[besson3c]

I just got back from a couple of sessions with the Dalai Lama, it was quite an interesting experience. The talk, which included Dharma Buddhism teachings, was quite heavy. In fact, it was quite over my head and certainly a challenge to anybody in attendance there, including those with some prior understanding of Buddhism. I'm now interested in learning more...

Contrast this to many of the Christian churches I've been to for a service of some sort, a gig, some sort of family member connection, an event of some sort, whatever... I'm by no means an expert of Christianity, but I've been to several churches. They all seem to be about the same thing, trying to appeal to your emotions by telling you how much Jesus loves you, died on the cross, blah blah. It's usually the same sort of formula: singing, reading of the Bible and explanation about how God is great because he was kind to somebody or did something moral that is pretty well understood without needing all of the religious context, usually some sort of real-life story that reads sort of like a lame email forward, God is great, sing some more, appeal to emotions some more, repeat...

The whole conversion process is extremely circular. In order to really experience the wonders of Christianity you have to have some faith, in order to have some faith you have to have some reason to have some faith, and in order to have some reason to have some faith you need to have some faith. I've just never been really all that interested in Christianity in part because this reason.

Before anybody jumps all over my balls, I realize that not all Christian churches are as lame as I've described. I'm not knocking Christianity itself here, but the fact that it seems so dumbed down. The basic message in most churches is really not all that complicated, but I *know* that if we were to get into the King James bible my head would explode (in a good way), I'm sure hearing the Pope speak would be pretty intense, I know there is all sorts of scholarly stuff to dig my teeth into if I ever wanted to.

I also know that most people aren't interested in the scholarly stuff, and that's fine too. However, why not approach an introduction to Christianity with some history, with being challenged by some of this stuff, with addressing the skepticism and arguments against Christianity head on without the emotional manipulation?

Why is it that to many Christians it seems like a sin to really discuss other religions without denigrating them? As the Dalai Lama pointed out, all religions are basically going for peace of mind and a better life, their approaches are simply different. Why is it that in this country we have to cater towards the Christian groups as much as we do in observing and respecting their beliefs and traditions while most Americans seem pretty ignorant to any other traditions? I understand that this country was founded on Christianity, I get all of those arguments, but why are other religions almost perceived as a threat? To a potential convert with some degree of intellect, they may not be interesting in being immersed in dogma and having to make a commitment right off the bat, they may just want to learn.

I'm probably not going to become a Buddhist, but I went away a little more informed, a little more curious, and challenged. I've never had this experience in the context of any other religion, and I'm not sure why. One shouldn't have to take a religion class in college to have access to this sort of experience. There is nothing wrong with being mentally challenged, especially since religion often deals with a lot of philosophical and political subject matter. Why is this seemingly so rare?

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

However, why not approach an introduction to Christianity with some history, with being challenged by some of this stuff, with addressing the skepticism and arguments against Christianity head on without the emotional manipulation?

It's not hard to find.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

It's not hard to find.

Well, if my church experience which I have dubbed as lame is the exception, I take back everything I've said. I look forward to hearing about what sort of church services are normal as per the perceptions of others, including yourself.

[Laminar]

I have no idea what's "normal," as my experiences can't begin to be an adequate sample size for making accurate generalizations.

[Big Mac]

I frankly don't see you as the churchgoing type, besson. Aside from his stature as leader on the world stage, what was so great about the Dalai Lama discourses?

With that said, in all honesty, Christianity isn't. . . Hmmm. I'll put it as kindly as I can: Christianity isn't a philosophically or intellectually coherent system of theology. I'm talking about internal coherence here, as in whether Christian theology is compatible with either the Hebrew Scriptures it claims to incorporate or even many parts of the Greek "New" Testament that don't match Christian doctrine. For much of the history of Christianity and the Catholic Church particularly, the lay people were kept in the dark about the internals of their faith. The masses were held in Latin to lock out those who didn't read or understand that language. That's why iconography was so important to the Church - the images were supposed to be the gateway of understanding for those who weren't educated. It hasn't even been 400 years since the Protestant Reformation brought real reform to the religion, and its only fairly recently in terms of human history that literacy has become widespread even in the civilized world. Christianity's intellectual development was stunted for around 1,600 years by the RCC. Now that people can read the scriptures for themselves and think critically about the theological components involved, I see a rising tide of disaffected Christians, disaffected by their awareness that the religion isn't philosophically coherent on a theological basis. (I have to make it doubly clear that I'm not talking about external coherence by the rational standard of an atheistic world view, which is a different although related subject.)

So, in essence, it doesn't surprise me in the least that you don't find Christianity intellectually stimulating. It's a given that you have some atheistic bias, but you rightly point out that the theology is simply very superficial and not philosophically coherent if you probe it at a deeper level.

[hyteckit]

I've broken them down to 3 types of Christian churches

1. local community churches: can be boring, but gives you the feeling of a close-knit family. A more personal experience and easier to get to know you pastor and talk to him about your issues/problems.

2. mega-churches: pep rally, team building experience. There to scream, go crazy, and have fun. Singing, dancing, and performing miracles?

3. cultish churches: There are crazy ones, but then there are some fun ones. Outdoors, volleyball, picnic, group gather to discuss life in general. Anyone can just go up to the mic and talk about how Christianity affect their lives and how they were saved by God or by finding God.


If you are a looking for a intellectual discussion on philosophy and religion, don't bother. Attend some college course or conference where spiritual leaders from different religions come and talk.

If you are looking for fun and not deeply religious, attend one of those cultish ones.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

I have no idea what's "normal," as my experiences can't begin to be an adequate sample size for making accurate generalizations.

Then how do you know it's not hard to find?

I thought I made it clear that I'm not generalizing. You'll note that I use the words "so many", and not "all" in the title, and I also made it clear that my own experiences or lack thereof might be behind these observations, but I'd like to hear about how your experiences differ from mine if this is the case.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

I've broken them down to 3 types of Christian churches

1. local community churches: can be boring, but gives you the feeling of a close-knit family. A more personal experience and easier to get to know you pastor and talk to him about your issues/problems.

2. mega-churches: pep rally, team building experience. There to scream, go crazy, and have fun. Singing, dancing, and performing miracles?

3. cultish churches: There are crazy ones, but then there are some fun ones. Outdoors, volleyball, picnic, group gather to discuss life in general. Anyone can just go up to the mic and talk about how Christianity affect their lives and how they were saved by God or by finding God.


If you are a looking for a intellectual discussion on philosophy and religion, don't bother. Attend some college course or conference where spiritual leaders from different religions come and talk.

If you are looking for fun and not deeply religious, attend one of those cultish ones.

I pretty much concur. However, the mega-churches should also be seen as "big business." They pull in millions of dollars and are often associated with political activism (not the "pro freedom" kind, either, around here it's "our way or GTFO") which those millions fund.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I just got back from a couple of sessions with the Dalai Lama, it was quite an interesting experience. The talk, which included Dharma Buddhism teachings, was quite heavy. In fact, it was quite over my head and certainly a challenge to anybody in attendance there, including those with some prior understanding of Buddhism. I'm now interested in learning more...

So this wasn't a religious event, it was a seminar?

If you want to learn about Buddhism, read a good book about it. Here's two good ones, with Westerners in mind: What the Buddha Taught and What Makes You NOT a Buddhist.

Don't buy anything about the Dalai Lama, Tibet, Zen, Pure Land, or anything focused on Bodhisattvas. It's mostly trash.

Contrast this to many of the Christian churches I've been to for a service of some sort, a gig, some sort of family member connection, an event of some sort, whatever... I'm by no means an expert of Christianity, but I've been to several churches. They all seem to be about the same thing, trying to appeal to your emotions by telling you how much Jesus loves you, died on the cross, blah blah. It's usually the same sort of formula: singing, reading of the Bible and explanation about how God is great because he was kind to somebody or did something moral that is pretty well understood without needing all of the religious context, usually some sort of real-life story that reads sort of like a lame email forward, God is great, sing some more, appeal to emotions some more, repeat...

Religious events are supposed to be uplifting. That's why people go. I'm like you, it just doesn't appeal to me, but that's what religion is all about.

As the Dalai Lama pointed out, all religions are basically going for peace of mind and a better life, their approaches are simply different.

The Dalai Lama is selling "greeting card" Buddhism to westerners, that's why he stresses the similarity of religions in this way. If he stressed how exotic Tibetan Buddhism really is, no one would care.

I'm probably not going to become a Buddhist, but I went away a little more informed, a little more curious, and challenged. I've never had this experience in the context of any other religion, and I'm not sure why. One shouldn't have to take a religion class in college to have access to this sort of experience. There is nothing wrong with being mentally challenged, especially since religion often deals with a lot of philosophical and political subject matter. Why is this seemingly so rare?

Buddha was more of a philosopher than anything else, that's why. Other religions have philosophy-heavy theologians, but the source texts and historical prophets are not philosophically-oriented.

[Railroader]

Though I know I am wasting my time as I don't really think Bessy is expecting anything other than his own views to be reinforced, I hope someone can learn from this post:

Your views on church worship services are fundamentally flawed. The worship service is not about the people in the church or any great learning during the service. To a believer, the church service is all about worshiping your creator and praising him corporately. It is about leaving the self behind and focusing on God. To walk away with any expectation of anything, other than a humble attitude towards your place with God, is not the right attitude. If you want to really know more about the Bible you should join a Bible study group, become a disciple, or do some research on your own.

The reason church services seem similar (i.e. sing songs, pray, read scripture, sermons) is because of the regulative worship principal. The Bible gives instruction about what is to happen during a worship service. About the only thing a church can do is to mix up the order of what happens. Personally, I prefer the service goes in this order: Gospel reading, sermon, praying, and then singing.

There is so much more to a church than just an hour on Sunday morning. An active church will have its doors open 7 days a week. Something always going on. A church is also about serving. Feeding and taking care of the poor and elderly. Defending the defenseless. Spreading the gospel, baptizing, and making disciples.

The life of a Christian is about serving, not expectations about enlightenment. Though we are commanded to search the scriptures daily. We are expected to learn it and live it. But that is not supposed to happen during a church service. It is to happen during personal time, family devotional time, discipleship, and group bible studies.

I will share with you about my activities this week (not to brag, as I am one of the more average persons in my church):
[This includes my daily Bible readings/studies and family bible time.]

Sunday:
Sunday school at 9a - fellowship (chat) with peers, pray for each other, and listen to a continuing in depth study about Ephesians 1:18
Worship at 10:30a-12:30p (see above)
Teen groups helper 6-8:30p - mentor teens, teach lesson, fellowship, play games

Monday:
6-9p - Went to a local mission serving homeless men. Sing praise songs, short bible message, serve dinner for about 50 homeless, clean up

Tuesday:
Evening - Visited a couple elderly people who are members of the church who are unable to leave their homes due to health reasons. Prayed and sang some hymns with them.

Wednesday:
630-830p - Bible study group about Matthew 18:15, prayer time after. Talk with some leaders about future plans of the church for about an hour.

Thursday:
A couple hours - Going to do some yard work at the church and the vacant lot next door

Friday:
Study lesson for teen lesson on Sunday evening.

Saturday:
Send off sr. high students on weekend trip - sent up tables and chairs for fellowship luncheon after church tomorrow, study lesson for teen lesson on Sunday evening.

Repeat.

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

I pretty much concur. However, the mega-churches should also be seen as "big business." They pull in millions of dollars and are often associated with political activism (not the "pro freedom" kind, either, around here it's "our way or GTFO") which those millions fund.

Interesting. As someone who's gone to many mega-churches, they seem a lot more open and less politically-driven then smaller churches.

[Railroader]

Oh, and the reason you think the service are lame is because they are worshiping a God you do not believe in.

I used to feel the way you did. Now, as a believer, it is the absolute highlight of my week.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Christianity isn't a philosophically or intellectually coherent system of theology. I'm talking about internal coherence here, as in whether Christian theology is compatible with either the Hebrew Scriptures it claims to incorporate...

The Christian Bible is consistent from cover to cover. All components of it point to man's sinful rejection of God and then to a Graceful God who deserves praise and worship. From Adam to Revelation, all parts of the Bible point to Christ.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

... or even many parts of the Greek "New" Testament that don't match Christian doctrine.

Huh? Who's doctrine? RCC, Pentecostal, Methodist, Baptist .... ? Name one part of the Greek New Testament that doesn't match "Christian doctrine".

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

I pretty much concur. However, the mega-churches should also be seen as "big business." They pull in millions of dollars and are often associated with political activism (not the "pro freedom" kind, either, around here it's "our way or GTFO") which those millions fund.

Mormons did that for Pop 8.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

For much of the history of Christianity and the Catholic Church particularly, the lay people were kept in the dark about the internals of their faith. The masses were held in Latin to lock out those who didn't read or understand that language.

I don't think either of these statements are true. The Latin thing didn't have any sort of agenda, it was just cultural resistance. As for keeping people in the dark, the church was very aggressive about teaching the various stories and the official catechism. People knew very well the touchstone doctrines and creeds. What they didn't know was the details of the Bible, but really educating the masses about temple sacrifice minutia or endless historical "begats" is really a waste of time. That's not why people go to church,

Christianity's intellectual development was stunted for around 1,600 years by the RCC.

Ok, but it wasn't the doctrine but the intellectual side journeys that hurt the church. The church wasted energy trying to tie Plato and Aristotle into church doctrines, which lead to pointless discourses over the "substance of God" and transubstantiation of the host and blah blah blah.

And I wouldn't overstate the intellectualism of the Reformation. Luther and friends were no high-minded giants, but really steered theology into some petty and mean-spirited corners.

Now that people can read the scriptures for themselves and think critically about the theological components involved, I see a rising tide of disaffected Christians, disaffected by their awareness that the religion isn't philosophically coherent on a theological basis.

Actually, our criticisms are of the Jewish Bible and the NT. And there are plenty disaffected Jews, for all the reasons you list. Judaism also endured a reformation, remember?

(I have to make it doubly clear that I'm not talking about external coherence by the rational standard of an atheistic world view, which is a different although related subject.)

Does this high-minded coherence explain talking donkeys to an incredulous listener?

So, in essence, it doesn't surprise me in the least that you don't find Christianity intellectually stimulating. It's a given that you have some atheistic bias, but you rightly point out that the theology is simply very superficial and not philosophically coherent if you probe it at a deeper level.

Watching theological mudslinging like this leaves me with such mixed feelings.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Railroader 

The Christian Bible is consistent from cover to cover. All components of it point to man's sinful rejection of God and then to a Graceful God who deserves praise and worship. From Adam to Revelation, all parts of the Bible point to Christ.

I think either claiming the Jewish Bible is internally consistent, or the Christian Bible is, or that it contains a consistent "point of view" is wishful thinking.

Huh? Who's doctrine? RCC, Pentecostal, Methodist, Baptist .... ? Name one part of the Greek New Testament that doesn't match "Christian doctrine".

If we're talking core doctrine, like the Apostle's Creed, not much. (But I love arguing about the "descended to the dead" part. The harrowing of hell makes Christians so uncomfortable!) But if we bash on into doctrinal discussions of free will or other diversions, we remove ourselves from the Bible realm. The authors never knew or cared about the stuff that the many denominations still argue over.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

It's a given that you have some atheistic bias, but you rightly point out that the theology is simply very superficial and not philosophically coherent if you probe it at a deeper level.

Is it a given that you have some Jewish bias that could possibly affect your view of Christianity?

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Then how do you know it's not hard to find?

Because the last three churches I've attended regularly have provided such an environment. I suppose it could just be that I'm extremely lucky and have just stumbled upon diamonds in the rough.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

So this wasn't a religious event, it was a seminar?

If you want to learn about Buddhism, read a good book about it. Here's two good ones, with Westerners in mind: What the Buddha Taught and What Makes You NOT a Buddhist.

Don't buy anything about the Dalai Lama, Tibet, Zen, Pure Land, or anything focused on Bodhisattvas. It's mostly trash.

Yeah. My best friend lived in Tibet for 5 years and is married to a Tibetan, so I've been exposed a fair bit to all things Tibetan and am familiar with the westernization of Buddhism.

I happen to know an owner of a Tibetan restaurant who has had both Richard Gere and Stephen Siegal visit. Gere seems mostly cool, but Siegal came in a limo with woman draped around him - very decidedly unbuddhist, although both claim to be Buddhists.

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I'm talking about internal coherence here, as in whether Christian theology is compatible with either the Hebrew Scriptures it claims to incorporate or even many parts of the Greek "New" Testament that don't match Christian doctrine.

What do you mean Big Mac? Christian theology has no base without the Hebrew scriptures or Greek NT, so if there is an incoherence, then it must have been brought about by something outside.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

Is it a given that you have some Jewish bias that could possibly affect your view of Christianity?

It is undeniably true that I do have some amount of Jewish bias that has an effect on my view of Christianity. However, my view of the subject is based primarily on textual analysis and study in comparative religion field. Back when I was in college I sought truth concerning religion primarily from the analytical perspective, and that's the way I approach the subject generally. (Although my Jewishness was never in question, back then I had not made the commitment that I have made in more recent times toward Torah observance.) What I articulate here is not based on simple pro-Judaic bias against Christianity.

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

What do you mean Big Mac? Christian theology has no base without the Hebrew scriptures or Greek NT, so if there is an incoherence, then it must have been brought about by something outside.

The view you hold is a conventional Christian one, at least among the segment of Christianity that has an affinity for Jews. And I'm fine with you holding that view if that's what's in your heart; it promotes positive relations between us as fellow children of the living G-d. But in truth the core of Christian theology is almost entirely alien to Judaism. To the extent that it appears otherwise, it is due to the Jewish setting in which Christianity is placed (i.e. 1st century Judea). I am not denying that there are many general similarities in belief that Jews and Christians can find common ground on, but I am saying that there are immense differences between the two religions and that core aspects of Christian scripture and theology violate core aspects of the Hebrew Scriptures and Jewish theology.

It would take a whole other thread to deal with this subject, but we've had discussions here dealing with some of those details before. To use a crude car analogy, one can say that both a Hummer and Ferrari are automobiles that can get you from point A to point B. But one cannot ignore that those two types of autos are very different despite both being within the broad categorization of automobiles. And one cannot successfully fit a Ferrari engine into a Hummer. Declaring that Christianity is a natural outgrowth and extension of Judaism or that it is fundamentally compatible with Judaism/the Hebrew Scriptures is even more nonsensical than declaring that a Ferrari engine can drive a Hummer or vice versa. They're both engines, but that doesn't make them compatible or interchangeable.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I frankly don't see you as the churchgoing type, besson. Aside from his stature as leader on the world stage, what was so great about the Dalai Lama discourses?

It really delved into some pretty heavy philosophical topics such as spiritual emptiness, he dissected the Heart Sutra which contains some pretty impenetrable (often frustratingly so) language... Dig this:

At that time as well, the noble Avalokiteshvara, the bodhisattva, the great being, clearly beheld the practice of the profound perfection of wisdom itself and saw that even the five aggregates are empty of intrinsic existence

"Five aggregates are empty of intrinsic existence"... Is this just verbal masturbation? What does this mean? Granted, I've been to churches where we deconstructed some unfamiliar language, but it was always based on a familiar theme about basically how God is awesome, forgiving, etc.

The DL also took some questions from the audience about reincarnation and past lives, about parenting. He spoke a little bit about Burma (didn't catch everything he said), about the difference in Buddhist interpretations and schools of belief, and there were several musical interludes including some throat singing. It was definitely completely off the beaten path for me.

There is so much more that the sermons I have heard could done to really challenge our thinking and awareness of the world.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

Because the last three churches I've attended regularly have provided such an environment. I suppose it could just be that I'm extremely lucky and have just stumbled upon diamonds in the rough.

Not to challenge you but simply to give me a taste of what you've had that I haven't, could you please describe what these sermons were like and what the overall environment was like?

[Shaddim]

I go to church to socialize with interesting people and share ideas, not really to worship. I reserve that type of thing for a more intimate setting.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Before anybody jumps all over my balls, I realize that not all Christian churches are as lame as I've described.

I've never found one that isn't. Unfortunately.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I'm not knocking Christianity itself here, but the fact that it seems so dumbed down.

Yer problem is that the Christian message is extremely easy to disseminate - it doesn't need anything other than "dumbed down". Get much beyond the dumbed down version and you're into sanhedrin territory, where fat old men act as keepers of arcane old laws - something which Christ was against. It's for the heart, not the head.

That said, you can go much deeper if you desire. However, a problem arises in that you need to approach it from the right direction - if you're approaching with the head, you'll end up banging that head against a wall. It's a bizarre quality inherent in the religion that the secrets only open to those who approach with the heart...

Originally Posted by Christ

Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven

...it's all about simplicity. Mankind tries to understand with his vain academia but the further you get from that inherent simplicity the less you'll understand.

Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools

Originally Posted by Grumet

While intelligent people can often simplify the complex, a fool is more likely to complicate the simple.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

one cannot successfully fit a Ferrari engine into a Hummer.

I bet you can.
Here's a Lamborghini "hummer": YouTube - Lamborghini LM002 accelerates full throttle

[Big Mac]

I hate myself a bit for weighing in in these types of threads because I don't like angering my friends. I don't mean it personally. My standard disclaimer: Christianity is obviously a tool of G-d used to spread a lot of divine truth to the non-Jewish world. It must be one of the valid paths to the L-rd for non-Jews.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

Interesting. As someone who's gone to many mega-churches, they seem a lot more open and less politically-driven then smaller churches.

Could be the character of the churches-and our definitions of "mega church." There are specific, extremely large churches in the Dallas area, in the Houston area, and here in San Antonio that cater to and encourage extremely right-wing politics, and actively use their (tax free) money to support extremely conservative political causes. Google "Cornerstone Church" and San Antonio...

My experience with very small churches has been the exact opposite. These very small churches have been all about the congregations, supporting and nurturing the people of the church while providing a friendly setting and welcoming atmosphere for the congregation. The only problems with such small churches are usually caused by interpersonal friction. While the "cultish" type of church does tend to be pretty small, I am not talking about such churches, only the kind that are fairly mainstream.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I hate myself a bit for weighing in in these types of threads because I don't like angering my friends. I don't mean it personally. My standard disclaimer: Christianity is obviously a tool of G-d used to spread a lot of divine truth to the non-Jewish world. It must be one of the valid paths to the L-rd for non-Jews.

lulz...... great way to get around that whole "messiah" thing I suppose

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

That said, you can go much deeper if you desire. However, a problem arises in that you need to approach it from the right direction - if you're approaching with the head, you'll end up banging that head against a wall. It's a bizarre quality inherent in the religion that the secrets only open to those who approach with the heart...

...it's all about simplicity. Mankind tries to understand with his vain academia but the further you get from that inherent simplicity the less you'll understand.

No, the further we try to reduce complex subjects to simplicity that cannot really be simplified to the extent in which we desire the further we get away from actual understanding.


Having completed three sessions of teachings with the Dalai Lama the differences between Christianity and Buddhism are so apparent to me. There are also a lot of similarities which people don't realize, and I'd argue that in many ways the Bible reflects Buddhist thinking in terms of pursuing knowledge, truth, and the path to enlightenment/fulfillment, but modern Christianity seems to have become so passive and does not stress this as much...

The DL stresses the pursuit of knowledge and being on a path, not "just pray and you will have all the knowledge you will need without having to think about anything". The way to my heart is through my head, trying to get me to adopt Christianity by just repeating over and over again much Jesus loves me doesn't work for me, and I don't think really offers anybody any real salvation, just the illusion of salvation. Spiritual enlightenment is something that we all have to work towards, faith comes as a result of this, not the reverse. Real spiritual understanding can take decades and decades of work, they don't come from this sort of "aha" moment where people are suddenly touched by God and from that point on enlightened beings.

Not only do I find much of modern Christianity passive and lazy in their thinking, particularly in thinking things along the lines of "just pray and you'll figure out what parts of the bible to take literally and what parts you should take at face value", but I also think that this sort of thinking can be a danger to the world. As many have pointed out, it may not manifest in violence like some have argued that Islamic belief does, but it manifests in intolerance and ignorance towards other cultures and religious beliefs. Ignorance breeds intolerance and these sorts of attitudes, and I don't think that by not encouraging the pursuit of knowledge the religion itself is really helping to prevent this.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Not to challenge you but simply to give me a taste of what you've had that I haven't, could you please describe what these sermons were like and what the overall environment was like?

What I've grown used to is the "preacher," "pastor," "teacher," etc. taking a section of scripture, reading it, discussing the context in which it was written, the historical setting of the events or writings, and perhaps some terms that may have been poorly translated into English or whose meaning English fails to capture. Then comes a discussion of why this story/passage is relevant, followed by some way to apply in real life what has been taught.

A typical service is a few songs, some announcements, scripture reading, message, and a song or two at the end. Communion once a month or so, and occasionally a potluck. The thing that's really been stressed in the past few churches I've gone to whether its been a congregation of 100 people or 3000 people is some type of "small group." Obviously in a church of 3000 it's easy to get lost in the crowd, so they put a lot of emphasis on getting connected in a small group of 6-10 people that meets weekly.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

What I've grown used to is the "preacher," "pastor," "teacher," etc. taking a section of scripture, reading it, discussing the context in which it was written, the historical setting of the events or writings, and perhaps some terms that may have been poorly translated into English or whose meaning English fails to capture. Then comes a discussion of why this story/passage is relevant, followed by some way to apply in real life what has been taught.

A typical service is a few songs, some announcements, scripture reading, message, and a song or two at the end. Communion once a month or so, and occasionally a potluck. The thing that's really been stressed in the past few churches I've gone to whether its been a congregation of 100 people or 3000 people is some type of "small group." Obviously in a church of 3000 it's easy to get lost in the crowd, so they put a lot of emphasis on getting connected in a small group of 6-10 people that meets weekly.

With all due respect, that doesn't sound much different than some of the sermons I've attended, except in mine the educational stuff was not a focal point at all.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

That said, you can go much deeper if you desire. However, a problem arises in that you need to approach it from the right direction - if you're approaching with the head, you'll end up banging that head against a wall. It's a bizarre quality inherent in the religion that the secrets only open to those who approach with the heart...

You're... you're talking about church, right? Not Catholic priests?

[dzp111]

Many years ago, I taught World Religions at a Catholic high school in Ottawa. I enjoyed teaching the kids the concepts, history, rites and beliefs of the 3 main religions. (If time permitted at the end of the semester, we'd take a glance at occults and other Eastern beliefs).

One year I decided to take the students out on a field trip. That day we visited a Mosque, a Temple and a Catholic Oratory.

The touring at both the Mosque and the Temple were very enticing and interesting while our guides delved on their religions' history and how their beliefs came about. Many things were explained to us such as why we needed to take our shoes off and so forth.

Our last tour was the Oratory. The first thing we saw entering the church was a slew of shelves with trinkets for sale. Then our guide proceeded with our tour. What did we learn there? The age and the type of tree used for the columns, walls, and same with the pews; where the marble came from for the altar, how many staff they had to keep the place in order; etc.

I was sorely disappointed having been a practicing Catholic at the time. And (almost surprisingly) so were the students.

I also worked as a music minister for a Catholic church for nearly 7 years, and the monotonous repetition really got to me. However, I did find that only 2 things really mattered during the mass: a good preacher and the music.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

lulz...... great way to get around that whole "messiah" thing I suppose

Not getting around anything. That's my view of Christianity. As for the messianic issue, I could cite a thousand different reasons why I as a Jew reject the Christian claims. Since you asked, If I were to categorize the reasons, most of them would fall into the following categories that I've come up with below:

1. Rejection of the trinity as an undeniable violation of the monotheism of the Hebrew Scriptures
2. Rejection of the idolatrous notion that G-d would ever incarnate, since that possibility is completely excluded by the Hebrew Scriptures
3. Reasons why the Christian personage of Jesus was not a valid messianic candidate (including the fact that not even Christianity can claim he was ever recognized as a king by the Sanhedrin or the people generally)
4. Messianic prophecies not fulfilled by the Christian personage of Jesus (including, notably, the messianic prophecies that declare the non-Jewish world will seek G-d's wisdom from Jews (see Zechariah 8) - Christian doctrine explicitly violates those prophecies by claiming Jews don't know G-d because of the rejection of the Christian deity)
5. Evidence from the "New Testament" that shows the open violation of Torah commandments by the Christian personage of Jesus and/or his followers (including the inability of Jesus to justify those transgressions)
6. Evidence from the "New Testament" that shows that the Christian personage of Jesus did not fulfill his own claims about himself (such as the claim that he would return soon to judge the world and usher in the kingdom of Heaven before some of his followers in the room with him at that time died)
7. Evidence from the "New Testament" that shows the Christian personage of Jesus possessed very limited supernatural powers even if the gospel claims about his powers are accepted at face value, and that he was certainly not omniscient or omnipotent
8. Passages in the "New Testament" showing "the son" to be inferior to the Father or showing the Father bestowing favor on "the son," or "the son" praying to the Father, all of which invalidate the trinitarian notion that this personage could also be the Father incarnate or equal to the Father in any respect
9. Errors in the "New Testament" as it relates to the Hebrew Scriptures that invalidate the message of the "New Testament" (such as Jesus getting facts from the Hebrew Scriptures wrong, or the gospels obviously misinterpreting certain passages from the Hebrew Scriptures and falsely applying them, or the gospels inventing supposed prophecies for Jesus to fulfill that are not found in the Hebrew Scriptures at all). There is no way to reconcile these blatant errors with the Christian affirmation that the "New Testament" had a supernatural origin or could possibly be inerrant.
10. Errors in the "New Testament" internally between its own books that invalidate the message of the "New Testament" (such as conflicting accounts in the gospels about what are supposed to be simple facts, like the way John often contradicts the synoptic gospels, or the way the genealogies in the gospels are incorrect and don't match)

Any one of those types of issues alone would be sufficient to invalidate Christianity as incoherent, unsound theology. Taken together, however, I think the point is abundantly clear to anyone who bothers to look at the evidence with even a modicum of objectivity. . .

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

With all due respect, that doesn't sound much different than some of the sermons I've attended, except in mine the educational stuff was not a focal point at all.

How is it not

an introduction to Christianity with some history, with being challenged by some of this stuff, with addressing the skepticism and arguments against Christianity head on without the emotional manipulation

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

1. Rejection of the trinity as an undeniable violation of the monotheism of the Hebrew Scriptures
2. Rejection of the idolatrous notion that G-d would ever incarnate, since that possibility is completely excluded by the Hebrew Scriptures
3. Reasons why the Christian personage of Jesus was not a valid messianic candidate (including the fact that not even Christianity can claim he was ever recognized as a king by the Sanhedrin or the people generally)
4. Messianic prophecies not fulfilled by the Christian personage of Jesus
5. Evidence from the "New Testament" that shows the open violation of Torah commandments by the Christian personage of Jesus and/or his followers (including the inability of Jesus to justify those transgressions)
6. Evidence from the "New Testament" that shows that the Christian personage of Jesus did not fulfill his own claims about himself (such as the claim that he would return soon to judge the world and usher in the kingdom of Heaven before some of his followers in the room with him at that time died)
7. Evidence from the "New Testament" that shows the Christian personage of Jesus possessed very limited supernatural powers even if the gospel claims about his powers are accepted at face value, and that he was certainly not omniscient or omnipotent
8. Passages in the "New Testament" showing "the son" to be inferior to the Father or showing the Father bestowing favor on "the son," which invalidate the trinitarian notion that this personage could also be the Father incarnate or equal to the Father in any respect
9. Errors in the "New Testament" as it relates to the Hebrew Scriptures that invalidate the message of the "New Testament" (such as Jesus getting facts from the Hebrew Scriptures wrong, or the gospels obviously misinterpreting certain passages from the Hebrew Scriptures and falsely applying them, or the gospels inventing supposed prophecies for Jesus to fulfill that are not found in the Hebrew Scriptures at all). There is no way to reconcile these blatant errors with the Christian affirmation that the "New Testament" had a supernatural origin or could possibly be inerrant.
10. Errors in the "New Testament" internally between its own books that invalidate the message of the "New Testament" (such as conflicting accounts in the gospels about what are supposed to be simple facts, like the way John often contradicts the synoptic gospels)

..so saith the sanhedrin.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

It really delved into some pretty heavy philosophical topics such as spiritual emptiness, he dissected the Heart Sutra which contains some pretty impenetrable (often frustratingly so) language... Dig this:

"Five aggregates are empty of intrinsic existence"... Is this just verbal masturbation? What does this mean? Granted, I've been to churches where we deconstructed some unfamiliar language, but it was always based on a familiar theme about basically how God is awesome, forgiving, etc.

Five aggregates that are empty of intrinsic existence. Interesting. I'd have to see more than just that small excerpt to analyze it in any real way. What was the context that that statement was made in? What was he discussing specifically?

There is so much more that the sermons I have heard could done to really challenge our thinking and awareness of the world.

It sounds like what you find stimulating is the more esoteric aspect of religions, and there really isn't all that much that mainstream Christianity has to offer in that regard. I'd say the closest you could find in the realm of Christianity that would offer some of that would be some of the gnostic texts (which aren't accepted by mainstream Christianity anyway). Of the canonical books of the Christian bible (by which I mean the "New Testament"), you can find some esoteric material (quite nonsensical in my view) in the (poorly named) Book of Hebrews.

If you're interested in densely esoteric material, I can tell you that Kabbalah (popularly known as the mystical branch of Judaism) has a lot of it. Speaking of empty intrinsic existence, similar language plays a major role the Kabbalistic explanation of creation. It is explained that at the absolute outset of creation of the universes that we know of, G-d was completely solitary and filled all space with His endless light (known as Or Ein Sof, literally Light Without End). In order to create something new and finite, He had to conceal that light, or else it would overwhelm the finite universes (often called higher and lower worlds, but world is a confusing term to use in this context) that He desired to create. That concealment is called Tzimzum. When the endless light was concealed from that other area, what was briefly left in there was devoid of all existence. Then a certain form of limited divine light came into that space and created the higher and lower universes. Our physical universe is the lowest of the four created, called Assiyah (Action). This is the lowest universe because, among other reasons, good and evil are the most intermingled here and the divine light is concealed the most here. It is taught that if one could do the impossible and travel physically to the end of the known universe and cross over its boundary physically, one would then be in the next level universe. But what is impossible to do physically is infinitely easier to do spiritually. Our prayers have the potential to reach the highest universes immediately after they're uttered.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

No, the further we try to reduce complex subjects to simplicity that cannot really be simplified to the extent in which we desire the further we get away from actual understanding.

Having completed three sessions of teachings with the Dalai Lama the differences between Christianity and Buddhism are so apparent to me. There are also a lot of similarities which people don't realize, and I'd argue that in many ways the Bible reflects Buddhist thinking in terms of pursuing knowledge, truth, and the path to enlightenment/fulfillment, but modern Christianity seems to have become so passive and does not stress this as much...

The DL stresses the pursuit of knowledge and being on a path, not "just pray and you will have all the knowledge you will need without having to think about anything". The way to my heart is through my head, trying to get me to adopt Christianity by just repeating over and over again much Jesus loves me doesn't work for me, and I don't think really offers anybody any real salvation, just the illusion of salvation. Spiritual enlightenment is something that we all have to work towards, faith comes as a result of this, not the reverse. Real spiritual understanding can take decades and decades of work, they don't come from this sort of "aha" moment where people are suddenly touched by God and from that point on enlightened beings.

Not only do I find much of modern Christianity passive and lazy in their thinking, particularly in thinking things along the lines of "just pray and you'll figure out what parts of the bible to take literally and what parts you should take at face value", but I also think that this sort of thinking can be a danger to the world. As many have pointed out, it may not manifest in violence like some have argued that Islamic belief does, but it manifests in intolerance and ignorance towards other cultures and religious beliefs. Ignorance breeds intolerance and these sorts of attitudes, and I don't think that by not encouraging the pursuit of knowledge the religion itself is really helping to prevent this.

And that's you aiming with your head, not heart, Bess.

A monk told Joshu, "I have just entered the monastery. Please teach me."
Joshu asked, "Have you eaten your rice porridge?
The monk replied, "I have eaten."
Joshu said, "Then you had better wash your bowl."

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

..so saith the sanhedrin.

So saith me. That's my list. It's based on scholarship that i can't claim credit for, influenced by Jewish thought but not exclusively the domain of Jewish thinkers. There's a very good youtube series posted by an agnostic or atheist that explores many of those lines of critique. So you don't have to be a Jewish authority, theologian or even a Jew at all to come up with those kinds of objections.

So Doofy, is your perspective on religion that it should be mostly or entirely based on emotion of the heart and that very little about it has to do with one's intellect and ability to reason? If so then I guess that's one subject we're on polar ends of the spectrum on.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

So saith me. That's my list. It's based on scholarship that i can't claim credit for, influenced by Jewish thought but not exclusively the domain of Jewish thinkers. There's a very good youtube series posted by an agnostic or atheist that explores many of those lines of critique. So you don't have to be a Jewish authority, theologian or even a Jew at all to come up with those kinds of objections.

But most of them are based on misunderstanding.
I can't actually be bothered to explain because it's a seriously complicated subject and hey, nobody's paying me. Suffice it to say that those misconceptions are present in both mainstream Christianity and non-Christian thought.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

So Doofy, is your perspective on religion that it should be mostly or entirely based on emotion of the heart and that very little about it has to do with one's intellect and ability to reason? If so then I guess that's one subject we're on polar ends of the spectrum on.

Which tree were Adam and Eve not to eat the fruit of, again?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Five aggregates that are empty of intrinsic existence. Interesting. I'd have to see more than just that small excerpt to analyze it in any real way. What was the context that that statement was made in? What was he discussing specifically?

It is a quote from the Heart Sutra

I'll respond to the rest of this later...

[Doofy]

.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

it is a quote from the heart sutra

briefly, the sutra describes the experience of liberation of the bodhisattva of compassion, avalokiteśvara, as a result of insight gained while engaged in deep meditation to awaken the faculty of prajña (wisdom).

Originally Posted by besson3c 

the dl stresses the pursuit of knowledge and being on a path, not "just pray and you will have all the knowledge you will need without having to think about anything".

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

But most of them are based on misunderstanding.

So saith Doofy.

I can't actually be bothered to explain because it's a seriously complicated subject and hey, nobody's paying me. Suffice it to say that those misconceptions are present in both mainstream Christianity and non-Christian thought.

Well, then perhaps at some point here, in another thread or in a PM you can post a rebuttal to one of those categories. I have a lot of respect for your intellect, so it would be an interesting thing to see. Of course, you say it's a complicated subject, which implies it's an intellectual pursuit, and that seems like it would go against your admonition about intellectualizing faith. I'm confident, however, that you would find the misunderstandings are not on my side of the debate.

Which tree were Adam and Eve not to eat the fruit of, again?

They were told not to eat of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil because they weren't prepared for that knowledge at the time. But since they did, here we are in a world of good and evil, right and wrong; we're endowed with an intellect and understanding to be able to understand complex subjects and make choices. In fact, the Torah commands me to use my intellect and understanding to choose it over any other alternative and to use it to discern truth versus falsehood, righteousness versus sinfulness, integrity versus corruption. I have to use my intellect to serve G-d.

The Torah even teaches me that if a dreamer or a prophet performs a miracle and then tells me to worship a different deity than the one my ancestors worship, I should reject that prophet. G-d promises, indeed, that He will send such false prophets endowed with miraculous powers in order to test the people to find out whether they truly love Him or if they will fall to the corruption of idolatry.

That's why, if a figure descended from the clouds tomorrow, performed great miracles, called himself the Second Coming and told the world to worship him, we observant Jews would reject that person even in spite of miracles or any other claims. Christians are captivated by miracles. Jews know that prophets and other holy men can perform them, and we know that smaller scale open miracles weren't all that unique in the ancient world. Jews would never worship the performer of a miracle because we know that the power to perform miracles is not from the miracle worker but from G-d (who again may endow a false prophet with powers), and we know never to worship any form that we can perceive with our eyes.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Well, then perhaps at some point here, in another thread or in a PM you can post a rebuttal to one of those categories.

When I have a little more time, I'll do that.
(Right now I'm in emergency mode trying to dump a few houses before the new capital gains tax kicks in, so have little time to go into anything at length).

In the meantime, compare your item 6 with Genesis 2:17.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Jews know that prophets and other holy men can perform them, and we know that smaller scale open miracles weren't all that unique in the ancient world.

What about in today's world? Are miracles still considered to be performed? And if not, is there particular point in time where that ability was lost?

greg

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Watching theological mudslinging like this leaves me with such mixed feelings.

It never goes well and rarely employs introspect. Ignorance and irony become the defining traits of such discussions.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

.

Yeah, except that sort of deep meditation takes years and years to master. The translator today said he's been working on understanding the concepts of emptiness for 30 years.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

And that's you aiming with your head, not heart, Bess.

I agree with Big Mac on this, perish the thought. Spiritual enlightenment is not easy. It requires using your head. You can't just pray for understanding, you have to work for it.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

It sounds like what you find stimulating is the more esoteric aspect of religions, and there really isn't all that much that mainstream Christianity has to offer in that regard. I'd say the closest you could find in the realm of Christianity that would offer some of that would be some of the gnostic texts (which aren't accepted by mainstream Christianity anyway). Of the canonical books of the Christian bible (by which I mean the "New Testament"), you can find some esoteric material (quite nonsensical in my view) in the (poorly named) Book of Hebrews.

If you're interested in densely esoteric material, I can tell you that Kabbalah (popularly known as the mystical branch of Judaism) has a lot of it. Speaking of empty intrinsic existence, similar language plays a major role the Kabbalistic explanation of creation. It is explained that at the absolute outset of creation of the universes that we know of, G-d was completely solitary and filled all space with His endless light (known as Or Ein Sof, literally Light Without End). In order to create something new and finite, He had to conceal that light, or else it would overwhelm the finite universes (often called higher and lower worlds, but world is a confusing term to use in this context) that He desired to create. That concealment is called Tzimzum. When the endless light was concealed from that other area, what was briefly left in there was devoid of all existence. Then a certain form of limited divine light came into that space and created the higher and lower universes. Our physical universe is the lowest of the four created, called Assiyah (Action). This is the lowest universe because, among other reasons, good and evil are the most intermingled here and the divine light is concealed the most here. It is taught that if one could do the impossible and travel physically to the end of the known universe and cross over its boundary physically, one would then be in the next level universe. But what is impossible to do physically is infinitely easier to do spiritually. Our prayers have the potential to reach the highest universes immediately after they're uttered.

It's not that I'm really after adopting a religion. The mysticism of these sorts of religions frankly often comes across as nonsense to me. However, I'm agnostic and am open to the possibility of a higher power or an "ultimate reality", but it is best to start with the knowledge before the mysticism, as it is really hard for my mind to really be interested in pursuing something that is surrounded by such nonsense (no offense Christians) involving animals on a giant boat, talking snakes, etc.

The response to this sort of thing is always how these sorts of things are not to be taken literally. Really? Why? What is the intellectual basis of such a claim? The basis in my personal experience always seems to be sort of instructional material like, like if you pray really hard a certain way and take this literally, don't take that literally, etc. magic presto, out comes a God that will give you a sign and you'll become a devout follower for the rest of your life. The metaphors in the Bible to me seem intertwined with philosophy and history, but it seems rare in Christianity that every day Christians really delve into this sort of thing, at least based on the church services I've added and the conversations I've had. To me this is extremely lazy, I'm uninterested in this.

In answering Laminar's question about what is missing from the service he described, there is a whole element of philosophy, for starters. What is reality? Is what we know and see and experience actually reality at face value, or is there something more? How do we separate what we feel to be truth with things that we cling to or attachments that we have (this sort of thing sort of touches upon the essence of emptiness in Buddhism which is very very heavy stuff and very very difficult to understand)? What is our purpose here? What is the relationship between the mind and the soul? What happens during deep meditation?

There are so many questions to ask, so much to think and explore, and so much that really should be understood if you are really interested in spiritual enlightenment. I just don't buy the idea that people have these light bulb moments and suddenly they have some insight into the spiritual universe that others lack. For many people, what they feel to be spiritual enlightenment is fine with them, it works for them, all the power to them. However, there is no point in clinging to something that your mind cannot fully accept, and frankly, without trying to sound condescending, I don't understand how any Christian or human being in general can really be 100% confident with their belief system.

We will never be 100% confident, these sorts of questions and answers are a life long journey, and to me, these are questions and answers that would be worth exploring to me if I were to commit myself to religion or religious study. The notion that Jesus loves me just doesn't do much for me in and of itself. It is incomplete.