Wow did you have some reply problems.
quite. i was posting during the transition and it kept giving me hack attempt errors, which normally would mean it didn't post. guess it did.
If it were mainly of the same calibre, I would not have joined debates here. Yes it can be that bad, but it isn't usually.
maybe we just participate in different debates. me, i have keep arguing that the bible isn't exactly perfect.
Look, this is really disengenuous and the fact that you are repeating the point does not help. It makes me suspect that you are unaware of the differences between how the two are practiced, and the theories behind them.
no, i'm merely suggesting that christianity can be a philosophy as well, even if it's not commonly taught that way.
Although there are some metaphysical beliefs within Buddhism which can be said to be theistic (even if not wholly around a divine presence), they are unnecessary for achieving the end of reducing suffering and even reaching the state of nirvana.
no, but on a similar token, it is grounded in the hindu religion, similar to the way christianity is grounded in judaism. neither fits exactly but some concepts are definitally borrowed. while not neccessary to the philosophy, i think buddhists tend to believe that his holiness the dalai lama is the reincarnation sidhartha gautama, the buddha. this is clearly a religious belief.
Xianity on the other hand has its metaphysical and practical tenets wrapped together.
i don't totally, agree but i'll take it point by point.
The cause of suffering in this world is SIN
sure. this doesn't have to be a religious point, though. it's a cause and effect philosophy. from a philosophical standpoint, if i'm suffering, it's either because i've done something wrong that's causing it, or someone else has done something wrong to me. the way to end suffering if follow the teaching of christ: be compassionate. if everyone does it, suffering should end.
from the religious stand point, we do something wrong and god punishes us. this is taught to christians in the religion, yes. but it's wrong. the bible doesn't support it. see the job thread.
and it stems from ORIGINAL SIN. You are guilty from birth, stretching alllllllll the way back.
again, a common religious point that doesn't hold up to analysis. i actually one of my good friends a book for christmas this year on how original sin and the idea that god expects us to be perfect are complete lies.
The main point of life is to secure a good place in the afterlife by freeing onesself of sin by obeying God's commands. And more specifically worshipping his son who sacrificed himself on a cross to remove your sins.
and yet the teachings of christ all focus on what to do with THIS life. i am totally unprepared for any afterlife, and so is every other christian. i'm starting to not even believe in one. christianity, as taught by christ, is not about following god's commands, or sticking to the law. it's about love, compassion, charity, etc.
my point isn't that christianity isn't a religion -- it is. it's that it doesn't HAVE TO BE. the groups who treated christ more as a philosophical teacher instead of the literal son of god have all but disappeared. but they did exist.
Although it may tolerate the existence of other religions it cannot truly accept other religions. It is the one true faith and must be. That is right in the top ten list of Xianity.
curiously, as a christian, i've never prescribed to this belief. it is commonly taught, yes. but i don't think it adequately represents the whole of the religions. parts are very strictly monotheistic, yes, often violently so, but not ALL of it. the bible is a huge and very contradictory source.
if you look at the teachings of christ, it's not "tolerate people who are different" it's "LOVE people who are different." he even says to love your enemy. that's really a far cry from "kill the heathens"
as christian, i've been friends with satanists, wiccans, etc. the only people i don't tolerate very well are ignorant christians.
It is true that there are bits of wisdom here and there in the Bible which may be used, but they are no different than Greek philosophy, and as is pointed out in the Bible will not get one into heaven.
the first part of the statement is what i'm trying to push here. the ironic part is of course that much of the new testament *IS* greek philosophy. the misogynism, sexual taboos, dualism, etc, is all greek in origin, not strict original christian. original sin and the fall have more in common with pandora or prometheus than genesis. the idea simply doesn't exist in judaism, or the teachings of christ.
I think saying Buddhism boils down to telling people to be a Buddhist, like all other religions, is simply not being accurate.
well, it basically says "follow these teachings" and they're the philosophy of buddha, who IS a religious figure. i don't see how it's different than saying follow the philosophy of christ, or god, or anyone or anything else we don't know really existed.
what makes it different is that it's not attached to "BELIEVE in buddha." that's the difference between philosophy and religion. and belief in christ is not neccessary to understand and follow his teachings.
What is the current thinking on Hebrews then? Is it believed that they were indigenous to the area and made up the story of flight from egypt? Or did they flee from somewhere else? If they fled from elsewhere, why did they tie themselves into egypt rather than where they actually came from?
i'm not sure the scholarly opinion. but i'll take a GUESS.
i think it's possible the hebrews made the story up around the time of the babylonian/assyrian exhiles, as a metaphor for their captivity there.
This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 12-27-2004 02:04 AM
™ Version 4.2
