What is faith: Why Christianity?

Just because you have yet to meet a 'healthy' christian in your eyes, does it mean that one does not exist? If you have an understanding of the human race then you know that many of them conform to whatever the trend is in their life. With a country that is 90% Christian there are bound to be more people that misrepresent the religion than many others. That is statistical.

"The "taking literally" part is voided because it's your opinion that it should not be taken literally. It was taken literally in the past. The truth is the religion's book says certain things in a certain language. You can't really dictate how that information is absorbed except by the use of language."

You can't dictate how any document is absorbed, that is an impossibility. Someone sees a car as blue, the other as green. Could they both be right in some ways?

"So, I agree that if one is to carefully do the research and pick out the correct passages from a flawed bible (which is believed to be the true words of jesus) and follow them (not literraly but based on a correct assumptious definition) then they are healthy good Christians."

Can you name the passages you say to be flawed? The contradictions you claim to know. Surely if these contradictions exist you could show any christian them and prove your point that the bible is in fact flawed.

"But, unfortunately, the group you have outlined is most definitely not a Christian for it does not include the largest portion of Christians. Arguing semantics is pointless... budhists are those that consider themselves budhists and Christians are those that consider themselves Christians and although one small group may claim that other groups are not "genuine", it is only the largest groups that we are comparing in this discussion. (for it is the largest groups that obviously create a larger effect upon the world)"

That's like saying you're not an american if you're not fat. A majority does not dictate a definition. Many can misinterpret a definition, humans are not perfect.

"In comparing the two largest sects of "christians" and "Budhists", obviously we have statistical evidence overwhelmingly pointing to a safer choice in Budhism. "

What statistical evidence? I've yet to see you lay one out number about any religion yet you continually claim to have statistical evidence. No offense but I want to see what you know.

"(I also wanted to point out that what you have stated as the "core" beliefs of Budhism are in fact false. Like many of the "interesting" parts of the bible, the parts you have chosen to critique are not a part of fundamental Budhism. And in fact a majority of Budhists do not believe the ideas you have stated)"

What are the core beliefs in budhism then? Please enlighten me. I was taught in my world cultures class about the noble eight fold path. If the real 'budhists' do not follow this then what exactly do they follow?

Please don't delete this post, I am not trying to make an attack. I am just putting in my contribution to the thread.

"I try my best to be just like I am but everybody wants you to be just like them."

1. I likened the comparisons we are doing to the normal curve. Go research it. That will address most of your questions.

2. I'm not the one that claimed there are flawed passages (although there most definitely are flawed passages). KGB did.

3. Obese Americans are 1/50. Christians that believe the bible is the word of God is probably somewhere around 48/50. That's an idiotic likening.

4. There has not been one holy war in the name of Buddhism in recorded history. Any Buddhist violence has clearly been extremely minor and such groups represent such a small minority that they themselves have admitted that they placed nationalism above their religion. Any public justification of violence by any known Buddhist has been immediately questioned and eventually neutralized... by the followers.

This knowledge I am providing because it may not be known in certainty by everyone. If you want me to prove that Christians, as a whole, are a violent breed, then you need to go educate yourself in history.

5. Go research Buddhism, get an idea that was not taught to you in school, and then think, then get more of an idea. Start with the central idea being pacifism, because everything is one.

I must note that this is not a thread attacking Buddhism. It seems most of you people responding here in a contradictory manner do not have adequate knowledge of history.

It is historically factual that Buddhists have comitted a miniscule fraction of the violence in the name of religion than Christians have, even though Buddhism has existed for a far longer amount of time.

From this point forward, any posts that attempt to attack Buddhism will be deleted because that is an entirely different subject. Buddhism is a comparative reference. We can use Hinduism or Taoism as well. Either way, there exists on the planet numerous religions that have had a much more positive effect on humanity than Christianity.

So, the question still remains, why should I have faith in a religion that has permitted its followers to advocate horrific violence when there exists religions on the planet where such things were attempted and failed? (due to the fact that these other religions have an un-contradictory position on violence: it is wrong, for very intellectually valid reasons)

Note that any posts from this point that do not address the question (which is also the title of the thread) will likely be removed.

"Hating everyone protects me from elitism."

quote:

---

I don't know if you are in a position to answer this question because it is sort of posed as a rebuttal to PeterSmith's assertion that Christianity is the only religion that provides "grace", and should be the sole object of faith amongst humans.

---

quote:

---

a) Although Budhism is a different belief system it is the same animal in that it provides humans some form of morality and guidance with which to live by. Hence, it is highly comparable and I don't actually think your statement about them being "altogether different" is really a deterrent when it comes to comparing their overall effect on humanity.

---

quote:

---

b) An older faith is a tried and tested faith. It is a statistic and a highly relevent statistic. If a religion that has existed for ten days has created more murder and slaughter than one that has been there for a hundred years, well, it definitely says something about the effectiveness of it.

---

quote:

---

c) Prejudices are easily defined and are not relative. Our definition can be a dictionary reference, which in essence states that prejudice is a conclusion made upon a group or person without logical knowledge of that truth. Hence, to believe that homosexuals will go to hell, by definition, is most certainly a prejudice.

---

"All statements are false. The last statement is false.--One of these statements is true."

I think you're arguing a different point... so I'm not going to comment on your previous post.

The question isn't which faith is true or not. That is a far more theological discussion that I think can only be shared efficiently in a controlled environment, and usually verbally.

As for prejudice, well, your statement just says that people aren't prejudice... their God is who makes them prejudice. Which is nonesense.

The question is, why should a non-believer in anything choose Christianity over Buddhism (addressing, specifically the facts I have presented)?

(I have to make one comment about a glaring mistake in your last post. First of all, the relationship between Buddhists and Hindus is very different than Jews and Christians. Buddhism is almost entirely contained within Hinduism. In fact, the Vedas, which were dated back sometime in the 15'th century BC, are quite literally the backbone of Buddhism. Buddhism is different only in the sense that it does not include the many additions to societal Hinduism that was corrupted over the years. Further, the consistency in Hinduism and Buddhism is far more intact than Christianity and Judaism. The old testament is a relic that is no longer practiced anywhere, yet was fully believed and used thousands of years ago. Hence, on one hand we have a very consistent and thorough system of beliefs that has existed for thousands of years with very little bloodshed, and on the other hand we have a religion that does not even closely resemble what it did thousands of years ago and has caused the greatest attrocities on the planet during its lifespan. Note that I'm not even getting into the theology of these religions... simply the statistics. Arguing the theology would provide us the obvious reasons why such a contrast exists)

"Hating everyone protects me from elitism."

I don't know why you think that reference to the normal curve clairifies your seditious little thesis because it doesn't. I didn't think that you were merely saying that Christians (during the course of history) were statistically more likely to be evil. I knew y6ou were saying that there were causally more likely to be evil. Firstly, I think this is a simplification, because history can only be conceived as a process in purely retrospective terms. Secondly, although the mundane truth is indeed that Christianity has been responsible for murders than any other religion, I maintain that this simply represents a perversion of the core doctrine. You dismiss doctrine and pigeonhole Christians as the representative majority, thus reducing them to a socio-political group. Er... Ok. I suppose this procedure might be useful to a social engineerer - it would provide him with the information (however dubious and simplistic but we'll go along with it for the sake of argument) he needs in order to shape society into the highest possible yield of utility.
The problem is that view religion in terms of its consequences: this is a legacy (I would say) of a schooling in prudential, rationalistic thought. You assert the superiority of Buddhism by suggesting that it's prevalence would result in a greater gain to the calculus of social interests, that is, that it is the more effective means to the end of social harmony. But religion is supposed to be an end in itself. These considerations are obsolete - they are asked externally of the religions in question in a futile attempt to find some sort of Archimedean point for assessing the relative merits of the respective religions.

Other than that, an attempt to determine the superiority of one religion over the other is clearly pointless, and my replying to any such claims indicates my extreme boredom right now.

[  Edited by wittgensteins at   ]

quote:

---

But religion is supposed to be an end in itself; these considerations are obsolete, and "self-sacrifice" more important than "gain".

---

quote:

---

Other than that, an attempt to determine the superiority of one religion over the other is clearly pointless

---

quote:

---

The only use this procedure might have is to a social engineerer - it would provide him with the information (however dubious and simplistic but we'll go along with it for the sake of argument) he needs to shape society into the highest possible yield of utility.

---

"Hating everyone protects me from elitism."

Okay. I see.

Well, on a purely statistical level within the confines of 'which has less atrocity attached to it', I would have to choose Buddhism over Christianity. I wouldn't see much else I could choose, even atheism has its atrocities.

"All statements are false. The last statement is false.--One of these statements is true."

I think that rather than keep asking questions, I'll state my opinion to follow up with your statement, Strongclad.

I completely accept that a Christian can be more beautiful and wholesome than a Buddhist, if a Christian rejects certain Christian beliefs and a Buddhist rejects certain Buddhist beliefs.

However, if we take "Steve", who is a regular normal person of normal intelligence (normal being average) then based on statistics alone, we can safely conclude that if a million "Steves" had to decide which religion to follow, it would be far more beneficial for them all to become Buddhists than Christians.

Since this is in complete agreement with your statement, Strongclad, then as a humanitarian whether you be a Christian or Buddhist, it is humanitarian only to encourage people to become Buddhists.

If you encounter special individuals who may be able to absorb and use the teachings of Christianity beneficially rather than harmfully, then for such a person it does not matter what religion they choose, and teaching them Christianity would be a moral and humanitarian decision.

But, the answer therefore is, the Buddhist "faith" is a better choice than the Christian "faith" if we want humanity to, on average, succeed rather than fail.

"Hating everyone protects me from elitism."

This post deletion is really getting out of hand now. To reproduce the main points I made:
1) The individualistic ethos which undercuts your thesis is not only antipathetic to religion but also needs to be qualified. Utilitarian thinking often masquerades as "objective" because it deals quantitatively with empirical data, but it is foolish to think that we can explore and evaluate data without a conceptual framework. A swathe of unargued ideas welter beneath your crude appeal to "the facts".
2)You accuse me of contributing nothing to the debate, but my point is that there isn't one. As you've framed the question there can only be one answer - "yes, Buddhism is sociogically more desireable than Christianity". And?
3) As I mention above, religion cannot be understood externally of its creed. You wish to find an Archimedean point for assessing the relative merits of the two religions. You can't. They represent two incommensurable viewpoints. Surely it would be more open-minded to give both perspectives the repect and dignity they deserve, rather than indulge in the kind of spurious generalizations which serve only to obscure and offend.

Your critique is unsubstantiated and focusses on the micro-factors that cannot be argued in a discussion about macro-social concepts. This is an advanced discussion (in a hopeful sense) that assumes most people taking part have no need to re-learn the basic concepts of either religion being discussed. Your innability to grasp a larger view without focussing on the minute details that some of us have discussed a thousand times before is your own problem. This is why I have deleted some of your posts because you're just complaining because you want to slow things down.

It is, perhaps, one's lack of knowledge of history and analysis of each individual religion that creates, as you stated, offence.

For there is nothing obscurred and no disshonesty in any arguments that have been presented to assert that Buddhism is more beneficial than Christianity for humanity.

This discussion entirely avoids debating the individual merits of each religion's ethos', for such a discussion (as I stated clearly earlier) is often very difficult to maintain with random people.

Regardless, the conclusion to this discussion has been found and proven:

The Buddhist "faith" is a better choice than the Christian "faith" if we want humanity to, on average, succeed rather than fail.

"Hating everyone protects me from elitism."