Why Did You Leave Christianity Behind?

[Brynmr]

Which is typical of most of the most adamant anti-Christians.

People who reject Christianity aren't necessarily anti Christian. I'm not anti Christian but I am opposed to Christians telling me what I should believe - that God and sin exist for me as well as for Christians.

yeah see that I have a problem with. It is what they believe and they have a right and obligation to say it.
see I don't hate Muslims for believing what they believe.. I dont care if they holler prayers. I do care if they try to blow me up....see the difference? You don't get to control the thoughts and words of others.

Yet you attempt to control the thoughts and words of others.

 

[Brynmr]

Which is typical of most of the most adamant anti-Christians.

People who reject Christianity aren't necessarily anti Christian. I'm not anti Christian but I am opposed to Christians telling me what I should believe - that God and sin exist for me as well as for Christians.

That does seem to be a common point of contention. That a person can go through thier day, to day without a concern, or fear of angering a god who will torture you for eternity, because you broke some rule another person told you about...
Myself? I find it quite liberating. And seldom do I find myself violating any of the nine virtues I hold most dear. I'm not in any danger of bringing dishonor to my family name, or fouling any legacy I may leave behind after death. Which is about the only thing besides my blood that will carry on after I die. To take full command, and responsibility for ones mortal life is the most exhilarating feeling I've ever had.

I don't like it because it's an in your face editing of one's deeply held convictions and if they're doing it to me, they're doing it to others.

where is this happening? When? Give me an example.

From your own words. Go look at them.

 

[koshergrl]

You realize

Which is typical of most of the most adamant anti-Christians.

People who reject Christianity aren't necessarily anti Christian. I'm not anti Christian but I am opposed to Christians telling me what I should believe - that God and sin exist for me as well as for Christians.

That does seem to be a common point of contention. That a person can go through thier day, to day without a concern, or fear of angering a god who will torture you for eternity, because you broke some rule another person told you about...
Myself? I find it quite liberating. And seldom do I find myself violating any of the nine virtues I hold most dear. I'm not in any danger of bringing dishonor to my family name, or fouling any legacy I may leave behind after death. Which is about the only thing besides my blood that will carry on after I die. To take full command, and responsibility for ones mortal life is the most exhilarating feeling I've ever had.

You know of course that the self.serving attitude you just described is.the.same mantra the satanists.prescribe, right?

I wouldn't know. However I find it unlikely that they follow a similar path as myself, especially if they pretend some Hebrew boogeyman exists.

the church of Satan doesn't really cling to worship of an entity. They focus on doing whatever makes them "happy".

 

[koshergrl]

Which is typical of most of the most adamant anti-Christians.

People who reject Christianity aren't necessarily anti Christian. I'm not anti Christian but I am opposed to Christians telling me what I should believe - that God and sin exist for me as well as for Christians.

That does seem to be a common point of contention. That a person can go through thier day, to day without a concern, or fear of angering a god who will torture you for eternity, because you broke some rule another person told you about...
Myself? I find it quite liberating. And seldom do I find myself violating any of the nine virtues I hold most dear. I'm not in any danger of bringing dishonor to my family name, or fouling any legacy I may leave behind after death. Which is about the only thing besides my blood that will carry on after I die. To take full command, and responsibility for ones mortal life is the most exhilarating feeling I've ever had.

I don't like it because it's an in your face editing of one's deeply held convictions and if they're doing it to me, they're doing it to others.

where is this happening? When? Give me an example.

From your own words. Go look at them.

er...I have no idea whatbthe fuck you are talking about. This is where you support your comnent or admit youre full if shit.

 

[emilynghiem]

I see. It seems like you have a great handle on all the bad but not such a good handle on the good which is surprising because by any objective measure Western Civilization has been a force for good. One might wonder why the atheistic governments were so bad and the Christian societies were so good. But putting that aside, how exactly do you reconcile the good that has come from Christian societies?

That has not always been the case.

I submit to you that you have only focused on the bad and not the good. Virtue is the ultimate organizing principle. It is not possible for a society to succeed and flourish without it. So while you may only see the bad, I can assure you that the outcome would not have been what it has been unless there was good within it.

I don't see only the bad. I was telling YOU that Christianity was not always a "good" thing.

I agree. One must weigh the good and the bad. But by any objective measure Christianity has been a force for good. In fact, your own values - whether you will acknowledge it or not - were based on Christian values.

My values are based on my brain, my conscience, my education, and society in general. Do you think that everyone who is not a Christian commits evil deeds??

Dear ChrisL and ding
I think what y'all are saying, the same good sense values that are taught and have been well established in society through Christians are also the same values that "secular" gentiles arrive at by reason and conscience . it seems clear to me that ChrisL is saying she arrives at much the same conclusions and standard values by reasoning and making wiser choices by conscience to do the right thing, and this does not rely on Christianity which is not the only way of teaching right from wrong.
ding I happen to relate to both of you and what you both are saying. I am both coming from a "secular gentile " approach similar to ChrisL where my parents as Vietnamese Buddhist taught us kids using respect for wisdom and common ethics as well as compassion for the causes of human suffering we all learn lessons from to overcome past hardships rise above karma and seek for better in life. The sacrifices made in the past which benefit us in the future we cannot take advantage of but owe to both our ancestors before us and future generations who will inherit what we leave for them.

I also learned the meaning and message in Christianity as practicing charity for all people and all humanity inclusively, especially the gift of grace and divine forgiveness that makes "miraculous" healing possible to break the cycle of karmic sin and suffering. So the sacrifice and redemption in Christ Jesus represents this unique yet universal breakthrough that opens the door for Restorative Justice and lasting Peace to be received by all. This brings world peace and the Kingdom of God among us as children as one family under one God or universal truth based on unconditional love that drives all life and all creation in harmony.

I understand this Universal truth encompasses BOTH the believers under Scriptural and church authority as well as "secular gentiles" under natural laws that govern man by conscience. These two folds or paths, the Jews and the Gentiles , are both joined and fulfilled in Christ Jesus as the spirit of Restorative Justice ; these two paths are not supposed to be at odds, competition or conflict but they check and balance each other, like right brain left brain, like bass and treble in harmony. We are supposed to help each other stay on the right track where the two paths agree in truth .

I see what ChrisL is saying, that for the part that can be arrived at by reason, of course the secular gentiles the nontheists and those who use science to define laws can reach agreemeny on universal values, such as the Golden Rule of treating others with equal respect, because these are based on natural laws. But what I find does rely on Christianity is some of the deeper healing and forgiveness that almost appears counterintuitive : this choice to forgive first so the correction and understanding can follow after wards takes a leap of faith that can defy reason and free will.

ChrisL the part I find that becomes a spiritual process beyond human ability to understand and choose by reasoning is the deeper forgiveness healing and grace that comes from experiencing it. So that's where I find most ppl make that leap by faith , and then come to understand it by reason after the decision to forgive was already made.

Thank you ding and ChrisL
As people of good conscience I totally trust that we will arrive at agreement in what is right and wrong, though our means and words for expressing our common universal values remain relative and diverse as secular nontheists and as theists using scriptural laws and symbols to teach this same process of Restorative Justice to establish Truth in order to bring peace healing understanding and unity in our local relations and collectively in society as a result.

God bless you and thanks for your efforts to bring about peace and understanding. Our language and experiences may be different but the universal truths that drive us and humanity in general by conscience come from the same source. So you are both right, that's how I've come to understand what is going on.

 

[Brynmr]

I don't like it because it's an in your face editing of one's deeply held convictions and if they're doing it to me, they're doing it to others.

where is this happening? When? Give me an example.

From your own words. Go look at them.

er...I have no idea whatbthe fuck you are talking about. This is where you support your comnent or admit youre full if shit.

Suck on this, you moron.

Every person is a sinner. What you consider yourself is moot.

And here's where I kicked your stupid ass.

There's not one Buddhist on the planet who sins. But let's define the term 'sin'. This one will do:


sin1
sin/
noun
1.
an immoral act considered to be a transgression against divine law.
"a sin in the eyes of God"

In Buddhism there are no 'Divine Laws". Divine laws only apply to those who accept them such as Christians. Buddhists don't accept divine law nor do they accept a creator god. Is there 'bad' behavior within Buddhism? Of course but they're called delusions that keep us trapped in cyclic existence. These delusions have nothing to do with divine law.

So you're wrong. Not everyone is born into sin.

 

[ding]

I don't like it because it's an in your face editing of one's deeply held convictions and if they're doing it to me, they're doing it to others.

where is this happening? When? Give me an example.

From your own words. Go look at them.

er...I have no idea whatbthe fuck you are talking about. This is where you support your comnent or admit youre full if shit.

Suck on this, you moron.

Every person is a sinner. What you consider yourself is moot.

And here's where I kicked your stupid ass.

There's not one Buddhist on the planet who sins. But let's define the term 'sin'. This one will do:


sin1
sin/
noun
1.
an immoral act considered to be a transgression against divine law.
"a sin in the eyes of God"

In Buddhism there are no 'Divine Laws". Divine laws only apply to those who accept them such as Christians. Buddhists don't accept divine law nor do they accept a creator god. Is there 'bad' behavior within Buddhism? Of course but they're called delusions that keep us trapped in cyclic existence. These delusions have nothing to do with divine law.

So you're wrong. Not everyone is born into sin.

What and who defines bad behaviors? You? Each person? I don't think you understand your own religion if you boil it down to there is no higher power than man. That wasn't what Buddha was saying.

 

[ding]

That has not always been the case.

I submit to you that you have only focused on the bad and not the good. Virtue is the ultimate organizing principle. It is not possible for a society to succeed and flourish without it. So while you may only see the bad, I can assure you that the outcome would not have been what it has been unless there was good within it.

I don't see only the bad. I was telling YOU that Christianity was not always a "good" thing.

I agree. One must weigh the good and the bad. But by any objective measure Christianity has been a force for good. In fact, your own values - whether you will acknowledge it or not - were based on Christian values.

My values are based on my brain, my conscience, my education, and society in general. Do you think that everyone who is not a Christian commits evil deeds??

Dear ChrisL and ding
I think what y'all are saying, the same good sense values that are taught and have been well established in society through Christians are also the same values that "secular" gentiles arrive at by reason and conscience . it seems clear to me that ChrisL is saying she arrives at much the same conclusions and standard values by reasoning and making wiser choices by conscience to do the right thing, and this does not rely on Christianity which is not the only way of teaching right from wrong.
ding I happen to relate to both of you and what you both are saying. I am both coming from a "secular gentile " approach similar to ChrisL where my parents as Vietnamese Buddhist taught us kids using respect for wisdom and common ethics as well as compassion for the causes of human suffering we all learn lessons from to overcome past hardships rise above karma and seek for better in life. The sacrifices made in the past which benefit us in the future we cannot take advantage of but owe to both our ancestors before us and future generations who will inherit what we leave for them.

I also learned the meaning and message in Christianity as practicing charity for all people and all humanity inclusively, especially the gift of grace and divine forgiveness that makes "miraculous" healing possible to break the cycle of karmic sin and suffering. So the sacrifice and redemption in Christ Jesus represents this unique yet universal breakthrough that opens the door for Restorative Justice and lasting Peace to be received by all. This brings world peace and the Kingdom of God among us as children as one family under one God or universal truth based on unconditional love that drives all life and all creation in harmony.

I understand this Universal truth encompasses BOTH the believers under Scriptural and church authority as well as "secular gentiles" under natural laws that govern man by conscience. These two folds or paths, the Jews and the Gentiles , are both joined and fulfilled in Christ Jesus as the spirit of Restorative Justice ; these two paths are not supposed to be at odds, competition or conflict but they check and balance each other, like right brain left brain, like bass and treble in harmony. We are supposed to help each other stay on the right track where the two paths agree in truth .

I see what ChrisL is saying, that for the part that can be arrived at by reason, of course the secular gentiles the nontheists and those who use science to define laws can reach agreemeny on universal values, such as the Golden Rule of treating others with equal respect, because these are based on natural laws. But what I find does rely on Christianity is some of the deeper healing and forgiveness that almost appears counterintuitive : this choice to forgive first so the correction and understanding can follow after wards takes a leap of faith that can defy reason and free will.

ChrisL the part I find that becomes a spiritual process beyond human ability to understand and choose by reasoning is the deeper forgiveness healing and grace that comes from experiencing it. So that's where I find most ppl make that leap by faith , and then come to understand it by reason after the decision to forgive was already made.

Thank you ding and ChrisL
As people of good conscience I totally trust that we will arrive at agreement in what is right and wrong, though our means and words for expressing our common universal values remain relative and diverse as secular nontheists and as theists using scriptural laws and symbols to teach this same process of Restorative Justice to establish Truth in order to bring peace healing understanding and unity in our local relations and collectively in society as a result.

God bless you and thanks for your efforts to bring about peace and understanding. Our language and experiences may be different but the universal truths that drive us and humanity in general by conscience come from the same source. So you are both right, that's how I've come to understand what is going on.

I do appreciate your kind and gentle words. You are a good person. I believe that there is a cosmic battle between good and evil that has been going on since the beginning of man, not because I have been told this, but because I have observed this. That battle largely is played out between two philosophies; one which requires accountability and ennobles the spirit of man and the other which is based on rationalization and leads to the destruction of the spirit of man. Alexander Solzhenitsyn describes this battle thusly, "...The humanistic way of thinking, which had proclaimed itself our guide, did not admit the existence of intrinsic evil in man, nor did it see any task higher than the attainment of happiness on earth. It started modern Western civilization on the dangerous trend of worshiping man and his material needs.

Everything beyond physical well-being and the accumulation of material goods, all other human requirements and characteristics of a subtle and higher nature, were left outside the area of attention of state and social systems, as if human life did not have any higher meaning. Thus gaps were left open for evil, and its drafts blow freely today. Mere freedom per se does not in the least solve all the problems of human life and even adds a number of new ones.

And yet in early democracies, as in American democracy at the time of its birth, all individual human rights were granted on the ground that man is God's creature. That is, freedom was given to the individual conditionally, in the assumption of his constant religious responsibility. Such was the heritage of the preceding one thousand years. Two hundred or even fifty years ago, it would have seemed quite impossible, in America, that an individual be granted boundless freedom with no purpose, simply for the satisfaction of his whims.

Subsequently, however, all such limitations were eroded everywhere in the West; a total emancipation occurred from the moral heritage of Christian centuries with their great reserves of mercy and sacrifice. State systems were becoming ever more materialistic. The West has finally achieved the rights of man, and even excess, but man's sense of responsibility to God and society has grown dimmer and dimmer. In the past decades, the legalistic selfishness of the Western approach to the world has reached its peak and the world has found itself in a harsh spiritual crisis and a political impasse. All the celebrated technological achievements of progress, including the conquest of outer space, do not redeem the twentieth century's moral poverty, which no one could have imagined even as late as the nineteenth century.

As humanism in its development was becoming more and more materialistic, it also increasingly allowed concepts to be used first by socialism and then by communism, so that Karl Marx was able to say, in 1844, that "communism is naturalized humanism."

This statement has proved to be not entirely unreasonable. One does not see the same stones in the foundations of an eroded humanism and of any type of socialism: boundless materialism; freedom from religion and religious responsibility (which under Communist regimes attains the stage of antireligious dictatorship); concentration on social structures with an allegedly scientific approach. (This last is typical of both the Age of Enlightenment and of Marxism.) It is no accident that all of communism's rhetorical vows revolve around Man (with a capital M) and his earthly happiness. At first glance it seems an ugly parallel: common traits in the thinking and way of life of today's West and today's East? But such is the logic of materialistic development.

The interrelationship is such, moreover, that the current of materialism which is farthest to the left, and is hence the most consistent, always proves to be stronger, more attractive, and victorious. Humanism which has lost its Christian heritage cannot prevail in this competition. Thus during the past centuries and especially in recent decades, as the process became more acute, the alignment of forces was as follows: Liberalism was inevitably pushed aside by radicalism, radicalism had to surrender to socialism, and socialism could not stand up to communism....

...I am not examining the case of a disaster brought on by a world war and the changes which it would produce in society. But as long as we wake up every morning under a peaceful sun, we must lead an everyday life. Yet there is a disaster which is already very much with us. I am referring to the calamity of an autonomous, irreligious humanistic consciousness.

It has made man the measure of all things on earth — imperfect man, who is never free of pride, self-interest, envy, vanity, and dozens of other defects. We are now paying for the mistakes which were not properly appraised at the beginning of the journey. On the way from the Renaissance to our days we have enriched our experience, but we have lost the concept of a Supreme Complete Entity which used to restrain our passions and our irresponsibility.

We have placed too much hope in politics and social reforms, only to find out that we were being deprived of our most precious possession: our spiritual life. It is trampled by the party mob in the East, by the commercial one in the West. This is the essence of the crisis: the split in the world is less terrifying than the similarity of the disease afflicting its main sections.

If, as claimed by humanism, man were born only to be happy, he would not be born to die. Since his body is doomed to death, his task on earth evidently must be more spiritual: not a total engrossment in everyday life, not the search for the best ways to obtain material goods and then their carefree consumption. It has to be the fulfillment of a permanent, earnest duty so that one's life journey may become above all an experience of moral growth: to leave life a better human being than one started it.

It is imperative to reappraise the scale of the usual human values; its present incorrectness is astounding. It is not possible that assessment of the President's performance should be reduced to the question of how much money one makes or to the availability of gasoline. Only by the voluntary nurturing in ourselves of freely accepted and serene self-restraint can mankind rise above the world stream of materialism.

Today it would be retrogressive to hold on to the ossified formulas of the Enlightenment. Such social dogmatism leaves us helpless before the trials of our times.

Even if we are spared destruction by war, life will have to change in order not to perish on its own. We cannot avoid reassessing the fundamental definitions of human life and society. Is it true that man is above everything? Is there no Superior Spirit above him? Is it right that man's life and society's activities should be ruled by material expansion above all? Is it permissible to promote such expansion to the detriment of our integral spiritual life?

If the world has not approached its end, it has reached a major watershed in history, equal in importance to the turn from the Middle Ages to the Renaissance. It will demand from us a spiritual blaze; we shall have to rise to a new height of vision, to a new level of life, where our physical nature will not be cursed, as in the Middle Ages, but even more importantly, our spiritual being will not be trampled upon, as in the Modern Era.

The ascension is similar to climbing onto the next anthropological stage. No one on earth has any other way left but — upward."

So, I am compelled to speak out when the spirit moves me even if it does not change our inevitable outcome.

 

[Vastator]

You realize

Which is typical of most of the most adamant anti-Christians.

People who reject Christianity aren't necessarily anti Christian. I'm not anti Christian but I am opposed to Christians telling me what I should believe - that God and sin exist for me as well as for Christians.

That does seem to be a common point of contention. That a person can go through thier day, to day without a concern, or fear of angering a god who will torture you for eternity, because you broke some rule another person told you about...
Myself? I find it quite liberating. And seldom do I find myself violating any of the nine virtues I hold most dear. I'm not in any danger of bringing dishonor to my family name, or fouling any legacy I may leave behind after death. Which is about the only thing besides my blood that will carry on after I die. To take full command, and responsibility for ones mortal life is the most exhilarating feeling I've ever had.

You know of course that the self.serving attitude you just described is.the.same mantra the satanists.prescribe, right?

I wouldn't know. However I find it unlikely that they follow a similar path as myself, especially if they pretend some Hebrew boogeyman exists.

the church of Satan doesn't really cling to worship of an entity. They focus on doing whatever makes them "happy".

Okay... I guess a lot of people do that. Happiness isn't a virtue. It isn't code by which a person can live their life. Being happy doesn't increase the equity of ones family name. No one keeps track of "who is the world's happiest man". There is no record of the "happiest family that ever lived". There is no threshold of an amount of happiness that has ever been achieved.
Happiness is fine. But it is conditional, and ephemeral.
Oh... And how can they be Satan worshippers of they don't worship Satan?

 

[emilynghiem]

I don't like it because it's an in your face editing of one's deeply held convictions and if they're doing it to me, they're doing it to others.

where is this happening? When? Give me an example.

From your own words. Go look at them.

er...I have no idea whatbthe fuck you are talking about. This is where you support your comnent or admit youre full if shit.

Suck on this, you moron.

Every person is a sinner. What you consider yourself is moot.

And here's where I kicked your stupid ass.

There's not one Buddhist on the planet who sins. But let's define the term 'sin'. This one will do:


sin1
sin/
noun
1.
an immoral act considered to be a transgression against divine law.
"a sin in the eyes of God"

In Buddhism there are no 'Divine Laws". Divine laws only apply to those who accept them such as Christians. Buddhists don't accept divine law nor do they accept a creator god. Is there 'bad' behavior within Buddhism? Of course but they're called delusions that keep us trapped in cyclic existence. These delusions have nothing to do with divine law.

So you're wrong. Not everyone is born into sin.

Dear Brynmr
Perhaps the equivalent of sin using Buddhist terms is karmic suffering.

All humans experience suffering because by nature of our ego we are selfish and want peace and satisfaction and avoid stress conflict and suffering by our free will to choose better.

I met an atheist who didn't understand original sin, but understood the advent of human ego is what causes social strife and suffering.

Can ego be a better term for when man became self aware and sin is based on selfish desire over the equal interests of others or the greater good of society ?

Do you agree all humans are prone to put our "selfish" needs first before we help our neighbors meet their needs? And taking this selfishness to extremes causes suffering in the world?

Note: I also use bias to explain how all people are imperfect. We do not understand or love and treat all neighbors equally because we all are "biased" toward ourselves and our friends and families before other people we distrust or dont respect at all. Does this help explain how all people are imperfect and thus "sinners" using Christian terms for being less than perfect !

 

[Brynmr]

I was raised Christian. I went to Sunday school every Sunday. I went to summer Christian camps. I know what they taught.

And I'm not whining. I doubt you even know the meaning of the word.

he whined.

Another example from this ugly Christian puke.

 

[Brynmr]

Perhaps the equivalent of sin using Buddhist terms is karmic suffering.

There is no equivalent in Buddhism to the concept of sin. Buddhists do not sin. Sin is a Christian concept which includes a creator god.

All humans experience suffering because by nature of our ego we are selfish and want peace and satisfaction and avoid stress conflict and suffering by our free will to choose better.

I met an atheist who didn't understand original sin, but understood the advent of human ego is what causes social strife and suffering.

Can ego be a better term for when man became self aware and sin is based on selfish desire over the equal interests of others or the greater good of society ?

Do you agree all humans are prone to put our "selfish" needs first before we help our neighbors meet their needs? And taking this selfishness to extremes causes suffering in the world?

Of course people are selfish but the root of suffering is ignorance. This ignorance is born from our misconception of how our 'I' exists and how all other phenomena exist. Then from this misconception comes all the delusions such as greed, pride, anger and so forth. There is no violation of divine law or any judgement involved.

Sin brings with it a whole other layer absent in the study of (Buddhist) wisdom.

 

[emilynghiem]

I don't like it because it's an in your face editing of one's deeply held convictions and if they're doing it to me, they're doing it to others.

where is this happening? When? Give me an example.

From your own words. Go look at them.

er...I have no idea whatbthe fuck you are talking about. This is where you support your comnent or admit youre full if shit.

Suck on this, you moron.

Every person is a sinner. What you consider yourself is moot.

And here's where I kicked your stupid ass.

There's not one Buddhist on the planet who sins. But let's define the term 'sin'. This one will do:


sin1
sin/
noun
1.
an immoral act considered to be a transgression against divine law.
"a sin in the eyes of God"

In Buddhism there are no 'Divine Laws". Divine laws only apply to those who accept them such as Christians. Buddhists don't accept divine law nor do they accept a creator god. Is there 'bad' behavior within Buddhism? Of course but they're called delusions that keep us trapped in cyclic existence. These delusions have nothing to do with divine law.

So you're wrong. Not everyone is born into sin.

What and who defines bad behaviors? You? Each person? I don't think you understand your own religion if you boil it down to there is no higher power than man. That wasn't what Buddha was saying.

Dear ding cc Brynmr
I'm not sure if B has similar understanding of Buddhism to my mother who is very traditional old school Vietnamese Buddhist .

How one monk explained it to her, the Buddha advised followers to seek to practice equal "wisdom and compassion" for ALL people regardless if they acted good or bad. If we were perfect in love, sure, we could be equally kind and good to all people and not judge by their history their sins or karma which is their own responsibility .

However where we fall short of treating and loving ALL people with equal respect and dignity, isn't this the same as teaching that all people sin and fail to exercise Gods perfect love forgiveness and charity towards all neighbors ? Dont we all fall short of the perfect wisdom and compassion taught in Buddhism as the ideal?

Its not that these rules of perfect harmony dont exist absolutely and therefore we can't be convicted or held to laws that can't be established; the laws do exist but they are expressed relatively . we would have to listen and work with each person individually to establish what are the rules bounds and limits on each relationship in order to avoid sin or suffering in that relationship. Of course we are human we will make mistakes and impose suffering on our neighbors , some knowingly some not.

We do the best we can to treat each other with respect . none of us is perfect so we will do wrong and trespass on the consent or sensitivity of our neighbors . Buddhism advises us to be aware of the causes of suffering, and to discipline ourselves first to reduce how much suffering we contribute while we progress on the spiritual learning curve and journey in life. christianity teaches to break the cycle , of sin or suffering repeating frim the past, by divine forgiveness in Christ Jesus that reconciles and heals humanity by saving grace.

My understanding of Buddhism includes Christian teachings as symbolising the later stages of fulfillment of spiritual perfection peace maturity and wholeness or onenes restored as the Kingdom of heaven on earth.

My mother is more traditional old school like the Jews teaching gods laws based on the commandments before Christ fulfils these in the NT.

Brynmr are you more old school like my mom. She doesnt get the new school parts that Christianity tends to focus on. I focus on the progression from OT to NT. All religions go through this even Constitutionalism where there is old school by the letter of the law and new school that takes it to a new level by the spirit of the laws. These aren't supposed to be in conflict but the literalists will often get left behind by the relativist's and vice versa.

Since you and ding come from two different backgrounds of terms and language for universal truths, I suggest either finding common terms first and then you can argue between old school literalist and new school relativist ; or employ the help of an interpreter or mediator to translate back and forth between your systems of laws and teachings, so you don't get hung up on the words terms and language.

I've been through a lot of this with my own mom who sticks to traditional and won't budge. If I can help translate back and firth I can try to help, but if you are anything like my mom things probably won't change any minds. But you might learn to tolerate what each other means using the other language at best .

Best wishes, if I can help at all I'm happy to . been through similar and just hope you fare better than I ever got with this cultural gap in understanding that is challenging so I respect you for trying. Good luck you have my respect and support regardless if neither of you changes how you see or say things.

Thanks this is well worth the effort and may you both gain greater insights for it, as I found trying to reconcile similar!

 

[koshergrl]

You realize

Which is typical of most of the most adamant anti-Christians.

People who reject Christianity aren't necessarily anti Christian. I'm not anti Christian but I am opposed to Christians telling me what I should believe - that God and sin exist for me as well as for Christians.

That does seem to be a common point of contention. That a person can go through thier day, to day without a concern, or fear of angering a god who will torture you for eternity, because you broke some rule another person told you about...
Myself? I find it quite liberating. And seldom do I find myself violating any of the nine virtues I hold most dear. I'm not in any danger of bringing dishonor to my family name, or fouling any legacy I may leave behind after death. Which is about the only thing besides my blood that will carry on after I die. To take full command, and responsibility for ones mortal life is the most exhilarating feeling I've ever had.

You know of course that the self.serving attitude you just described is.the.same mantra the satanists.prescribe, right?

And just hazarding a blind wild guess... I'd be willing to bet that it is not the same "mantra" especially because the one I live my life by, is not self serving. At least no more than most people you probably know.

no, I'm not guessing. I've read the writings of the founders of the Church if Satan. You should know better than to think I would ever make a claim like that without having knowledge of it. Unlike the atheist asshats who spout nonsense about Christianity, I actually research stuff.

 

[Vastator]

You realize

Which is typical of most of the most adamant anti-Christians.

People who reject Christianity aren't necessarily anti Christian. I'm not anti Christian but I am opposed to Christians telling me what I should believe - that God and sin exist for me as well as for Christians.

That does seem to be a common point of contention. That a person can go through thier day, to day without a concern, or fear of angering a god who will torture you for eternity, because you broke some rule another person told you about...
Myself? I find it quite liberating. And seldom do I find myself violating any of the nine virtues I hold most dear. I'm not in any danger of bringing dishonor to my family name, or fouling any legacy I may leave behind after death. Which is about the only thing besides my blood that will carry on after I die. To take full command, and responsibility for ones mortal life is the most exhilarating feeling I've ever had.

You know of course that the self.serving attitude you just described is.the.same mantra the satanists.prescribe, right?

And just hazarding a blind wild guess... I'd be willing to bet that it is not the same "mantra" especially because the one I live my life by, is not self serving. At least no more than most people you probably know.

no, I'm not guessing. I've read the writings of the founders of the Church if Satan. You should know better than to think I would ever make a claim like that without having knowledge of it. Unlike the atheist asshats who spout nonsense about Christianity, I actually research stuff.

"I" was hazarding a blind wild guess... I thought I made that clear.
And for the other... Not that I doubt you; but you only just recently read something, got offended, then attributed said offense to me. Is it possible that you've misread at other times as well?

 

[emilynghiem]

Perhaps the equivalent of sin using Buddhist terms is karmic suffering.

There is no equivalent in Buddhism to the concept of sin. Buddhists do not sin. Sin is a Christian concept which includes a creator god.

All humans experience suffering because by nature of our ego we are selfish and want peace and satisfaction and avoid stress conflict and suffering by our free will to choose better.

I met an atheist who didn't understand original sin, but understood the advent of human ego is what causes social strife and suffering.

Can ego be a better term for when man became self aware and sin is based on selfish desire over the equal interests of others or the greater good of society ?

Do you agree all humans are prone to put our "selfish" needs first before we help our neighbors meet their needs? And taking this selfishness to extremes causes suffering in the world?

Of course people are selfish but the root of suffering is ignorance. This ignorance is born from our misconception of how our 'I' exists and how all other phenomena exist. Then from this misconception comes all the delusions such as greed, pride, anger and so forth. There is no violation of divine law or any judgement involved.

Sin brings with it a whole other layer absent in the study of (Buddhist) wisdom.

Dear Brynmr For all practical purposes what you describe above is the equivalent of sin in Christianity .

That may be the closest we can get, so I'm happy to take the selfish causes of suffering as the parallel of Christian meaning of sin

Is there some other reason you feel it is not good fair true or accurate to equate the concept of sin with suffering caused by karma?

Are you okay with equating the breaking of the cycle of suffering with the breaking of the cycle of sin in Christianity ?

If not, can we try the other equivalent : the idea of BIAS.

Do you agree that by our birth is being born into certain families or countries with embedded cultural traditions including both spiritual political social and religious, this makes us all Biased?

Given the Biblical teaching to remove the beam from our own eyes before we can SEE clearly to help our neighbor with removing a splinter,
Can you relate to this concept in terms of recognizing our own BIAS that skews our perception and our speech and divides us in conflict with our neighbors whose karmic birth social or spiritual conditions give them a different BIAS in how they see and say things.

Does that have a closer parallel to you with Buddhist teachings ?

 

[emilynghiem]

Another example from this ugly Christian puke.

Dear Brynmr
How does your "ugly" statement about koshergrl follow the Buddhist teachings of practicing equal wisdom and compassion for all beings?

If it conflicts with practicing the "right speech" in Buddhism is it because of not having the "right understanding" of KG or not the "right effort or mindfulness"

Would you consider saying something with no compassion but with contempt a "breach" of buddhist standards or teachings.

Is it "ignorance" if you claim to be aware of what Buddhism teaches .

What is YOUR term for not following Buddhism perfectly . can we use that concept in place of "sin" where you may not have broken divine laws not given in Buddhism, but didn't you just breach the principle of "right speech" by projecting personal contempt instead of speaking with selfless compassion?

 

[tycho1572]

My parents weren't religious, but did teach me certain values that have served me well over the years. Values that I heard again when I decided to attend my first church service.

I never stepped foot in a church until I was 15. I've been to several, of different denominations, over the next 9 years.

I stopped going after a few months of attending a baptist church because I didn't agree with a sermon.

I saw a level of weirdness and hypocrisy that turned me off from all the churches I attended. It just wasn't for me.

 

[Vastator]

It is good that your parents taught you well serving "values". One day they will become your ancestors, and it will be up to you teach your children these values so they might serve your children; the blood of your ancestors, well in kind.

 

[emilynghiem]

My parents weren't religious, but did teach me certain values that have served me well over the years. Values that I heard again when I decided to attend my first church service.

I never stepped foot in a church until I was 15. I've been to several, of different denominations, over the next 9 years.

I stopped going after a few months of attending a baptist church because I didn't agree with a sermon.

I saw a level of weirdness and hypocrisy that turned me off from all the churches I attended. It just wasn't for me.

Hi tycho1572
You remind me how , as a Constitutionalist , I can barely tolerate most of the garbage going on with my own D party and half the govt which violates basic Constituional principles and ethics. But things won't get corrected if the people who want consistent standards stay away and leave it to the wolves to run things into the ground.

If you can find one person or one group that teaches and lives by the standards and meaning you believe in, I encourage you to support that group.

I didn't fit in with one UU church that was too cliquish with the liberal agenda and rejecting anything challenging that but I did go back to an older UU fellowship that welcomed both old school and new school and are closer to inclusion of diversity I believe in.

Keep searching and at the very least you will collect a circle of friends around you that is your own unique fellowship . that's enough . it doesn't have to be a big group to be legit, it will be whatever is natural for you. Every person and path is different . the UU are all over the map, if you want to check that out. But same trick applies, if one group doesn't click for you, try another as each is different depending on the unique chemistry between the members . even within the same denomination, so don't give up. Took me 20 years, so I hope you fare better than I did trying to fit in somewhere long-term !