I see a lot of Christian haters on this forum.

Post Reply New Topic

You posted over 6000 words. Please change your name to Bamboozle.

Your post contained 652 lines, 6208 words, and 34154 characters, and that's after I removed the quote you did of what I wrote.

So far, the examples you've given haven't held up well. Is there a reason I should suspect that a longer list would have better quality?


How many times have I already mentioned that what you're giving me are almost all equivalent to typos? I think most people would agree that something like a typo is not a lie.


No reason whatsoever, unless you want to try to debunk it.

Now THAT is an unsupportable opinion. How can you possibly KNOW that Hindus and Buddhists are "fundamentally wrong" about this issue?

And you are right, you need to understand a religion before you try to argue against it. From what I've studied of Buddha and Jesus, they taught the same message but expressed for different cultures.

Btw, not all Buddhists think reincarnation means after you die you come back in another body. To some, it is more like what T.S. Eliot was talking about in Four Quartets, how if you think you are the same person now as you were five minutes ago, you are being reincarnated. This is similar to what Heraclitus said about it being impossible to step into the same river twice.

Last edited by TheBicyclingGuitarist on 01 Aug 2011, 11:16 am, edited 1 time in total.

I'm sorry, but you'll have to address Alex for that matter, unfortunately it isn't in my capacity. I hear he's been around lately.

In any way, my deepest apologies for all the extra characters I posted - I must have been possessed when I omitted to foretell it might offend some gentle souls.

^ This.

It falls right alongside the fact that many Christians consider any act, no matter how heinous, to be "Good" if done in the Name of their God, while anything said or done to shed light on the hypocrisy of Christian "Values" to be pure evil.

I got another Sunday School class cancelled this last week due to "lack of Attendance" ... it seems that some Christians are getting discouraged when their teachers can not handle the tough questions ... like the ones that I ask ...

Jesus and Buddha taught totally different things. The focus of Buddhism is on the individual. It centers on the self. Now, yes, there are some wonderful teachings about how people should relate to each other, but it doesn't sufficiently address the divine aspects of existence. It makes no sense to seve yourself or other people if there really isn't anything to live for. You get through all of that to do, what? The same thing all over again? And MAYBE if you get it right you cease to exist as a distinct personality and unite with the divine. Forgive me for saying so, as wonderful as Buddhists are and as wise as Buddha clearly was, I just don't buy it.

And I stand by reincarnation being wrong. To escape the circle of life, one must be enlightened. What exactly does that really mean? It boils down to somehow being perfected in thought and action. No problem there. If reincarnation is a sufficient vehicle for transforming the person in thought and action, transcending this reality, achieving a higher level of consciousness, there should be no problem here. However, one must recognize the fundamental flaw one is born with, that no human is perfect. Nor is anything in all the world, for that matter. So the soul must be born from one state of imperfection to another state of imperfection, perpetuating a cycle that is inescapable.

Yes, I'm aware that there is more to it than that, but I don't have all day and I'm keeping it simple.

Christianity is COMPLETELY different. If there are any similarities at all, it is that Jesus taught the same principles of people being nice and doing good for others that Buddha. All wisdom comes from God, so there is no doubt that the wise sayings of Buddha and Jesus have a lot in common. But Buddha taught an endless cycle. Jesus taught that the soul either reunites with God or is eternally separated from God. Buddha centered on the individual self and personal desire to, well, become divine. Jesus said centering on self is pointless and empty, that focussing on God is to be a person's motivating desire. Doing good things and thinking good thoughts arises from the desire to do what God wants. Human beings are unable to reach up to God, but God is powerful enough to find a way to reach down to us. When ritual and sacrifice are found lacking to atone for the sins of all of humanity, God gave Himself. All one must do is believe the blood of Christ is enough and accept God's forgiveness. You should WANT to be as good a person as you can in order to emulate Jesus' example and continue to bring light to the world, but you don't have to fear that your failings will condemn you to either an eternity of simply repeating the same mistakes or never making it to God's throne because you weren't "good enough".

Now, are there some things we agree on? Sure. Christians ought to live peacefully with each other and others. I highly respect the importance that Hinduism and Buddhism place on the values of love for all humanity and universal peace. Love and peace are among the most important things we share. I think a lot of Christians miss that, but I also don't think many of those Christians are really encouraged to grow in their faith and try to understand what it is God expects from us. Many of us are quick to condemn because of this need in our lives for spiritual maturity. I do recognize that. But the core of Christianity, while we OUGHT to always seek a peaceful existence for all of humanity, this function is only secondary to the relationship of believers with God. Without this one thing, Buddhism is nothing like Christianity.

I don't mind Christians, or anyone for that matter (atheist, muslim, Buddhist), as long as they show basic respect toward me and other people. I have complicated views on the Bible. I think a lot of its garbage , but there's some good advice in there too.

I'm of the mind that people filter out information through their personality, and that if someone is egotistical and judgmental, they'll only focus on verses about hell fire and damnation. If they're cordial. and they were raised right, they'll focus on the more positive things the Bible has to say, like "Love others as you love yourself". "God is Love", etc etc.

If an atheist has a positive attitude, , they'll focus more on humanism and that sort of thing. If they're a jerk, they might have some abrasive, social darwinist outlook.

The Bible shouldn't really be looked at as one book but more as a collection of writings from different scribes, authors, and translators.

I don't really care what people believe. I just think we should all be aware that belief systems are our operating systems and that manipulative people can use them to get an upper hand over us. You see it all the time with politicians, how they use political buzzwords and phrases to stir peoples emotions.

OK, I never got an answer on this one. Interesting.

However...

I did finish reading the minor prophets, including one Zechariah, and I did go through Matthew very carefully. So I DID find the passages in question. It's actually quite interesting.



Now for comparison here's the relevant verse from Jeremiah:

Zechariah:

So Matthew is correct in saying that what was said in Jeremiah was fulfilled--land was purchased for a certain amount of money. 17 shekels of silver can refer to actual coinage, and if so there's a difference of opinion between Jeremiah and Zechariah. But shekel originally referred to weight, not a monetary unit. So 17 shekels could either literally mean 17 coins of a certain weight, or it might refer to any number of silver coins of the same combined weight. Zechariah merely says "30 pieces" and doesn't specify weight. And neither do the gospels when they refer to Judas' price. Even if there really is disagreement on particulars, both prophecies are fulfilled in that land was purchased with silver.

More importantly, Matthew tended to organize the events he recorded thematically, rather than a strict chronology with the exception of the passion account. Both Jeremiah and Zechariah were part of a tradition dealing with the apostasy of Israel and it's rebellion against God's leadership. The themes of Jeremiah and Zechariah come to fulfillment in the Jewish leadership's rejection of Jesus as the Messiah, specifically the blood price and the purchase of the potter's field. You'll notice that Matthew's references of Jesus' acts of fulfillment and the prophecies themselves that are referenced are not 1:1 fulfillments, but are rather fulfillments in a broader sense not usually understood until after the fact. The central idea in prophecy fulfillment is that the Messiah is the Son of God, stands in the place of Israel, and succeeds (fulfilling the prophecies) where Israel failed. Matthew cited Jeremiah here because the kinds of things Jeremiah dealt with were more relevant. There are allusions to Jeremiah 19:1-13. I won't quote the whole thing, but here are a couple of highlights: Vs. 4: "...because they have abandoned Me and made this a foreign place... They have filled this place with the blood of the innocent." Matthew 27:3-4 has "Then Judas, His betrayer, seeing that He had been condemned, was full of remorse and returned the 30 pieces of silver to the chief priests and elder. 'I have sinned by betraying innocent blood,' he said." The chief priests bought a piece of land to be used as a burial plot for foreigners. So even though Zechariah's wording is closer, the reference to Jeremiah actually works better. It just means that Matthew didn't "invent" a sequence of events to somehow show prophecy fulfillment. And it shows Matthew knew what he was talking about. The Zechariah quote is really just incidental in referring to the 30 pieces of silver specifically.

An atheist such as I was has no more reason to read the Bible than I had:

1. Useful source for history and anthroplogy of cetasin times and places - if that turns you on.
2. Nice samples of premodern literature in various genres - if you are so inclined.
3. VERY convenient key into languages new to you - if that is a plus for you.
4. Explanations for many contemporary customs and turns of phrase - if tht matters.

However, an atheist who is an antitheist who proposes to argue with Christians at a level beyond "I see no evidence for the existence of a divine entity" [which is really all the argument the atheist needs] would do well to become aware of what the anthology REALLY says and how various groups styling themselves Christian ACTUALLY use it.

Who hates christians?

The fundamentalist christians that I despise have character flaws that go beyond their christianity. They are usually mentally stunted and accustomed to telling themselves (and others) comforting lies about many things. Their extreme christianity is just a symptom of their larger issues and I tend to despise them as people, not just christians.

Mainstream christians are to be pitied. They can't escape their cultural programming. I don't care what they do and I certainly don't hate them.

We may not be so much haters of Christianity as we are no longer intimidated to speak out against religion in general. It used to be (back in the 60s-70s) that if you did not believe as the mainstream Christians do, you just kept quiet about it for fear of being branded with all manner of negative labels by association...

"Atheist, eh? You filthy commie-loving, baby-raping, drug-crazed mental case! Get on outta here!"

Nowadays, Christians are the ones viewed as repressive, judgmental, ignorant hypocrites, and if they happen to speak out against anything "immoral", then the best that they can hope for is to be openly laughed at by the very same non-believers that used to be "in the closet" about their own beliefs!

And that's what I think it has come down to: non-believers no longer feel the need to conceal their non-belief. They've foung that they can speak boldly against God, The Church, and Christians in general.

We've come a long way since the Spanish Inquisition and the Scopes Monkey Trial.

Christianity, especially the Pauline version is an absurd religion. Faith is bupkis. Only deeds count.

ruveyn

Faith may be all that some people have left, but it still proves nothing.

People are still discriminated for not following certain church cultures in their home town. I think it depends on where you live. You could get bullied at work or school, because someone will want to lie about you, and tell their friends that you want to hinder their religion, even if you don't. If it's big enough, who knows if the local media will join in to ruin your life?

Personally I think there are two things that can be applied to the reasons a lot of people have contempt for not only Christianity but all religions in gneral:

1. Christians, along with every other organized religion, have had a long history of persecuting groups of people who never really did anything to deserve being victimized. People like the Pagans, Muslims, Jews, Native Americans, and African Natives. They have simply done some really cruel and unforgiveable things to these people and I think in the minds of a lot of people they feel that they could easily do it again if they became as influental with our governments as they used to be.

2. Many Christians seem to have a hard time accepting the things that are considered to be fact these days because they contradict with their old teachings. For example I know of many Christians who refuse to accept the fact that dinosaurs existed because they were supposedly never mentioned in the Bible, despite the fact that their bones have been dug up and displayed in museums for all to see. There is also everybody's favorite controversial issue: homosexuality. The Christian teachings make it very clear that they think the act of sleeping with somebody of the same gender is an evil perverted sin and could be punishable by God sending a lightening bolt down to destroy your entire city, but many people today have started to think that maybe homosexuality isn't as evil as they used to believe it was. One of the reasons being that some homosexual couples really do seem to love each other just like hetrosexual couples do, and nothing about true love seems to be all that evil to a lot of people.

I'm not saying all Christians are bad or even that the religion itself is any better or worse than all the other religions in the world. I'm just saying that when it comes to the people who show contempt for the religion, those seem to be the two main legitimate reasons for it.