Current State of the Christian Faith

Started by DigiMark0074 pages

And I know those that do know a lot of it. Does my evidence become invalidated because you're waiving George Lucas and SoD in my face? No, of course not.

In any case, there's countless forms of any religion (Christianity, Buddhism, etc. etc.). In fact, there's as many forms of those religions as there are people who adhere to them.

People can think outside the box, even if they aren't within the normal bounds of organized religious thought. Saying that "it isn't Buddhism" may be true in some cases like those you mentioned, but that statement doesn't invalidate what they think. Telling SoD "you aren't Buddhist" may be partially true, but doesn't refute any of his beliefs themselves, nor make him less of a free thinker.

And have you talked to George Lucas? Something tells me the man is above peer pressure. The "fad" may have made it popular, but it becomes a fad because people see something in it that they identify with, regardless if its "true" Buddhism or slightly different, and this popularity is the product of human choice, not mindless consumer shopping mentality to religion.

Once again, we can all think for ourselves, and routinely do. And it doesn't always have to be within prescribed notions of religion.

Originally posted by Robtard
I have to agree with Mota, I've met many a person who converted to Buddhism, just because they thought it was trendy, of course they won't admit it, but when they know nothing of the religion except that you're supposed to be "enlightened" and that Nam Ryo Goy (?) phrase, it's fairly obvious.

Sure it anecdotal, but it seems to be common.

"seems"??
"sure it anecdotal"??

Right. My point exactly. And if the phrase is an allusion to shakya (maybe it isn't) he's actually fairly informed about his beliefs.

There's "trendy" Christians or people of any religious belief too. It doesn't invalidate the religion or peoples' decision to choose it.

Originally posted by Bardock42
That's bullshit though. You can belong to any sort of Christian sect without knowing even the most fundamental shit about it.

...and most "Christians", do not act like Christians, ie following the teaching of Jesus and following in his footsteps.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
In that case you're just "belonging" for the sake of belonging.
Like with Buddhism and stupid kids. So, what's the difference?

And I agree with you, too, actually. Just not with the "only" statement.

[edit] I don't think shakya belongs to that group at all by the way, he's just an idiot. Gets mistaken for that sometimes.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
And I know those that do know a lot of it. Does my evidence become invalidated because you're waiving George Lucas and SoD in my face? No, of course not.

In any case, there's countless forms of any religion (Christianity, Buddhism, etc. etc.). In fact, there's as many forms of those religions as there are people who adhere to them.

People can think outside the box, even if they aren't within the normal bounds of organized religious thought. Saying that "it isn't Buddhism" may be true in some cases like those you mentioned, but that statement doesn't invalidate what they think. Telling SoD "you aren't Buddhist" may be partially true, but doesn't refute any of his beliefs themselves, nor make him less of a free thinker.

And have you talked to George Lucas? Something tells me the man is above peer pressure. The "fad" may have made it popular, but it becomes a fad because people see something in it that they identify with, regardless if its "true" Buddhism or slightly different, and this popularity is the product of human choice, not mindless consumer shopping mentality to religion.

Once again, we can all think for ourselves, and routinely do. And it doesn't always have to be within prescribed notions of religion.

"seems"??
"sure it anecdotal"??

Right. My point exactly. And if the phrase is an allusion to shakya (maybe it isn't) he's actually fairly informed about his beliefs.

There's "trendy" Christians or people of any religious belief too. It doesn't invalidate the religion or peoples' decision to choose it.

The American convert to Buddhism who takes it seriously and is knowledgable on it is a rare animal. George Lucas and SoD are archetypes and good representatives.

Originally posted by Robtard
I have to agree with Mota, I've met many a person who converted to Buddhism, just because they thought it was trendy, of course they won't admit it, but when they know nothing of the religion except that you're supposed to be "enlightened" and that Nam Ryo Goy (?) phrase, it's fairly obvious.

Sure it anecdotal, but it seems to be common.

Yeah, pretty much in nutshell.

Originally posted by DigiMark007

"seems"??
"sure it anecdotal"??

Right. My point exactly. And if the phrase is an allusion to shakya (maybe it isn't) he's actually fairly informed about his beliefs.

There's "trendy" Christians or people of any religious belief too. It doesn't invalidate the religion or peoples' decision to choose it.

But it's also a common recurrence, so...

No, that wasn't pointed at Shaky, he actually comes off as having some insight into Buddhism that most other converts do not.

Not sure how someone can be a Christian, Buddhist or whatever, if they don't hold the core values of that religion. Could a Muslim be a Muslim if he/she thought that Muhammad wasn't the "one prophet" or that Allah isn't indeed great?

Originally posted by Bardock42

[edit] I don't think shakya belongs to that group at all by the way, he's just an idiot. Gets mistaken for that sometimes.

I honeslty believe that Shaky takes Buddhism very seriously. You know, like those middle-aged White American men who become Hare Krishna's and walk around with orange clothes and yellow dots on their foreheads.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
The American convert to Buddhism who takes it seriously and is knowledgable on it is a rare animal. George Lucas and SoD are archetypes and good representatives.

Yeah, pretty much in nutshell.

There is a difference between someone who believes Buddhist Philosophy and someone who has a Buddhist practise.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
There is a difference between someone who believes Buddhist Philosophy and someone who has a Buddhist practise.

Exactly; the former isn't one.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Exactly; the former isn't one.

I will not get into what a "true" Buddhist is cause if it brings them happiness, then why should I care? 😉

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I will not get into what a "true" Buddhist is cause if it brings them happiness, then why should I care? 😉

I don't think anyone here is stating a problem, just an observation. A person can shove a feather duster up their ass and call themselves a chicken if it makes them happy, for all I care.

Edit: THere is an exception, I do not like when people use their religion (or pieces of) as a tool to put down others when it suits them.

Originally posted by Robtard
I don't think anyone here is stating a problem, just an observation. A person can shove a feather duster up their ass and call themselves a chicken if it makes them happy, for all I care.

😆

Originally posted by Robtard
...and most "Christians", do not act like Christians, ie following the teaching of Jesus and following in his footsteps.

The Bible leaves a lot of room for interpretation so I'm not sure how you can say that.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The Bible leaves a lot of room for interpretation so I'm not sure how you can say that.

Well, I am pretty sure Jesus-God didn't hate, no matter how you intrepret it; that's how I can say that.

Originally posted by Robtard
Well, I am pretty sure Jesus-God didn't hate, no matter how you intrepret it; that's how I can say that.

But the Bible does contain condemnation of certain behaviors (and fig trees). It doesn't say that one should hate anyone but it's hardly unreasonable for a person to form the opinion that people who do things which their religion says a wrong are deserving of contempt. Not to mention that God does plenty of "take no prisoners" things in the Bible.

It would be nice if more people focused on the positive aspects of Judeo-Christian but you can't say that they aren't Christian simply because they are hateful.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
But the Bible does contain condemnation of certain behaviors (and fig trees). It doesn't say that one should hate anyone but it's hardly unreasonable for a person to form the opinion that people who do things which their religion says a wrong are deserving of contempt. Not to mention that God does plenty of "take no prisoners" things in the Bible.

It would be nice if more people focused on the positive aspects of Judeo-Christian but you can't say that they aren't Christian simply because they are hateful.

I am mainly talking about the people who are selective in what is wrong and right while using their religion as support/validation. An example: people will often invoke the Bible as a reason to discriminate against gays, because "it's a sin in the bible", yet there are other things in the Bible that are just as sinful, like adultery, yet you never hear the holier-than-thou making laws discriminating that. Can you see Bush and the "Moral Right" tyring to amend the Constitution were it makes it illegal for adulterers to stay married or ever marry again?

Then whats makes a Christian? Just saying "I'm Christian"? If I hold "Jesus as my personal savior and accept him into my heart", yet lie, cheat, steal and hate, would I be a Christian? To me, a Christian is someone who follows the teachings of Christ, maybe I'm just crazy in thinking that.

Personally, I am for many of the Jeudo-Christian concepts and see them as a positive, I'm not a Christian though, nor do I think you need to be to see the positives.

Originally posted by Robtard
I am mainly talking about the people who are selective in what is wrong and wrong while using their religion as support/validation. An example: people will often invoke the Bible as a reason to discriminate against gays, because "it's a sin in the bible", yet there are other things in the Bible that are just as sinful, like adultery, yet you never hear the holier-than-thou making laws discriminating that. Can you see Bush and the "Moral Right" tyring to amend the Constitution were it makes it illegal for adulterers to stay married or ever marry again?

If they only use it for validation of feelings they have which are not directly connected to Christianity they I would agree that they're not Christians. But every Christian picks and chooses the parts of the Bible they wish to follow, the pastor at the church I go to has talked about how "living as Jesus wanted us to" simply isn't possible in our world.

Originally posted by Robtard
Then whats makes a Christian? Just saying "I'm Christian"? If I hold "Jesus as my personal savior and accept him into my heart", yet lie, cheat steal and hate, would I be a Christian? To me, a Christian is someone who follows the teachings of Christ, maybe I'm just crazy in thinking that.

I'd say idealistic not crazy.

If a person truly believe that Christ will have his/her soul that person a Christian despite how hypocritical he/she might be about what is actually in the Bible. That person might not be a very good Christian (or a good person for that matter) but I think he/she would technically qualify as Christian.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
If they only use it for validation of feelings they have which are not directly connected to Christianity they I would agree that they're not Christians. But every Christian picks and chooses the parts of the Bible they wish to follow, the pastor at the church I go to has talked about how "living as Jesus wanted us to" simply isn't possible in our world.

You don't see that as a critical problem in being a Christian?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I'd say idealistic not crazy.

If a person truly believe that Christ will have his/her soul that person a Christian despite how hypocritical he/she might be about what is actually in the Bible. That person might not be a very good Christian (or a good person for that matter) but I think he/she would technically qualify as Christian.

Then by your account, one only need say "I am Christian", to be Christian. I disagree, for reasons stated above, call it idealistic if you will.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Not if it directly contradicts their religion's rules.

And that's pretty much how it is among Americans who "become" Buddhist: a trend/all the cool kids are doing it.

Or as Devil King once put it: "Buddhism is the one religion you can belong to without really knowing anything about it."

No shit.

Which is really no different than saying:

"I'm a Muslim, but there's probably more than one god out there."

"I'm a Christian, but the Trinity is fake."

"I'm a Hindu, but that four-armed elephant is the stupidest idea ever and probably the product of an acid trip."

And...how exactly are you a Buddhist??

What is this belief based on? Did you just come up with it on your own?

😮‍💨 "Maaaaan......like.......what if the universe....is like....alive.....you know? Whoooooooa! (stoned giggles)"

Let me ask you:

Do you literally beleive in Adam and Eve ?

Do you beleive that Moses actually parted the sea ?

Do you believe prostitutes should be stoned to death ?

Do you beleive the Earth is relatively 6000 years old ?

Do you truly beleive in Hell ?

Do you truly beleive in angels and demons ?

If you answered "no" to any of the above questions, is it safe for me to conclude that you are not truly Christian ?

Originally posted by Robtard
You don't see that as a critical problem in being a Christian?

Then by your account, one only need say "I am Christian", to be Christian. I disagree, for reasons stated above, call it idealistic if you will.

If you believe it the, yes, I would say you would in fact be a Christian. Just saying it is meaningless, of course.

Originally posted by Robtard
Well, I am pretty sure Jesus-God didn't hate, no matter how you intrepret it;

Have you read the Old Testament?

Also, Quiero, not all sects of Christianity believe in the Trinity. Most. But not all. Get your head out of the sand. There's a tangent belief for ANY major religious doctrine.