like" Jesus said. So yeah, it's an interesting study to do. By the way, I'm not a Jehova's witness, but they have some similar beliefs.

SO - I believe that if you're "saved" (if you're seeking God, the Center) that your spiritual maturity (developed by living a Godly life) is the definition of how much like God you are (how close you are to the Center, the Tao), and that that God-likeness is all that remains of you when your life is over. Your proximity to the Center, the Tao, to God, has an eternal, lasting impact on your reationship with God, and that developing that character and closeness is the purpose of this life.

[Strafio]

Interesting analogy. I like it.

Are you saying that its more individual/subjective based? Can you elaborate on the comparion with the knife?
Well, playing with the knife gets you hurt.
Doing immoral things get your hurt.
The difference is the knife has an obvious and instantaneous cause/effect wheras moral issues are more subtle and their effects take longer to appear.

This doesn't necessarily make it subjective...
Because we have similar minds and live in similar environments there will be objective "morals" that will benefit us to follow.

[aikiMac]

Buddhism doesn't have this "standard" as such.
Then what will you say is meant by "right thoughts" ? I have only been taught that there is a standard within Buddhism by which to judge when thoughts are "right views" and "right thoughts" and "right deeds" and "right speech" and "right actions" and such. Right, wrong, good, bad, up, down, pick a word -- somebody is making the call.


So, you have a bhuddist trying to explain to you why "wrong thoughts and actions" arent wrong in the sense that they're evil, and the opposite of good, just sorta' incorect in that they don't really go with the flow.
There's your standard: "go with the flow." To "go with the flow" is encouraged. To not "go with the flow" is discouraged. That's it.

And then the debate is over the boundaries of this standard, the boundaries of other standards, and which standard is better or even best.

[Strafio]

Then what will you say is meant by "right thoughts" ? I have only been taught that there is a standard within Buddhism by which to judge when thoughts are "right views" and "right thoughts" and "right deeds" and "right speech" and "right actions" and such. Right, wrong, good, bad, up, down, pick a word -- somebody is making the call.
Everyone is encouraged to make their own calls.
It's about learning what works for you in your life.
Morality is a skill in the same way cooking might be.
There are recipies that make objectively good meals but these come from trying and testing what seems to taste good.

Whoever makes the call on what is a right action will be equivilant who makes the call on what the right way to make a spaghetti bolognaise or the right way to throw a punch. There will be objective guidelines that apply in most cases but generally we have to try things out to find out what works best for us personally.

There's your standard: "go with the flow." To "go with the flow" is encouraged. To not "go with the flow" is discouraged. That's it.
Things are encouraged and discouraged.
There's no standard though.
There's no "this is how you should be."
It's more, "this is how you might like to be."
A bit like a martial art.
"You want to be a good fighter? This is how you get good at it."
"You want to be a good person? Here's how you devellop the moral skills."

It's to the same effect in a way.
The good Christian* and good Buddhist will value similar actions but there's a good reason why a Buddhist will find the Christian* practice satisfiable (as it encourages skillful morality) while the Christian* might not find Buddhist practice satisfiable. (as they believe the important thing is to have these "sins" atoned for).
A Buddhist bad action doesn't require punishment, it is just naturally punishing so it to be avoided for that reason. Christians* don't disagree with this but they also believe that further punishment is required because God's laws have been breached.

*When I say Christian I mean one that believes in literal sin and judgement.
I think that a lot of modern Christians believe in a more Buddhist-compatable version of sin where heaven and hell are more metaphoric for the consequences of actions.

[aikiMac]

Everyone is encouraged to make their own calls.
To make your own call is different from there being a right call to make. Christians get to make their own calls too, but still there is a standard behind that freedom. To say that there is no right call to make is completely foreign to the Buddhist books that I've read, written by Buddhists to describe Buddhism. The one in my hand right now is called "Introducing Buddhism." It was published by The Buddhist Society in Taiwan. It's part of a set of Buddhist primers given to me by a Taiwanese student when I was in grad school. I also read a book by the Dalia Lama, and a book on Tibetan Buddhism that was pretty interesting. All of these speak of there being a standard for the right speech, right actions, etc. There's literally a list of "right things to do" and "wrong things to not do" in the book. That's a standard of behavior, dude. Furthermore, the assertion that there is no right call to make seems even contrary to the purpose of the Buddha's life. If there is no distinction between right choices and wrong choices, then he didn't need to suffer for those 6 years of ascetic soul-searching to figure out how to free the world from suffering.

I forgot why we are even talking about this. We're probably on a wild tanget. :confused:

[Aikikai Novice]

I'm sorry aikiMac, I don't think anyone's going to budge on this one.

I've gone 'round and 'round with people who are into eastern religion and the more you press, the more confusing and contradictory it seems.

"So you have to rid yourself of all attatchment?"
"Yes"
"But in order to motivate yourself, don't you need to have a GOAL to rid yourself of attatchment, stemming from an attatchment?"
"Well, you have to be carefull about that. You start off doing things to gradually become free of attatchment, and then you lose the attatchments that drove you as far as you are."
"Uh-huh. All for something that's not 'good,' in any real sense? So you're driven for something that doesn't matter, namely to rid yourself of desire to be driven to anything, so that you won't care when you get there?"
"...Uh, yeah?"

Or "Things are encouraged or discouraged, but there's nothing you SHOULD or SHOULDN'T do"
"So there's no reason I shouldn't attack you with intent to kill you right now?"
"Uh, well, there would be unpleasant ramifications from that action. That would cause suffering."
"But maybe I'd like killing you. I wouldn't necessarily suffer. Even if I did, there's nothing wrong or evil about suffering, it would just be the natural result of that action. Everything would still be in the same balance ultimately."
"You'd be creating disharmony."
"Disharmony begets disharmony and balances other disharmony into harmony, does it not? I can't really alter the ultimate balance. Besides, you're wanting to rid yourself of your attatchment to yourself."

If you sit there and debate for long enough, the conclusion is almost always: "Nothing matters. Attempts at self-improvement are meaningless. Attempts to improve the world are meaningless. 'Improvement' is relative. Being aware of the meaninglessness does not make existence any less meaningless. So screw everything and do what seems right and good to you. Or do nothing. It's all the same."

Some branches seem to believe in right and wrong, but of course, they also believe in self-redemption through following a certain path of rightness.

This actually comes back to my origional point of Christian salvation, and while the concept is so easy, it's actually hard. Almost everything else in the world either says, "if it feels good, do it." or "do it this way so that you'll be good enough."

Christianity says, "this is the way you were supposed to do it but you can't. So admit you're flawed. Admit you're powerless. Admit that you can't save yourself, no matter how patient you become, no matter how much water you pour over that stone, no matter how much you give to charity, no matter how many people you kill by blowing yourself up, no matter how much incense you burn, no matter how loud you pray, no matter how much you appologize, no matter how much you cut yourself, no matter what you eat, no matter how many people like you, or hate you. Nothing."

People don't want to feel real responsibility, or to admit real powerlessness. True humility. But they'll tell you you're arrogant if you say you believe that's the only true path to redemption. They tend to want their own way, one that either absolves them of responsibility ("there's no real "right" or "wrong," it's all just relative") or gives them the power to redeem themselves ("I follow this path/these teaching/this way.").

[aikiMac]

I'm sorry aikiMac, I don't think anyone's going to budge on this one.
The open-minded people aren't very open-minded, are they? ;)


"Things are encouraged or discouraged, but there's nothing you SHOULD or SHOULDN'T do"
"So there's no reason I shouldn't attack you with intent to kill you right now?"
"Uh, well, there would be unpleasant ramifications from that action. That would cause suffering."
Bingo! That was my whole point. Like I said before, my point is not that Buddhism and Christianity and whatever other religion are equally true, or teach the same exact things. My point is that they all teach a set of right and wrong behaviors. Here you just stated it for the Buddhists: I should not kill you dead right now, right where you stand, because doing so would result in unpleasant ramifications. Bingo. That's it.

The Buddha himself taught pacifism because violence is wrong. The Dalia Lama teaches that also. And they both taught honesty as a virtue, and decried lying. There's another standard. There you go.

Some branches seem to believe in right and wrong, but of course, they also believe in self-redemption through following a certain path of rightness.
That must have been the one that I was taught, but the source was traced back to the Buddha. :confused:


Christianity says, "this is the way you were supposed to do it but you can't. So admit you're flawed. Admit you're powerless. Admit that you can't save yourself, no matter how patient you become, no matter how much water you pour over that stone, no matter how much you give to charity, no matter how many people you kill by blowing yourself up, no matter how much incense you burn, no matter how loud you pray, no matter how much you appologize, no matter how much you cut yourself, no matter what you eat, no matter how many people like you, or hate you. Nothing."
Aye, so if one accepts this idea, then the contrary notion that you can improve yourself is a result of pride. I think. Hmm. You play with that one. I'm going to go do something else. ;)

[Strafio]

To make your own call is different from there being a right call to make. Christians get to make their own calls too, but still there is a standard behind that freedom. To say that there is no right call to make is completely foreign to the Buddhist books that I've read, written by Buddhists to describe Buddhism.
There's a "right call" the same way there's a "right way" to make a good pizza. If there's a "standard", it's rooted in how all our subjective tastes on what a good pizza tastes like happen to be similar. So practically there's a kind of "standard" and in practice the Buddhist and Christian will live to a similar set of rules/guidelines. However, the reasons for following these rules/guidelines become very divergent.

There's a difference between following a cooking recepie and following a law, even if both were giving the same instructions.
That's the difference I see between Buddhist and Christian metaethics.

[Strafio]

I've gone 'round and 'round with people who are into eastern religion and the more you press, the more confusing and contradictory it seems.
The ideas seem confusing and contradictory, especially when taken a bit out of context. "Free yourself from attachment and desire", "there are no definite right and wrongs", "find balance in nature" - these aren't dogma's. They're ideas that give you a direction to practice and find meaning in life (which Buddhists don't believe can be simply spelt out in words).

You're right, it's confusing in a lot of ways, I don't blame you if you don't believe it's correct. A Buddhist would say that if it doesn't mean anything to you then ignore it. They might recommend you try Buddhist practice but if it wasn't working for you then they'd accept it and suggest your path in life is perhaps elsewhere.

The thing that gets me about some branches of Christianity is that their theology is just as confusing and contradictory (a loving God throwing around harshest punishments for example) except this time if you don't understand it and are left sceptical you're told that you've got the ultimate unpleasant fate coming your way. So you're left with the choice: blindly accept something you don't really understand or risk the most horrible fate imaginable (and then some).
Naturally, this really messes with people's heads.
It's why Tekken and Punisher hate all forms of religion with passion.

People don't want to feel real responsibility, or to admit real powerlessness. True humility. But they'll tell you you're arrogant if you say you believe that's the only true path to redemption.
Hmmmm...
Humility towards God doesn't mean there'll be humility towards your fellow man. I've met Christians who've expressed this belief in very humble ways. The thing is, others haven't simply stated that they believe their path is the only correct one, they've gone as far as to say it is. It's the difference between just saying you disagree and going as far to say that you know better. That's when people have found them arrogant.

They tend to want their own way, one that either absolves them of responsibility ("there's no real "right" or "wrong," it's all just relative") or gives them the power to redeem themselves ("I follow this path/these teaching/this way.").
Responsible for what?
Redemption from what?
The responsibilities and redemptions Christians say are required depend on you believing their mythology. Otherwise it's all meaningless.

[Strafio]

I forgot why we are even talking about this. We're probably on a wild tanget. :confused:
Such is our way! :Angel:
This conversation is a lot more interesting than the original topic anyway! :)

[CKava]

Christianity says, "this is the way you were supposed to do it but you can't. So admit you're flawed. Admit you're powerless. Admit that you can't save yourself, no matter how patient you become, no matter how much water you pour over that stone, no matter how much you give to charity, no matter how many people you kill by blowing yourself up, no matter how much incense you burn, no matter how loud you pray, no matter how much you appologize, no matter how much you cut yourself, no matter what you eat, no matter how many people like you, or hate you. Nothing."
Not all Christians agree with this viepoint however and I might add THANK GOD! I appreciate this might not be kosher but this to me seems like an essentially childish belief and incidentally it is also the belief that leads to many people criticising religion as a crutch for the weak willed. It's belief in a God which divulges you of any real responsibility. I mean come on, if God is ultimately the one who does all the work what the hell is the point in you? God created you to stroke his ego? He made all his creation so weak and with their only point to existence being to admit their weakness (which he created!) and rely on him? God really does sound like an ego maniac when you paint him in this light. If we take your helicopter analogy the question begging to be answered is why the hell did the helicopter pilot (i.e. God) set up such a ridiculous scenario? I mean he is the one that set it up, afterall he is the creator, right? Did he just want to play or something... ugh. I just really hate people denigrating the actions and capabilities of the entire human race because of what it says in the Bible.

The alternative that you can do various things leading to your salvation I might add I do realise can also cause its own problems... if you can convince someone that blowing themselves up leads to it for example but overall I have to say that this perspective despite its drawbacks at least seems to house the potential for people to take responsibility for their life rather than relying on the FATHER.

Oh and the argument that believing you are responsible for your salvation is a matter of pride seems to work just as well for God. If God is responsible for our salvation and he denies it to those who refuse to recognise that, well that sounds mighty prideful to me. So if were gonna say that accepting responsibility equates to pride then God has the BIGGEST PRIDE ever created- any he created it himself!

P.S. About the Buddhist issue to be fair Aiki and Strafio are both correct it depends on interpretation. If you ask many Buddhist monks they will readily tell you what is right and wrong behaviour. If you consult Buddhist scriptures you will find LONG lists of what is right and wrong behaviour and even more detailed lists to do with thoughts. For God sake the first council debated about whether or not it was a breach of the Vinayana to ejaculate in your sleep! However, at the same time it's quite clear from many Buddhist scriptures that practicing morality is regarded simply as a necessary step towards enlightenment, after which morality in the traditional sense is no longer particularly relevant due to the enlightened person IN THEORY having a clear perception of the karmic consequences of their actions i.e. killing a group of people can be justified if their karmic path is better served by ending their present life and having them reincarnated for example if they were karmically destined to prevent vast amounts of beings from being enlightened, increasing their karmic chains and increasing their suffering. A short burst of physical suffering could be seen as a drop in the ocean next to an aeon of reincarnations. This is an extreme example (though it does occur in a Buddhist text) and to make it clear the more common stories paint a picture of Bodhisattvas killing themselves to feed starving animals so yeah no need to quote them at me. Hmm... now to get back to the point- it is equally clearly stated in many Buddhist traditions and in many of their texts that the world and suffering are ultimately illusionary and that our concepts of right and wrong even the ones the Buddha taught are simply 'skilful means' to help people reach enlightenment upon which they will come to perceive the 'truth which cannot be expressed in words'. So to repeat myself you are both correct and ultimately it depend on what argument you are trying to promote as to which interpretation you will accept.

Sorry if its a bit ranty but its very late over here and well I really disagree with the original views I quoted at the top of this post.

And Aikikai Novice while I appreciate the silliness of many Westerners who chose to follow Eastern religions, I would suggest it is beneficial to realise that failings in individuals levels of understanding or sense does not mean that entire traditions are based around contradictory or silly notions. I could quote you thousands of ridiculous Christian arguments about why people lived with Dinosaurs and how you have to accept this if you are a true Christian yet I think most sane Christians realise this is a silly view. That covers silly and for contradictory look at Strafio's post above.

EDIT: Having re-read my post I'm not entirely happy with it but I'm too tired to edit it to something a bit more reasonable. So apologies if it's abit unnecessarily cheeky.

[potatodemon]

no offence intended but aikimac
you sound like a frog at the bottom of a well who can only see part of the sky through his funnel. You don’t seem to be able to imagine what another part of the sky might look like through another funnel.

[potatodemon]

where is the justice in a world where a person who devotes their whole life to helping others and truly loved God and their fellow man can be dammed because they belonged to a different faith. whilst someone can be given free access to heaven simply because they where born into a Christian family and didn’t bother exploring other religions.

[Aikikai Novice]

The justice is that you have to choose to be saved, but that doesn't put you in the same boat as everyone else. Why is this difficult to convey?

You're still responsible for your own life. HASN'T ANYONE NOTICED THAT I HAVE NOT ONCE SAID YOU MUST HAVE "A SAVING KNOWLEDGE OF JESUS CHRIST" IN ORDER TO AVOID "DAMNATION?!" I'm currently up in the air as to whether that's even necessary for salvation, and I'm even more up in the air as to whether there exists any kind of permanent, "damnation." These may not be Christian teachings. I haven't read my Bible throug enough times yet.

You have to choose to participate in the marathon, but that's it. How far you run is up to you. Sure, you can run anywhere you want, but if you're not in the race it doesn't count.

You can't go scuba diving without scuba gear. But you can't make it yourself, someone has to give it to you - you can't breathe underwater WITH YOUR OWN POWER. No matter how hard you try. Once you have it, how deep you go is up to you. You can swim around in the shallows without it, but it doesn't count for much.

[Strafio]

My problem with this is that it's not really a "choice" for most people.
You can only choose between accepting and rejecting God if you believe there's that choice to make, i.e. you believe that particular Christian theology.

[Kishu]

“To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it. “G.K. Chesterton

“Men do not differ much about what things they will call evils; they differ enormously about what evils they will call excusable.” G.K. Chesterton






excerpt James V. Schall Chesterton and the Delight of Truth

“The Meaning of Sin’s Existence

One of the chapters in Orthodoxy is called the suicide of thought. Roughly, this means that no one can think if he maintains that his organ of thinking cannot know anything or that his organ of will cannot decide anything about what is known. Moreover, no one allows his organ of deciding to decide anything if there are, on the basis of what he knows to be true, certain things that will be forbidden to him. If it should so happen that some things are right and true, we may just not want to know about them if we suspect that they might interfere with what we have already chosen to do. When we act on this failure to know what we should know, we sin, to use the classic word that indicates both the seriousness of our thoughts and the choices that follow from them. Not surprisingly, then, when asked, the reason Chesterton himself gave for his final conversion to the faith was that he wanted to get rid of his sins. He knew that the structure of reality was such that they were possible, and he knew himself well enough to know that he, no one else, committed them.

Chesterton liked to talk about sin, no doubt because it was so serious and so common. Indeed, in his Father Brown stories, he liked to write about it. He thought we should be sinning all the time, not by actually murdering or stealing or committing adultery, of course, but by writing about such aberrations. Though he loved the sinner, he did not have any sympathy for those who refused to understand the reality or depths of sin. He often suggested, furthermore, that those who know most about sin are not the sinners themselves but the pure of heart, those who have decided not to commit it. The knowledge of sin and its attraction is not itself a sin but a necessary element in our understanding ourselves. But the existence of sin and its terribleness was part of the risk of the universe that contained the finite free creature. If God wanted to create a finite person who could love Him freely, He had to accept, as in all love, the possibility of being rejected.

Chesterton was acutely aware that what made the universe particularly interesting was not the existence of sin in it, with its pre-condition of free will, but the possibility and condition of its forgiveness. In determinist theory, "the cosmos went on forever, but not in its wildest constellation could there be anything really interesting; anything, for instance, such as forgiveness or free will." Free will meant that we could sin and were responsible for it. It also meant that we could be grateful for existence itself. Forgiveness meant that even if we sinned, what we sinned against could forgive us, that sin was personal both on our parts and on the part of what we sinned against. "Such ... was the joy of man; ... happiness depended on not doing something which you could at any moment do, but which, very often, it was not obvious why you should not do it." All romance depended on not doing what ought not to be done. Sometimes on crucial things, we simply had to obey. "Thou shalt not ...."

Chesterton, moreover, thought that the doctrine of original sin grounded democracy and was the only reason we could give for not absolutely trusting a ruling elite. "The unpopular parts of Christianity (like original sin) turn out when examined to be the very props of the people." Original sin explained why we needed to bind even our rulers by law, morality, and sanction. They too were sinners and lived in the worst possible occasion for sin – the life of power, publicity, and comfort. "In the best Utopia, I must be prepared for the fall of any man, in any position, at any moment...." But no matter in what sort of society or situation in which man lived, sin is always caused by will, not by something external to us. No arrangement of society or state, contrary to Rousseau and his tradition, would ever eliminate the possibility of sin and wrong doing from among us, especially from the elite. "For she (the Church) has maintained from the beginning that the danger was not in man’s environment, but in man." This awareness of the possibility of sin in anyone, even rulers, is one fundamental element of any charter of liberty, of any understanding of responsibility.

What is surprising at first sight is the amount of attention that Chesterton gives in Orthodoxy to questions of sin, original sin, and free will. These three are, no doubt, essential doctrines of the faith and its philosophic support. If there is such a thing as sin, the deliberate choice of a thought or action against God and man, there must first be a free will to choose such thought or action. Moreover, it is clear that from time immemorial, man has had difficulty in living virtuously, even when he wanted to and chose to do so. Indeed, this difficulty in living virtuously will seem to justify theories which maintain that sin is the normal condition of mankind, so we should not worry about it but expect it, even excuse it, make it "normal" because it is so frequent. Chesterton’s response to this position is again amusing: "Men may have had concubines as long as they have had horses – still they were not part of him if they were sinful." The frequency of any sin does not somehow indicate its rightness but its wrongness.

All That Is Is Created in Joy

The greatest thing about Orthodoxy, however, is its enthusiasm for and delight in what is.

The structure of Orthodoxy is cast in the form of the adventure of a man who set out around the world to discover some strange land. Finally, his ship reaches this distant land; only there he discovers that it is England, his original home. The analogy, of course, is to Chesterton’s own spiritual adventure in discovering orthodoxy to be the home he was looking for all along only he did not recognize it right before his very eyes. One of the mysteries of his life, Chesterton tells us, was why he could be "homesick at home." This homesickness-at-home is a most striking image, for Chesterton loved home and thought it the noblest word in the language. Yet, he understood that even when we have everything, even when we do not sin, we feel that there is something missing to us. We seek our true home even at home.

In his musings about what it is we want, what sort of freedom is the greatest, even at home, Chesterton argued that it is the freedom to bind ourselves. "I would never conceive or tolerate any Utopia which did not leave to me the liberty for which I chiefly care, the liberty to bind myself." This freedom of binding oneself was for Chesterton the key to the highest wisdom about the most basic things of life. "I could never mix in the common murmur of that rising generation against monogamy, because no restrictions on sex seemed so odd and unexpected as sex itself... Keeping to one woman is a small price for so much as seeing one woman. To complain that I could only be married once was like complaining that I could only be born once." Chesterton was capable of elevating this principle to the more universal idea that our individual uniquenesses, in being bound by love, lie at the heart of all true relationships. "I want to love my neighbor not because he is I, but precisely because he is not I. I want to adore the world, not as one likes a looking-glass, because it is one’s self, but as one loves a woman, because she is entirely different."

And because God too is entirely different and stands at the heart of all binding promises, of all freedom, it is possible to love Him because we know we are first chosen, that being ourselves is not enough. Our ideas of God decide our ideas of the world. "By insisting especially on the transcendence of God we get wonder, curiosity, moral and political adventure, righteous indignation, Christendom. Insisting that God is inside man, man is always inside himself. By insisting that God transcends man, man has transcended himself." In transcending himself, in what he might expect of himself, man does not cease to be himself. We do not become "gods." We love God and this is our joy. Eternal life comes precisely to us, as we are.”


Quotes from Ignatiusinsight.com



My thoughts – on a more mystical level:

“God inside man”- we have in the Church what is Holy Communion: the body and blood of our Lord. To quote one of our great reverends-

“It is not that we believe we have Christ body, blood, soul, and divinity, therefore it exists in the Sacrament.- It exists, therefore we believe it”. For anyone not yet to this mysterious level in Chrisitanity, stop reading here or read it and put it on the shelf, so to speak…..

We take God inside us on an intimate level. So what is OUR sacrifice when we approach the table at Holy Communion? We are receiving into us that which we not only do NOT deserve, yet truly desire- becoming one with God. This is most similar to an intimate consummated union with bride and groom. Our sacrifice is in giving up SIN to become one with our Lord. What a farce it would be to approach the table unrepentant sinners. How would there be any true union? Imagine a whore presenting herself to her groom on her wedding day totally clean on the outside, in a beautiful white wedding gown yet having laid with several men the night before. How is she sacrificing anything for this intimate marital union? She is NOT sacrificing at all. It is a true farce although she appears clean- there is filth inside!

Christ made a sacrifice on the cross- his glory was in his suffering. Is this how we repay Him? How do we discern sin- you ask then? The natural law is a good answer- the Orthodox answer is Sacred Scripture- the Word- our manual (map) to find the Beatific vision.

As far as Christianity being akin to Judaism- Jews are considered our elder brothers. We embrace Father Abraham. Our most Holy Communion is a reenactment of the Passover meal/ Jesus becoming our Lamb…..
read the Lamb’s Supper by Scott Hahn. You will never look at the book of Revelations the same again.

[potatodemon]

The justice is that you have to choose to be saved

This is why I wonder why Christians who wants to make an effort to become closer to God do not accept Muhammad (Peace be upon him) and study the Qur’an as the Qur’an is Gods direct words unlike the Bible and Muhammad (PBUH) was the last prophet to be sent after Jesus.

[Thelistmaker]

Aikikai - Indeed there is no ‘doing it by yourself’, spiritual progress is stripping away the self and becoming one with the universe/emptiness/a deist type of God, depending on your ‘funnel’ as potatodemon put it.

Remember loosing the self dose not mean ceasing to exist . I hope the prospect of casting off and ephemeral continuum doesn’t scare anyone.

[Capt Ann]

EDITED: With apologies to PD - I was answering a post you made in another thread, and somehow cross-posted here. Now I lost the other thread.


'Being a Christian' does NOT mean that you have a membership card when you're born and a 'get out of hell free' pass at death. The Bible (God's true word to mankind) promises that everyone who seeks the kingdom of God will find it. If you truly look for God and to understand truth, then God Himself will see to it that you find the right people, places, situations, writings, books, experiences, etc. so that you can know Him.

On another note, can someone please give me the name of the person who devoted their whole life to helping others and truly loved God and their fellow man? Other than Jesus, I don't think I've ever met such a person.

[dturtleman]

This is why I wonder why Christians who wants to make an effort to become closer to God do not accept Muhammad (Peace be upon him) and study the Qur’an as the Qur’an is Gods direct words unlike the Bible and Muhammad (PBUH) was the last prophet to be sent after Jesus.
Well. potato demon, i am a christian, and I can only say that Muhammad is not able to forgive me my sins; he didn't die, and then come back to life again. And the Bible is written by the prophets who were inspired by God; we don't believe Muhammad was inspired or directed by God.

[aikiMac]

So practically there's a kind of "standard" and in practice the Buddhist and Christian will live to a similar set of rules/guidelines.
Thank you!


However, the reasons for following these rules/guidelines become very divergent.
I agreed with this from the beginning.

But, having now agreed that there is a standard of living even in Buddhism, we now have settled the idea of sin: "Sin" is when you violate that standard. I will immediately agree that Buddhism does not impose either the same sort of judgment or the same sort of punishment for sin that Christianity imposes. But at least we got the idea down! :D


no offence intended but aikimac
you sound like a frog at the bottom of a well who can only see part of the sky through his funnel. You don’t seem to be able to imagine what another part of the sky might look like through another funnel.
Hang around MAP more and you'll change your mind. And, um, CKava is majoring in religions in college, and he said I had a right view of Buddhism. I'll take his word over yours, thank you.

[CKava]

Aikikai - Indeed there is no ‘doing it by yourself’, spiritual progress is stripping away the self and becoming one with the universe/emptiness/a deist type of God, depending on your ‘funnel’ as potatodemon put it.
Listmaker to be honest while Buddhist rhetoric of 'no self' is great the fact remains that in many spiritual paths (especially in many sects of Buddhism) YOU are the one responsible for your progress. That is one of the main thrusts in Buddhist teaching or (at least in the modernised Buddhism) i.e. you are responsible for yourself and there is no outside source you should rely on. Whether or not ultimately there is no self-existent self is really neither here or there when discussing whether or not you are responsible for your 'salvation/enlightenment/whatever' or an outside power is.

[Strafio]

But, having now agreed that there is a standard of living even in Buddhism, we now have settled the idea of sin: "Sin" is when you violate that standard.
Hmmm...
When you say "standard", it makes it sound like something fixed.
When you say Buddhists have a "standard" I can think of two possible things you mean:

1) An individuals standard - i.e. a persons own code of living, the rules they try to follow. This isn't fixed, though, and will likely be changing all the time. (a lot of things that have been previously part of my "standard" are things I now consider immoral)
When they break this standard, is it that they're breaking their own idealised rules?

2) An absolute standard - i.e. if the practitioner was omniscient then this is what they would do. The idea of breaking this "standard" seems odd though. Firstly, it's impossible to know for sure what this is (because it requires an omniscient knowledge of what the consequences of every possible action is) and secondly it's just weird. The absolute standard would be absolute perfection, so anything imperfect would be breaking it. E.g. making someone quite happy when it was possible to make them even happier... etc...

The reason why I try to avoid thinking of it like a standard is because to do so means to take everything that achieves that standard for granted. So if you become idealistic and you set the standard too high then it just makes you harshly judgemental of everything, nothing seems good enough and you lose ability to appreciate things. :(
I mean, from my own experience anyway.
So I try to look at things a different way.
After all, the main point in Buddhism is to learn to appreciate the world as it is so the moment you impose a standard, on yourself or on anyone else, you've more or less violated that standard by doing so...

So that's why morality is something I'd rather compare to cooking, because my cooking is terrible and I appreciate the most mediocre results! :Angel:

[AZeitung]

Not all Christians agree with this viepoint however and I might add THANK GOD!
I think you're wrong here. All Christians agree that it is only through the salvation provided by Jesus and the gift of the holy spirit that we are capable of being saved, rather than through our own merit - because with a single sin we fall short of the standard that is required without this gift. This is common to every denomination, and I would say that any church that claims otherwise is not a Christian church.

I think your confusion may lie in this: our salvation is dependant on our acceptance of this of this gift, which is through our love of God and that every sinful act we commit is out of disregard for that love. There should be no denying that we all fall short of the standard of living without sin - and if you think otherwise, I would challenge you to find someone who has never lied, stolen, become violent, disobeyed their parents when they were only looking out for their children's best interests, etc. We have all fallen short of that standard, but as Aikikai was pointing out, God accepts that and loves us anyway - the fact you think this makes him megalomaniacal shows your lack of understanding of where this concept comes from.

edit:

So if were gonna say that accepting responsibility equates to pride then God has the BIGGEST PRIDE ever

Yes, but he's God.

And no, God can't sin. Sin = defying the will of God. God doesn't defy his own will.

[aikiMac]

Strafio buddy, I get the impression that you're confusing the concept of a perfect ethical system with rubber-meets-the-road imperfect ethical systems that people actually live out. Let's replace the word "standard" with the phrase "ethical system" and see if that makes my point clearer.

I've read enough about ethics to have a sincere doubt that anybody has come up with a flawless ethical system, and that includes my fellow Christians. (Is Natural Law better than Divine Command or Situation Ethics?) But, that doesn't in any way mean that "anything goes" among Christians, or among any other group either.

Consider that the Dalia Lama received the Nobel Peace Prize for traveling around the world telling people what they should and should not do. He did that by appealing to an ethical system. I currently have a subscription to the newsletter of the International Campaign For Tibet. They advocate behavior according to an ethical system that defines certain acts as right and certain acts as wrong. I know you've read the Eightfold Path. It is a list of 8 things that a person "should" do. "Should." And "right." You can say "should" and "right" only by appeal to an ethical system. I used to have a subscription to a magazine put out by another Buddhist group. I can't remember the name right now, but that group also advocated behavior according to an ethical system.

I doubt that Buddhist ethical systems are perfect, or even that all Buddhists would agree on the same system, but in the face of this evidence for ethical systems would you really deny that Buddhists promote ethical systems?

[madmike]

why,why,why are you disscussing relgion on a martail arts website come why not just go to some other forum and do it.

[aikiMac]

why,why,why are you disscussing relgion on a martail arts website come why not just go to some other forum and do it.
Martial arts study involves the study of human life.
Religion matters in life.

[madmike]

Martial arts study involves the study of human life.
Religion matters in life.
it might invole the study of life but is it really the most interesting thing to write about. its pointless to argue about relgion anyway because not everyone believes the same as you. its their understanding of the bible not as you see it.

[aikiMac]

it might invole the study of life but is it really the most interesting thing to write about. its pointless to argue about relgion anyway because not everyone believes the same as you. its their understanding of the bible not as you see it.
That might be your understanding of the matter, but other people have a different understanding. Why should we follow your way? What makes your way better than our way? :rolleyes: ;)

[madmike]

THATS KIND OF THE POINT I WAS MAKING.DDDDDDDDDEEEEEEEEERRRRRRR.
one question though what would u do if all your lofe u believed ur religoin to be the truth then one day proof is found that it is a lie and there some other god?

[aikiMac]

one question though what would u do if all your lofe u believed ur religoin to be the truth then one day proof is found that it is a lie and there some other god?
First, check the Terms of Service again. We like people to spell out their words.

That done, let's turn this question around. What would you do if one day you found proof that the essential doctrines of such-and-such religion are correct? Would you embrace that religion?

If you would not, then by what standard could you ever ridicule me for whatever choice I happen to make?

[Strafio]

Strafio buddy, I get the impression that you're confusing the concept of a perfect ethical system with rubber-meets-the-road imperfect ethical systems that people actually live out. Let's replace the word "standard" with the phrase "ethical system" and see if that makes my point clearer.
I probably got the impression you were referring to some metaphysical law or something. I think everyone has an ethical system of sorts. I think we're clear now. :)

Only I've forgotten why this point came up in the first place! :D

[Kishu]

why,why,why are you disscussing relgion on a martail arts website come why not just go to some other forum and do it.
I very rarely discuss religion with others unless I am approached about it or I am on a thread that is in the religion section of off topic threads.

If you don't want to discuss religion then why are you on this tread? This is a huge forum with many, many threads. Why does it bother you that people are talking about it on one thread?

I don't think these people are going into other threads trying to force all discussions over to religion, so why should they not discuss here?

[Topher]

Aiki, I think your point only means something if you believe that a ‘higher power’ (i.e. god) is responsible for this ‘standard’.

However, remove the ‘higher power’ from the belief system and where does this ‘standard’ come from?

This belief in a god is not present in Buddhism. This so-called ‘standard’ is not objective as it is believed in Christianity. So i think your error is trying to approach the 'Buddhist way' from a Christian mindset/belief.

[Topher]

THATS KIND OF THE POINT I WAS MAKING.DDDDDDDDDEEEEEEEEERRRRRRR.
one question though what would u do if all your lofe u believed ur religoin to be the truth then one day proof is found that it is a lie and there some other god?
That done, let's turn this question around. What would you do if one day you found proof that the essential doctrines of such-and-such religion are correct? Would you embrace that religion?

If you would not, then by what standard could you ever ridicule me for whatever choice I happen to make?
Instead of turning the question around, what would your answer to his question be?

[Strafio]

Aiki, I think your point only means something if you believe that a ‘higher power’ (i.e. god) is responsible for this ‘standard’.

However, remove the ‘higher power’ from the belief system and where does this ‘standard’ come from?
I thought he was saying this, but it turns out that his point was no one says "anything goes", even beliefs where there isn't a strict "right" or "wrong" as such.

[CKava]

I think you're wrong here. All Christians agree that it is only through the salvation provided by Jesus and the gift of the holy spirit that we are capable of being saved, rather than through our own merit - because with a single sin we fall short of the standard that is required without this gift. This is common to every denomination, and I would say that any church that claims otherwise is not a Christian church.
Still don't think all Christians agree on that... especially Christian mystics, have a google for the Jesuit in my signature for example. Your standard of what makes someone a Christian is fine and probably is the most common view just saying Im glad not all Christians take such a view.

God accepts that and loves us anyway - the fact you think this makes him megalomaniacal shows your lack of understanding of where this concept comes from.
What would make him megalomaniacal (using your word here but to make it clear I was talking about his need to have his ego stroked HUGELY) is that he has chosen to create a race of entirely flawed individuals incapable of reaching 'salvation' (i.e. getting to hang out with Him) on their own in fact only capable of being 'saved' by submitting to his will and admitting how pitiful they really are. Now this wouldn't be his fault had he not in theory set this entire situation up! Freewill is the answer right? So again we arrive at the point that he decided to give his creation the CHOICE to obey him or not and when they disobey him he set it up so they suffer. Hmmm... does that sound like a megalomaniac? Yes I think so. I think that this portrayal of God is well quite frankly pathetic- and I much prefer the view of God I've heard from certain CHRISTIAN mystics. The above portrayal makes him seem like a needy child... who takes tantrums with those who refuse to pander to his ego.

Yes, but he's God.

And no, God can't sin. Sin = defying the will of God. God doesn't defy his own will
Discussion about God is basically pointless then because any contradiction can clearly be answered by 'yeah but he's God'.

[Topher]

What would make him megalomaniacal (using your word here but to make it clear I was talking about his need to have his ego stroked HUGELY) is that he has chosen to create a race of entirely flawed individuals incapable of reaching 'salvation' (i.e. getting to hang out with Him) on their own in fact only capable of being 'saved' by submitting to his will and admitting how pitiful they really are. Now this wouldn't be his fault had he not in theory set this entire situation up! Freewill is the answer right? So again we arrive at the point that he decided to give his creation the CHOICE to obey him or not and when they disobey him he set it up so they suffer. Hmmm... does that sound like a megalomaniac? Yes I think so. I think that this portrayal of God is well quite frankly pathetic- and I much prefer the view of God I've heard from certain CHRISTIAN mystics. The above portrayal makes him seem like a needy child... who takes tantrums with those who refuse to pander to his ego.
I agree. What’s more, ‘he’ would know who would be saved from the very beginning, yet ‘he’ creates people knowing that they will not be saved.

’He’ knows what it will take for each individual to believe, and ‘he’ has the ability to do this.

Ask yourself:

Who's responsible for creating the message?
Who's responsible for creating men?
Who has full knowledge of what message will work, and what message won't work?

Then ask: Who has the perfect ability and perfect responsibility for creating a message that any person could understand?

Alternatively: Who has perfect ability and perfect responsibility for creating a man who can understand the message?

Then ask yourself this:

(Thomas Paine argued as follows…)
Why would an omnipotent being transmit such a vital piece of information through a book? Why not make this knowledge a part of our brain structure? Why not make it axiomatic?

Free will is usually brought up by theists…

But this has nothing to do with free will at all. A person is not free to make a choice if he does not believe that an option exists. People don't have the free will to believe what they don't believe. Free will has to do with choices amongst known and viable options.

[Ragnarok2005]

That's the first time I've ever heard the words "God" and "Helicopter" in the same sentence! :D

[AZeitung]

Still don't think all Christians agree on that... especially Christian mystics, have a google for the Jesuit in my signature for example. Your standard of what makes someone a Christian is fine and probably is the most common view just saying Im glad not all Christians take such a view.

I'm not sure why *you* get to define what makes someone a Christian, rather than the majority of the followers. There are mormons that tell people they're Christians. If we start calling people Christian just because *they* say they are, regardless of how their opinions differ from the mainstream religion, we may as well start including muslims and scientologists in our definition. Christians believe in salvation through Christ, period. If salvation is attainable without Christ, he becomes unnecessary in Christianity. The definition that I provided is not only accepted but has strong biblical backing.


What would make him megalomaniacal (using your word here but to make it clear I was talking about his need to have his ego stroked HUGELY)

for some reason I thought you had written that.


is that he has chosen to create a race of entirely flawed individuals incapable of reaching 'salvation' (i.e. getting to hang out with Him)

You seem to keep missing the point that despite the fact that we never achieve the standard he WANTS for us -- despite the fact that no one ever lives up to it, we still get to "hang out with him", which is sort of the whole point.


on their own in fact only capable of being 'saved' by submitting to his will and admitting how pitiful they really are. Now this wouldn't be his fault had he not in theory set this entire situation up! Freewill is the answer right? So again we arrive at the point that he decided to give his creation the CHOICE to obey him or not and when they disobey him he set it up so they suffer.

Suffering on earth because of our sins isn't really part of Christianity. If that were the case, the bible would say something like "mainly it's the happy rich guys who get into heaven, those in suffering be damned", instead of the other way around.

The torment of hell is our absence from the presence of God, which is our own choice. If you reject God and his gifts, what makes you think you're going to be hanging around with Him?


Hmmm... does that sound like a megalomaniac? Yes I think so. I think that this portrayal of God is well quite frankly pathetic- and I much prefer the view of God I've heard from certain CHRISTIAN mystics. The above portrayal makes him seem like a needy child... who takes tantrums with those who refuse to pander to his ego.

You can try to make it sound however you want, and of course, you're free to like whatever view you want, but that doesn't negate the observations of many brilliant theologians who recognize the act of salvation as one of love -- who describe salvation as a gift that we can choose to either accept or reject. Neither acceptance nor rejection of this gift comes with a price, it simply is what it is, either love God and bring yourself closer to him or reject his love and remove yourself from him.


Discussion about God is basically pointless then because any contradiction can clearly be answered by 'yeah but he's God'.

Well, you started it. This whole discussion is about the nature of God. If nobody ever discussed God I think we would be minus a large chunk of history.

The point was, though, that taking credit for our own salvation is taking credit for the gift of salvation that God has offered freely to everyone. God, as the source of all things, can take and deserves credit for everything.

But that brings up another point - God being the creator of all things hasn't selected right and wrong from a set of natural laws permiating the universe, or written down a set of moral values that are simply meant to be obeyed whether in line with or against a rational or natural morality. He made His laws a fundimental part of the universe such that condemning that morality as "unnatural" or "evil" or "the work of an evil dicator" would be like condemning the physical laws he created for being "unphysical" or "scientifically unsound" in favor of more socially relevant, or useful laws of physics.

[aikiMac]

CKava, would you post here what you believe to be a fair and reasonable definition of "Christianity"? It does seem to me also that you removed an essential part of the definition, but, maybe I am wrong in that. Strafio misunderstood me earlier in this thread when I thought that I was perfectly clear, so right now I'm worrying that maybe AZeitung and I misunderstood you. :o

[CKava]

CKava, would you post here what you believe to be a fair and reasonable definition of "Christianity"? It does seem to me also that you removed an essential part of the definition, but, maybe I am wrong in that. Strafio misunderstood me earlier in this thread when I thought that I was perfectly clear, so right now I'm worrying that maybe AZeitung and I misunderstood you.
To clarify then... I am not debating that AZeitung's definition is accurate for the VAST majority of Christians i.e. that they believe that Jesus Christ is the means by which salvation became possible to achieve. And as such is pretty much an acceptable definition and I think its close to the one in most common usage when people use the word Christian.

However, I do disagree that the definition Aikikai Novice supplied earlier i.e. that it is not through their own actions that they reach this salvation would apply to all Christian groups.

Lastly, for myself (and I DO realise this is a minority view which I might add I am not arguing others should adopt) I personally do not see AZeitungs definition as being particularly relevant to the views espoused by the Christians whose views on life/religion I have huge respect for- again see the Jesuit in my signature for an example. You could argue that his views and views of others like him are un-Christian but personally I think that does a disservice to Christianity rather than vice versa.

And to answer your original question I would answer 'someone who follows the teachings of Jesus Christ' I do realise that this accepts some weirdo groups but Im not saying which group I approve or disprove of just what I personally consider a Christian to be.

1.I'm not sure why *you* get to define what makes someone a Christian, rather than the majority of the followers. There are mormons that tell people they're Christians. If we start calling people Christian just because *they* say they are, regardless of how their opinions differ from the mainstream religion, we may as well start including muslims and scientologists in our definition. Christians believe in salvation through Christ, period. 2.If salvation is attainable without Christ, he becomes unnecessary in Christianity. The definition that I provided is not only accepted but has strong biblical backing.

1. I don't recall saying I want to provide the definition of Christianity for everyone- and I really don't see why your so prissy about me including the likes of a Jesuit(!) under my definition of what a Christian is.

2. Again Im quite aware that is the majority view and I am also quite glad that their are Christians who don't accept that view. At the basic level isn't a Christian simply a follower of the teachings of Christ?

You seem to keep missing the point that despite the fact that we never achieve the standard he WANTS for us -- despite the fact that no one ever lives up to it, we still get to "hang out with him", which is sort of the whole point.
I thought it was impossible for us to achieve that standard he WANTS? To quote Aikikai Novice "this is the way you were supposed to do it but you can't. So admit you're flawed. Admit you're powerless. Admit that you can't save yourself," so again we arrive at the conclusion that God has set an impossible standard which no-one can achieve in the world he created which leaves their only alternative option (the only option which leads him to save them!) to be that they have to worship him then he will save them. You can dress this point up in nice language by saying people have to 'chose to accept the gift he offers' but again if its a gift then why isn't it given freely? It seems to me that it is not a gift but a demand- worship me and you'll be saved, don't worship me and well you'll be sorry. If someone came to your party with a gift and demanded that you bow down to them and tell them how wonderful they are and how pitiful you are before they agreed to give it to you then you would rightly think they are a bit of an ass and also rightly think that the gift is actually just the means for them to get what they want i.e. praise. Sounds fishy to me and if this really is the character of the divine then Im glad Ive never had any experience with him.

You can try to make it sound however you want, and of course, you're free to like whatever view you want, but that doesn't negate the observations of many brilliant theologians who recognize the act of salvation as one of love -- who describe salvation as a gift that we can choose to either accept or reject. Neither acceptance nor rejection of this gift comes with a price, it simply is what it is, either love God and bring yourself closer to him or reject his love and remove yourself from him.
To be honest AZeitung that sounds like wishy washy apologetics. As far as I was aware God punishes those who disobey him. Are you seriously suggesting that there is no punishment for sinners? If so what the hell are all those bible passages about that claim God has a world of hurt waiting for those who reject him? And even if we accept your claim that the gift comes without any strings attached then it seems God has grown up alot since the old testament. In the old testament he certainly seemed to have a vested interest in being worshiped and actively punished those who displeased him. So either he grew up, the old testament is not correct or the human race has grown up a bit and realised such a malevolent and egotistical God is not really a great thing to portraying as the ultimate standard- which is essentially what your saying now by dressing up punishment as 'seperation' and desire to be worshipped as 'offering a gift with no strings'.

Well, you started it. This whole discussion is about the nature of God. If nobody ever discussed God I think we would be minus a large chunk of history.
I have no problem with this discussion I just don't see the point of it when your going to constantly revert to the argument that God is God and therefore can be evil, cruel, prideful etc. etc. and we can't call him on any of it because he created such categorisations. A useful point to raise is that though your argument is acceptable for believers and does indeed make discussion useless it is not acceptable to non-believers who can discuss portrayals of God since they consider God to be a creation of humans rather than the other way round. So for me for example I think that the morality attributed to God has changed with the times (again THANK GOD!) and also that your ability to ignore the fact that he seems guilty of the sins he deplores (by saying he is beyond such distinctions) is a good example of contradictions that can arise from such changes.

[AZeitung]

1. I don't recall saying I want to provide the definition of Christianity for everyone-

That's sort of like calling a walkie talkie a telephone but saying it's ok because you're not providing the definition of telephone for everyone. They're kind of similar, but strctly defined, a walkie talkie isn't a telephone.


and I really don't see why your so prissy about me including the likes of a Jesuit(!) under my definition of what a Christian is.

Because first of all that Jesuit's theology was condemned by the church and second of all, I don't even have enough information about what he said to say whether or not his views are actually in line with yours.


2. Again Im quite aware that is the majority view and I am also quite glad that their are Christians who don't accept that view. At the basic level isn't a Christian simply a follower of the teachings of Christ?

That depends on what you mean by "follower of the teachings of Christ". If you mean someone who thought the values tought be Christ are a pretty decent way to live that we should follow, and nothing more, then no. Even Muslims fall into that category.


To be honest AZeitung that sounds like wishy washy apologetics.

Well, that is the fundimental idea that has permiated Christianity since it's inception -- that the sacrafice of Christ made salvation open to everyone conditional only on our acceptance of the gift. That's the theology of the church right there. I have to go to work now, so I'm not going to write any more.

[aikiMac]

And to answer your original question I would answer 'someone who follows the teachings of Jesus Christ'
Which set of teachings qualify here?
If we laid the teachings of Jesus side-by-side the teachings of Buddha and Mohammed and a dozen other fine religious leaders, we'd see overlap. If we do not narrow the field in any way, then by your definition, Mohammed and Buddha and so forth are or were "Christians."

I think that's the wrong answer. Don't you?

A couple years back we had a thread on what is a Christian, but I can't find it even with Google's search engine. :(

I recognize that words change over time, but even still, considering that the term "Christian" is in the Bible I would think the Bible should be consulted when defining that term. I'm not convinced that your definition does that. In the Bible the term "Christian" referred to people who believed that Jesus was the Old Testament Messiah (and thus we introduce a huge amount of Jewish context into the term!) who died and rose again for the forgiveness of sins in fulfillment of Old Testament prophesies (again we introduce a particular context). The death and resurrection occurred at the season of Passover, filling the event with a huge Old Testament meaning.

If you don't make the connection to the Old Testament, and if you don't mention Easter in any way in your definition, could you ever have the right definition of "Christian"? :confused:

I'm going to say "no."

[madmike]

First, check the Terms of Service again. We like people to spell out their words.

That done, let's turn this question around. What would you do if one day you found proof that the essential doctrines of such-and-such religion are correct? Would you embrace that religion?

If you would not, then by what standard could you ever ridicule me for whatever choice I happen to make?
first why are you making this personal. second i wasnt trying to ridicule the choice you would make. i was simply finding out your response. all if or not you had a blind faith in your beleifs.

[aikiMac]

first why are you making this personal.
Me? You made it personal. You assumed that I have a religious belief, and then you challenged me to give it up!


second i wasnt trying to ridicule the choice you would make. i was simply finding out your response. all if or not you had a blind faith in your beleifs.
And I'm asking the same. Perhaps you have blind faith, no?

You want to know if I would give up a belief if presented with contrary evidence. I want to know if you would embrace a belief in the first place, if you were presented with positive evidence. You asked the negative version, and I asked the positive version.

My point in asking the positive version of the question is to see if you would be unwilling to accept something as true when presented with positive evidence for it being true. If in fact you would be unwilling to accept a truth when presented with evidence for it, then you've no business asking me what I would do if faced with evidence contrary to to a truth I have already embraced.

The one comes before the other. You have to have a belief before you can get rid of that belief. My question therefore comes before yours.

[Capt Ann]

....... In the Bible the term "Christian" referred to people who believed that Jesus was the Old Testament Messiah (and thus we introduce a huge amount of Jewish context into the term!) who died and rose again for the forgiveness of sins in fulfillment of Old Testament prophesies (again we introduce a particular context). The death and resurrection occurred at the season of Passover, filling the event with a huge Old Testament meaning.

If you don't make the connection to the Old Testament, and if you don't mention Easter in any way in your definition, could you ever have the right definition of "Christian"? :confused: A very good point. I'm sure everyone realizes that 'Christ' wasn't Jesus's last name. 'Christ' is the Greek word for the Hebrew term "Messiah". So, the word 'Christian', itself, includes an explicit acknowledgement that Jesus is the Messiah. In the OT and the NT, 'Messiah' is inextricably linked to the idea of 'salvation'.

[Strafio]

Which set of teachings qualify here?
If we laid the teachings of Jesus side-by-side the teachings of Buddha and Mohammed and a dozen other fine religious leaders, we'd see overlap. If we do not narrow the field in any way, then by your definition, Mohammed and Buddha and so forth are or were "Christians."

I think that's the wrong answer. Don't you?
That's a fair point.
People who casually agree with some of Jesus' teachings wouldn't be Christians.
How about people who put Jesus at the centre of their life?
They'd probably have to believe that he was the son of God also.
I don't think that a literalist interpretation of sin, judgement and salvation is necessary though.

[Kishu]

Which set of teachings qualify here?
If we laid the teachings of Jesus side-by-side the teachings of Buddha and Mohammed and a dozen other fine religious leaders, we'd see overlap. If we do not narrow the field in any way, then by your definition, Mohammed and Buddha and so forth are or were "Christians."

Someone once told me Buddha wasn't a Christian, but Jesus would have made a good Buddist. :)

[aikiMac]

They'd probably have to believe that he was the son of God also.
Ya, probably. :)


I don't think that a literalist interpretation of sin, judgement and salvation is necessary though.
Well, to be historically fair you'd have to work this idea into the Old Testament context for "Christ" and you'd have to work it into the whole Easter crucifixion thing. The last time we talked about this I didn't think you had done a good job of that. Maybe your analysis has matured since then, eh?

[Strafio]

I didn't say I had a better explanation.
I don't need Christianity to make sense at the moment. :)
But others who are Christian might believe the bible is the word of God but don't accept a literal interpretation of sin/judgement/heaven/hell. They'll likely have different ideas why Jesus went through all of the persecution.

(I think there's some groups that believe he didn't even get crucified?)

[aikiMac]

But others who are Christian might believe the bible is the word of God but don't accept a literal interpretation of sin/judgement/heaven/hell. They'll likely have different ideas why Jesus went through all of the persecution.
The question is, are such people "Christians" ?
I say no, and I say that based upon my reading of the definition of "Christian" given in the actual text of the New Testament. Maybe one can argue your point and still remain true to the text of the NT, but as yet I'm unconvinced of this possibility.


(I think there's some groups that believe he didn't even get crucified?)
The Apostle John denounced such people in his epistles, so I don't think it would accurate to call them "Christians."

[Kishu]

Definition of a Christian?

A Christian believes;

in God, the Father almighty,
creator of heaven and earth.

in Jesus Christ, God's only Son, our Lord,
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried;
he descended to the dead.
On the third day he rose again;
he ascended into heaven,
he is seated at the right hand of the Father,
and he will come again to judge the living and the dead.

in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting.

Sound familiar? ;) :Angel:

[Strafio]

Well, I'd say that the criteria for being Christian is believing in Jesus as the son of God.
What else they have in their theology might be "right" or "wrong" or different to other Christian perspectives but while Jesus is the centre, I think Christian is an accurate "label".

Obviously, I don't even count for that. :)

[Kishu]

Well, I'd say that the criteria for being Christian is believing in Jesus as the son of God.
What else they have in their theology might be "right" or "wrong" or different to other Christian perspectives but while Jesus is the centre, I think Christian is an accurate "label".

Obviously, I don't even count for that. :)
The definition I gave is the one that has been used for the last 2,000 years, but if you want to make up your own, feel free. :rolleyes:

[Strafio]

Oh, so only those who follow the Catholic Creed are Christians? :rolleyes:

[aikiMac]

Oh, so only those who follow the Catholic Creed are Christians? :rolleyes:
I believe that was the "Apostles Creed." Everybody follows it, even Lutherans and Baptists. Everybody follows the Nicene Creed too.

[Strafio]

Definition of a Christian?

A Christian believes;

<snip>

in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting.

Sound familiar? ;) :Angel:
Maybe you didnt notice that particular bit. ;)[/Pedanticism]

My definition of Christian is a bit loose...
Perhaps all Christians do have to believe in the resurrection.
Certainly not the literalistic interpretations of sin and judgement though.

[Capt Ann]

[Pedantic historical note] FYI: The Apostle's Creed was probably written around the 6th century AD, so the Nicene Creed is actually older. [/Pedantic historical note]

[aikiMac]

Maybe you didnt notice that particular bit. ;)[/Pedanticism]

It's a lower-case "C" dude. The word "catholic" meant "universal." That's where the name for the Roman Catholic Church came from. It was the "universal" church. The creed affirms a universal church. It does not affirm the Pope. That's why both branches out of the Reformation, Lutheran and Reformed, kept and still today use the Creed, as do those in the Baptist tradition. (Technically the Baptist movement was not part of the Reformation movement, but something separate.)

[Strafio]

Oh... [/pwned]

:Angel:

[aikiMac]

LOL ! :D
Keep working on that judgment theory. I wanna hear how its done.

[Kishu]

Oh, so only those who follow the Catholic Creed are Christians? :rolleyes:
Actually only those who follow the Apostles Creed believe what Christians believe.

The "bare bones" definition of who a Christian is is simple. It is anyone who has been baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

But if you want to know what Christians believe the Apostles Creed is it. And it is not just the Roman Catholic Creed. But, yes it is the Catholic Creed which is to say Universal. The word Catholic means universal. The Creed started when Christianity started. It is a statement of what Christians believe, and it is not really up for debate. It is what it is.

I am not trying to pick on you, but you don't seem to know very much. Perhaps you should ask more questions and make fewer statements. :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostle's_Creed

[Strafio]

Alright...
Aikimac corrected me already!
You don't have to rub it in! :p

By the way, do you believe in a literal interpretation of sin and judgement, heaven and hell?

[Kishu]

Alright...
Aikimac corrected me already!
You don't have to rub it in! :p
Peace :Angel:

[Thelistmaker]

Sin = defying the will of God. God doesn't defy his own will.
If sin is what separates us from God and sin is not doing what God wants

Then we are defined by our actions

In the words of Desmond Tutu. ‘if we where defined by our actions there could be no forgiveness’

If we where defined by our actions our intentions would count for nothing.

As actions stem from a mental intentions, if it is beyond us to control our own minds and ‘help ourselves’ we are then not fully in control over our own minds and therefore our actions.

[AZeitung]

Who said it's beyond us to control our own minds? Redemption has nothing to do with our minds, it's external. For example, whether or not I choose to forgive you for something has nothing to do with what's going on in your mind.

[Aikikai Novice]

Well, maybe, but I think thelistmaker has a point.

"If your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off..."
"If a man looks at a woman lustfully, he has already committed adultery in his heart."

God is really all about our intentions, not so much our actions. But typically, our actions are an easy indicator of our intentions.

I think it would be incorrect to assert that we have complete control over our minds BECAUSE:

The mind, however we choose to define it, is inarguably influenced by the brain (at least so long as we're alive in this heaven and earth). The brain is flesh. And all us Jesus Freaks know what flesh is like. :yeleyes:

Anyway, even to "the Christian God," intention is more important than action.

The most important command was to "love Yahweh your god with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength."
The second was to "love your neighbor as yourself."

There are at least three different Hebrew words that are all translated as "love" and these words imply comittment and dedication. You're working toward, setting as your intention the edification of God and others.
It's a decision about what thought processes you're choosing to feed, to put your energy into.

[Strafio]

Who said it's beyond us to control our own minds?
Modern psychology?
And the fact that I can't be as I ideally want to be.
(e.g. some things, like habits, you can't simply choose you don't want to do them. You have to carefully train yourself out of the habit of doing them... etc)

[AZeitung]

Well, maybe, but I think thelistmaker has a point.

"If your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off..."
"If a man looks at a woman lustfully, he has already committed adultery in his heart."

God is really all about our intentions, not so much our actions. But typically, our actions are an easy indicator of our intentions.

I think it would be incorrect to assert that we have complete control over our minds BECAUSE:

The mind, however we choose to define it, is inarguably influenced by the brain (at least so long as we're alive in this heaven and earth). The brain is flesh. And all us Jesus Freaks know what flesh is like. :yeleyes:

Anyway, even to "the Christian God," intention is more important than action.

The most important command was to "love Yahweh your god with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength."
The second was to "love your neighbor as yourself."

There are at least three different Hebrew words that are all translated as "love" and these words imply comittment and dedication. You're working toward, setting as your intention the edification of God and others.
It's a decision about what thought processes you're choosing to feed, to put your energy into.

So which part of what you quoted supports the "we can't controll our own minds" stance?

[Thelistmaker]

This amazing series of lectures called ‘all in the mind’ and is a layman’s introduction to neuropsychology and lectures 2 and 5 give some idea of how it is a specific part of the brain which generates a sense of self, a feeling of embodiment and other qualities we do not normally separate from our conscious mind.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/reith2003/

When you ask ‘do I exist’ there is a specific part of the brain which has evolved to give you a sense of ‘willing’ something to happen and placing you in a temporal context. A person must become aware of these components of the conscious mind and not take them for granted. Things get really interesting when these areas are damaged or hyper stimulated.

In thought experiments it is relatively easily to separate the conscious mind into several crude components such as emotions and reason, conscious and subconscious and so forth. Not that we don’t exist, just that we don’t exist in the way we think we do, all perception of reality can not be relied upon.

It is interesting to note that if a miserable person wishes to find peace and contentment in this lifetime it can only come from a change in their mentality (which may or may not be triggered by external courses) and not from a purely external means. Finding contentment for a person always involves some change of inner mentality but not always involves external stimulus.

It is also interesting to observe the changes in people as they grow from children to adults. Small children have a much lower level of self awareness than adults but that changes over time through the processes of maturing.
For instance a child will become upset and cry went the tide comes in and washes away his sand castle, whereas an adult who builds a sand castle will not become upset when the tide comes in because they grasp the bigger picture and understand the nature of wet sand.