One Way: the reason why Christian ecumenicalism is impossible

Personally, I think trying to control a thread is a rather futile endeavor. Why not let the conversations flow?



While Buddhists flow,

Christians control.

Or is that unfair?
Oh, I don't know. Who is trying to change Christian minds, to their particular way of thinking?

Buddha isn't even a verified person, but rather a conglomerant of wise folk.

And you don't see me jumping on the Buddhist forum, trying to tell you that you are wrong...

But you are quite busy on the Christian forum insisting that we are in error (implied or outright).

What I take most comfort in, is that I have something to look forward to after this life...how about you?
 
But you are quite busy on the Christian forum insisting that we are in error (implied or outright).

Really?

I thought I was being polite, inquisitive and conversational.

In fact, I'd be the perfect date for the gentleman wishing for a fun night on the town.
 
Really?

I thought I was being polite, inquisitive and conversational.

In fact, I'd be the perfect date for the gentleman wishing for a fun night on the town.
Fine (lol), then you won't mind if Christians state that your faith is lacking and you are lost (it's only a conversation point to you), but to us, it is a serious issue, and we are concerned for your future.

And this point means we don't accept your null point on Christ as God.

So, you should consider such as a caution call to you. Because Christians do not accept your point of view, in any way, shape or form.
 
That's a clever comeback. Hardly accurate, though, imho.

I see Buddhism as a simplified version of Hinduism. It seems to have been intended to clarify the most fundamental problems of the human condition and to provide basic guidelines for dealing with the issues. It may actually be the most practical religion of all.
Do you see Buddhism's relationship to Hinduism as being analogous to the Protestants' relationship to Catholicism?
 
I think he's speaking as a moderator, Tao, trying to get the original question answered from a specific Christian viewpoint, as was originally invited.

Am tempted to move this to a different board, though, as it has naturally evolved to wider questions of religion.
 
Am tempted to move this to a different board, though, as it has naturally evolved to wider questions of religion.

Please take another look at the OP started by holysmoke. This thread is precisely on-topic...

opening sentence...

"In our times traditional Christianity has lost its former intolerance of other paths to God which many non-Christians think is a good thing given the historical record of traditional Christians in action."

last paragraph...

"This said, I ask for tolerance to be able to be Christian and intellectually opposed to other religious paths that do not in Christian belief lead believers to God. I want to be able to post why One Way means what it means to Christian believers who follow the teachings of Jesus Christ."

I think he's speaking as a moderator, Tao, trying to get the original question answered from a specific Christian viewpoint, as was originally invited.

What's up with that, "from a specific Christian viewpoint"? There's been a disturbing trend around these threads to silence those of different faiths. Yes, this thread is in the Christian section, but this section should indicate a category for topic, not the requirement for participation.

This forum is Interfaith Online. Have you forgotten the spirit of interfaith?

"The terms interfaith or interfaith dialogue refer to cooperative and positive interaction between people of different religious traditions (ie. "faiths") and spiritual or humanistic beliefs..." ~wikipedia

So please reconsider moving the thread. And please look a little more clearly into your moderating techniques. They appear here to be misguided and arbitrary.
 
The suggestion was merely to keep the peace and ensure nobody felt their toes were being stepped on - that was the only moderating concern I had. :)
 
Well, I'm a mod too, but whether or not I'm a Christian seems to depend on who you ask. I'm not that concerned with convincing anyone, so take that as you will.

Netti, I am unsure of how/where/if I should answer your questions directed to me, because they are bridging Christianity and Buddhism. Perhaps we can move it to the Buddhist forum since many of the Christians seem to think Buddhism is irrelevant for Christianity? I disagree, but then maybe I'm not a Christian. I'm not a Buddhist either, but they don't seem to care as much about religious orientation as Christians, so maybe that is a better place. You let me know and if you want, I'll move that part of the thread to Buddhism or Comparative or somesuch and then we can chat about it, maybe with more Buddhist input.

As for the modding of the board, this thread is schizophrenic and went in all directions at once, but the OP invited it in some ways (IMO) because while it was posted in Christianity, it is about interfaith potential.

Anyhoo, I'm going to refrain from further posting as I am thoroughly confused at this point as to what would be on topic vs off topic and what would be a "Christian" perspective, as I attend Christian church and believe in Christ and so forth, but I still find Buddhism valuable and agree with much of the Buddhist worldview.

Leave it to me to be neither and both, and hence be, apparently, non-Christian though I follow Christ.:eek:
 
Do you see Buddhism's relationship to Hinduism as being analogous to the Protestants' relationship to Catholicism?
There were - and still are - many points of contention that factored into the dispute between Protestants & Catholics. But the accounts I've seen center on theological authority.

The Catholic Church has specifically portrayed its authority as being on a par with Revelation. The Church has actually said that the Gospel is not enough. The pope's infallibility and the notion of the Church as extending apostolic succession are closely related authority issues.

Protestants maintain Sola Scriptura, the view that Scripture is the only basis for doctrine and that man-made doctrine is in effect an attempt to meddle with revelation. Which is how I see it.

I think Buddhism took some elements of Hinduism, but tried to improve on it in order to develop a more practical system:

1) Isolating the essential religious aspect from the tribal blood sacrifices (barbaric tribes got incorporated into Vedic communities over time)

2) Exposing elaborate and bizarre ritualized worship as unnecessary and irrational

3) Shifting the goal of practice to self-reliance and away from attempts to manipulate some divine principle

4) Rejecting Brahmanic teachings and asserting famous teachings like don't depend on ill-informed RW propagandists for truth (see the Kalama Sutta).

5) Turning to personal experience for authority rather than the priestly authority and speculative philosophy

6) Developing ethical guidelines that follow from an understanding of the human condition and psychology.

So, in answer to your question: I'd say they're not analogous.
 
N-N, I got a kick out of #4.:D Path, as to your last post about your sort of betwixt position, I think that 1 of the reasons for the development of so-called New Age notions was essentially just that phenomenon: so many folks see value in multiple religio-spiritual viewpoints. I think there is such a thing as a "valid" "New Age" practice and I think that it gets a bad and unearned rap when painted with a broad brush. earl
 
I guess I'll have to wait to find out why holysmoke held the Dalai Lama in such low regard.

All that moderation seems to have killed the thread. Or was that perhaps the whole point of it?
 
N-N, I got a kick out of #4.:D Path, as to your last post about your sort of betwixt position, I think that 1 of the reasons for the development of so-called New Age notions was essentially just that phenomenon: so many folks see value in multiple religio-spiritual viewpoints. I think there is such a thing as a "valid" "New Age" practice and I think that it gets a bad and unearned rap when painted with a broad brush. earl

rational choice theory?

The Rational Choice Theory of Religion: Shopping for Faith or Dropping Your Faith
 
Had not encountered that theory before-have to admit that economic metaphors tend to turn me off.:p Noticed in the passing mention of "New Age" and the researchers addressing it in the piece that one refers to it as "pick and mix" and another as a personalized and non-institutional approach. The former description seemed to be a bit pejorative but the latter seems apt. It seems that many folk these days do not for various reasons buy whole-sale and unquestioningly into the complete dogmatic religious views of established religious institutions and do tend to sift through them, deciding what makes sense to them, (for me certain core "New Age" notions make sense on both a gut/intuitive level and because a variety of non-religious experiential sources seem to suggest their truth such as near death accounts, credible work such as the past life clinical work of psychiatrist Brian Weiss, parapsychological research in post-death communications, not to mention the voluminous research into altered states of consciousness), and, of course, for a variety of reasons, are not interested in commitment to a particular religious insititution. For me, the science of non-ordinary experiences and New Age belief systems seem a better match than such science and most institutional religious dogma. earl
 
Back
Top