Why I Am Not A Christian

[Madeline]

I wouldn't know. All the shame-flingers in my childhood were clergy. Talk about cognitive dissonance: being told to feel bad by someone who clearly needs to and does not.

 

[CurveLight]

Anguille, if you think renaming posters in an insulting way isn't bashing then what is?

Ummm, where do I claim not to have bashed ScurvyDelight? Of course renaming him is bashing him or insulting him. After repeated name calling from him I decided to indulge in a a little myself. I nornally don't bother bashing people, or calling them liars such as Booby has called me, it's doesn't seem worth the bother. But sometimes I like to give the trolls a little taste of their own medicine, especially when I come up with something amusing that I know I will get pos rep for it.

I'd be amazed if you could be honest and explain how you susbscribe masochism to Jesus when he begged to avoid the Crucifixion. That is why I call you a dishonest bitch because you have ignored that point at least five times.

 

[THE LIGHT]

The Light wrote in part:

But what is evil and who determines it? What if I define "evil" differently that you do?

For example, when it comes to speeding, I could go 70 miles per hour on a highway which would be perfectly lawful, but come to a small rural road and find out that going that speed makes me an evil criminal... Was it the speed that made me a criminal? NO... it was the law that made me a criminal at that speed in that zone.

If there is no supreme being from which absolutes are derived, then nothing is absolute and everyone is their own god judging what is right or wrong in their own eyes.

I'm not feeling you guys so much. No one but me thinks there is a class of behaviors that are always Evil? Am I surrounded by situational ethicists and humanists?

Could you point out for me a perfect person (barring yourself of coarse... I know everyone somehow happens to be perfect in their own eyes )?

 

[Madeline]

The Light, having a sense of right and wrong does not make a person perfect. It just makes them normal.

 

[JoLouis]

The Light, having a sense of right and wrong does not make a person perfect. It just makes them normal.

You shouldn't post after smoking crystal meth

 

[mudwhistle]

Anguille, if you think renaming posters in an insulting way isn't bashing then what is?

Ummm, where do I claim not to have bashed ScurvyDelight? Of course renaming him is bashing him or insulting him. After repeated name calling from him I decided to indulge in a a little myself. I nornally don't bother bashing people, or calling them liars such as Booby has called me, it's doesn't seem worth the bother. But sometimes I like to give the trolls a little taste of their own medicine, especially when I come up with something amusing that I know I will get pos rep for it.

I'd be amazed if you could be honest and explain how you susbscribe masochism to Jesus when he begged to avoid the Crucifixion. That is why I call you a dishonest bitch because you have ignored that point at least five times.

Maybe it's a case of the person not thinking answering your questions is worthwhile much less concerned about what you think in the first place.

There a people like yourself that simply aren't worth the aggravation.

 

[Newby]

'Change our very nature' would have a negative meaning for me as a Buddhist. All beings have Buddha nature. Why change that? We find the nature of all beings to be pure in essence.

Getting back to the topic, I thought about your explanation of why Christians only think they can change their nature with help from Christ and it occured to me that their understanding of changing human nature has something to do with their idea of original sin. That is another reason I could not be a Christian. I don't believe we are born sinful.

Interesting. I don't think we are born 'sinful' either. At the same time, we're not born enlightened. We have to take up a spiritual practice to clear away what obscures us from recognizing that true nature.

Of course, I speak from my bias as a Buddhist.

Not all christians believe that either, buy hey, according to Ang, we're all the same, right?

 

[CurveLight]

Ummm, where do I claim not to have bashed ScurvyDelight? Of course renaming him is bashing him or insulting him. After repeated name calling from him I decided to indulge in a a little myself. I nornally don't bother bashing people, or calling them liars such as Booby has called me, it's doesn't seem worth the bother. But sometimes I like to give the trolls a little taste of their own medicine, especially when I come up with something amusing that I know I will get pos rep for it.

I'd be amazed if you could be honest and explain how you susbscribe masochism to Jesus when he begged to avoid the Crucifixion. That is why I call you a dishonest bitch because you have ignored that point at least five times.

Maybe it's a case of the person not thinking answering your questions is worthwhile much less concerned about what you think in the first place.

There a people like yourself that simply aren't worth the aggravation.

This is more of the stoopid childish excuses bullshit. When fuckstarted jackasses like you know you're wrong you simply throw out any scapegoat no matter how ridiculous. Your arrogant ignorance is particularly funny considering the fact that person is the only one on the whole thread that has specificallly requested my presence and falsely accused me of running away from the thread.

So I'm not worth the aggravation of addressing facts but I'm worth it to ask where I am.......do you get paid good money to embarrass the hell out of yourself? I realize I've hurt your tender feelings and you can't get over it but you should realize I will not apologize for your lack of honesty or intelligence.

 

[Sky Dancer]

Not all Christians are the same. Not all Buddhists are the same, nor atheists either. Unfortunately, there is harm in the world done in the name of religion and people are naturally upset over it.

 

[Anguille]

Ummm, where do I claim not to have bashed ScurvyDelight? Of course renaming him is bashing him or insulting him. After repeated name calling from him I decided to indulge in a a little myself. I nornally don't bother bashing people, or calling them liars such as Booby has called me, it's doesn't seem worth the bother. But sometimes I like to give the trolls a little taste of their own medicine, especially when I come up with something amusing that I know I will get pos rep for it.

I'd be amazed if you could be honest and explain how you susbscribe masochism to Jesus when he begged to avoid the Crucifixion. That is why I call you a dishonest bitch because you have ignored that point at least five times.

Maybe it's a case of the person not thinking answering your questions is worthwhile much less concerned about what you think in the first place.

There a people like yourself that simply aren't worth the aggravation.

Thanks. I did answer it's questions. I just did not give the answers it wanted to hear. At this point, Scurvey has passed into the realm of message board clown.

 

[CurveLight]

Ummm, where do I claim not to have bashed ScurvyDelight? Of course renaming him is bashing him or insulting him. After repeated name calling from him I decided to indulge in a a little myself. I nornally don't bother bashing people, or calling them liars such as Booby has called me, it's doesn't seem worth the bother. But sometimes I like to give the trolls a little taste of their own medicine, especially when I come up with something amusing that I know I will get pos rep for it.

I'd be amazed if you could be honest and explain how you susbscribe masochism to Jesus when he begged to avoid the Crucifixion. That is why I call you a dishonest bitch because you have ignored that point at least five times.

Maybe it's a case of the person not thinking answering your questions is worthwhile much less concerned about what you think in the first place.

There a people like yourself that simply aren't worth the aggravation.

"Change our very nature" is a meaningless phrase to me. I'm not sure what quantity of change is being discussed; it seems to me this is circular. Christians believe their lives are without meaning unless they worship Christ. They cannot seem to accept that worship of Christ without belief is also meaningless.

This inability or unwillingness to recognize and honor the Divine in people who are not christian is one of the most damning aspects of the religion IMO.

'Change our very nature' would have a negative meaning for me as a Buddhist. All beings have Buddha nature. Why change that? We find the nature of all beings to be pure in essence.

Getting back to the topic, I thought about your explanation of why Christians only think they can change their nature with help from Christ and it occured to me that their understanding of changing human nature has something to do with their idea of original sin. That is another reason I could not be a Christian. I don't believe we are born sinful.

Getting back to the topic, I thought about your explanation of why Christians only think they can change their nature with help from Christ and it occured to me that their understanding of changing human nature has something to do with their idea of original sin. That is another reason I could not be a Christian. I don't believe we are born sinful.

Interesting. I don't think we are born 'sinful' either. At the same time, we're not born enlightened. We have to take up a spiritual practice to clear away what obscures us from recognizing that true nature.

Of course, I speak from my bias as a Buddhist.

Not all christians believe that either, buy hey, according to Ang, we're all the same, right?

Anguish is just looking for something else to whine about. The only good sign is unlike the ignorant masochistic charge this one is pretty accurate because while not all Christians share the same concepts of Original Sin the mainstream version is easily one of the biggest theological and practical problems of carrying over antiquated ideas into the New Testament that engender circular guilt. This arguably negates Jesus' teachings and explains why 2000 years later Christianity very closely resembles the Temple system Jesus fought against.

 

[Anguille]

Getting back to the topic, I thought about your explanation of why Christians only think they can change their nature with help from Christ and it occured to me that their understanding of changing human nature has something to do with their idea of original sin. That is another reason I could not be a Christian. I don't believe we are born sinful.

Interesting. I don't think we are born 'sinful' either. At the same time, we're not born enlightened. We have to take up a spiritual practice to clear away what obscures us from recognizing that true nature.

Of course, I speak from my bias as a Buddhist.

Not all christians believe that either, buy hey, according to Ang, we're all the same, right?

Nope. As a matter of fact, in an early post I noted that I had to keep reminding myself that not all Christians are the same. Why are you such a snide person, Newby?

 

[Anguille]

Interesting. I don't think we are born 'sinful' either. At the same time, we're not born enlightened. We have to take up a spiritual practice to clear away what obscures us from recognizing that true nature.

Of course, I speak from my bias as a Buddhist.

It seems to me that Buddhism has a more positive, perhaps even more loving view of humans than the Judeo Christian religions do.

There are certain aspects in Buddhism that are definately positive and friendlier toward human beings. For one thing, everything is impermanent. Even if you earn a hell realm in your next life the negative karma of being in hell will eventually be purified.

Christians have it easy in some respects. They have only one hell. Buddhists have 13, but ours are impermanent. There are heaven realms too, but they aren't to be aspired to. The heaven realms are impermanent and much harder lives to reach enlightenment in. The lifetime we all aspire to is the human realm for it's unique advantages for attaining enlightenment. The other fortunate and unique teaching to Buddhism are the teachings on emptiness. So, in one way, we talk about these realms as if they truly existed and in another way they can be thought of as states of mind.

All beings will one day be enlightened. We all have that potential, even the meekest or most vile creature on the earth has Buddha nature-essential purity. We just have to wake up and realize it.

Interesting. I've heard it said that Buddhism is not really a religion as much as it is a philosophy. I would suppose that would depend on what one's definition of religion is.

 

[CurveLight]

I'd be amazed if you could be honest and explain how you susbscribe masochism to Jesus when he begged to avoid the Crucifixion. That is why I call you a dishonest bitch because you have ignored that point at least five times.

Maybe it's a case of the person not thinking answering your questions is worthwhile much less concerned about what you think in the first place.

There a people like yourself that simply aren't worth the aggravation.

Thanks. I did answer it's questions. I just did not give the answers it wanted to hear. At this point, Scurvey has passed into the realm of message board clown.

State or link the post where you specifically addressed how you reconcile your charge of masochism with Jesus begging to avoid the Crucifixion. We all know you didn't so all you are doing is hoping your dishonesty will be given a free pass because I'm an asshole. You're pathetically transparent.

 

[Sky Dancer]

It seems to me that Buddhism has a more positive, perhaps even more loving view of humans than the Judeo Christian religions do.

There are certain aspects in Buddhism that are definately positive and friendlier toward human beings. For one thing, everything is impermanent. Even if you earn a hell realm in your next life the negative karma of being in hell will eventually be purified.

Christians have it easy in some respects. They have only one hell. Buddhists have 13, but ours are impermanent. There are heaven realms too, but they aren't to be aspired to. The heaven realms are impermanent and much harder lives to reach enlightenment in. The lifetime we all aspire to is the human realm for it's unique advantages for attaining enlightenment. The other fortunate and unique teaching to Buddhism are the teachings on emptiness. So, in one way, we talk about these realms as if they truly existed and in another way they can be thought of as states of mind.

All beings will one day be enlightened. We all have that potential, even the meekest or most vile creature on the earth has Buddha nature-essential purity. We just have to wake up and realize it.

Interesting. I've heard it said that Buddhism is not really a religion as much as it is a philosophy. I would suppose that would depend on what one's definition of religion is.

Buddhists debate whether Buddhism is a philosophy or a religion. Considering that meditation is a core practice and that the teachings of Buddhism are not mere conceptual philosophy I think it falls somewhere in between.

 

[CurveLight]

Interesting. I don't think we are born 'sinful' either. At the same time, we're not born enlightened. We have to take up a spiritual practice to clear away what obscures us from recognizing that true nature.

Of course, I speak from my bias as a Buddhist.

Not all christians believe that either, buy hey, according to Ang, we're all the same, right?

Nope. As a matter of fact, in an early post I noted that I had to keep reminding myself that not all Christians are the same. Why are you such a snide person, Newby?

You just contradicted yourself dumbass. You said you are not a Christian based on your claim of the universally accepted concept of original sin. If not all Christians are the same then not all Christians subscribe to the belief of original sin, which means......you try to figure it out.

 

[CurveLight]

Interesting. I don't think we are born 'sinful' either. At the same time, we're not born enlightened. We have to take up a spiritual practice to clear away what obscures us from recognizing that true nature.

Of course, I speak from my bias as a Buddhist.

Not all christians believe that either, buy hey, according to Ang, we're all the same, right?

Nope. As a matter of fact, in an early post I noted that I had to keep reminding myself that not all Christians are the same. Why are you such a snide person, Newby?

There are certain aspects in Buddhism that are definately positive and friendlier toward human beings. For one thing, everything is impermanent. Even if you earn a hell realm in your next life the negative karma of being in hell will eventually be purified.

Christians have it easy in some respects. They have only one hell. Buddhists have 13, but ours are impermanent. There are heaven realms too, but they aren't to be aspired to. The heaven realms are impermanent and much harder lives to reach enlightenment in. The lifetime we all aspire to is the human realm for it's unique advantages for attaining enlightenment. The other fortunate and unique teaching to Buddhism are the teachings on emptiness. So, in one way, we talk about these realms as if they truly existed and in another way they can be thought of as states of mind.

All beings will one day be enlightened. We all have that potential, even the meekest or most vile creature on the earth has Buddha nature-essential purity. We just have to wake up and realize it.

Interesting. I've heard it said that Buddhism is not really a religion as much as it is a philosophy. I would suppose that would depend on what one's definition of religion is.

Buddhists debate whether Buddhism is a philosophy or a religion. Considering that meditation is a core practice and that the teachings of Buddhism are not mere conceptual philosophy I think it falls somewhere in between.

It's an organized religion based on the worship of existence superceding human experience.

 

[Anguille]

I wouldn't know. All the shame-flingers in my childhood were clergy. Talk about cognitive dissonance: being told to feel bad by someone who clearly needs to and does not.

Sky makes a great point in her post about family dysfunction and distortion of religion but so do you about the clergy. Since in organised religions it is the clergy who defines what the tenets of the religion are, then I would tend to aggree with you, that the cleary can reflect very bably on a religion.

My thought on religion is that the ideals which have inspired the invention of religions are all well meaning but because they are created by fallible humans they are sometimes misguided. And at the very worst, they are twisted and exploited by nefarious types.

 

[Anguille]

Not all Christians are the same. Not all Buddhists are the same, nor atheists either. Unfortunately, there is harm in the world done in the name of religion and people are naturally upset over it.

 

[Newby]

... this one is pretty accurate because while not all Christians share the same concepts of Original Sin the mainstream version is easily one of the biggest theological and practical problems of carrying over antiquated ideas into the New Testament that engender circular guilt. This arguably negates Jesus' teachings and explains why 2000 years later Christianity very closely resembles the Temple system Jesus fought against.

Could you expand on that? I'm not following what you're trying to say here. What negates Jesus' teachings exactly?