Cafeteria Christians? Cafeteria Buddhists?
- Thread starter Nick the Pilot
- Start date
Francis king
Well-Known Member
what buddha might or might not have said, what jesus might or might not have said, what mohammed might or might not have said... what resonates for us is surely, subjective, much as it was for these prophets... interesting thread though.. I'm happy to see there's plenty of ppl like me who like to be able to go back to the salad bar for second and third helpings...
Can I repeat Nick's original post?
The term Cafeteria Christian refers to someone who picks and chooses what they believe, and leaves the rest behind. How does everyone feel about people who set up their belief system this way?
I am simply affirming my first response.
At some point one has to stop 'picking and choosing' and commit to something. The bits we 'leave behind' are the bits that test us – that demand something of us. We choose what we like, not what we need, and we look for more of the same ... and if we can't find it here, we'll look elsewhere ... to find more material to set up our own belief system ... so we tailor the word of God to suit ourselves ... we pick this, discard that ... and we make a god in our own self-image ...
On the Christian board someone is questioning man's need to look for signs and wonders, but that is what we do ... and the danger is we spend all our lives seeking out signs and wonders, and never that which gives rise to them ... that is the story of the centurion who's faith was more than all of Israel's:
Matthew 8:8-10
"The centurion answered and said, Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under my roof: but speak the word only, and my servant shall be healed..."
That man never ate at any cafeteria ... he did not need to seek knowledge, signs, or wonders, he just knew the way of it.
"... For I am a man under authority, having soldiers under me: and I say to this [man], Go, and he goeth; and to another, Come, and he cometh; and to my servant, Do this, and he doeth [it]. When Jesus heard [it], he marvelled, and said to them that followed, Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel."
We have to accept the yoke ... it's the last thing we learn ...
Matthew 8:13
"And Jesus said unto the centurion, Go thy way; and as thou hast believed, [so] be it done unto thee. And his servant was healed in the selfsame hour."
One can spend one's whole life learning about something, but not doing it ... I knew a sailor once, who was painstakingly restoring a fishing smack. "When will it be ready for sea?" I asked the Yard Master. "About three years ago," he replied.
Think of everything we know today ... think of everything we've read ... the first Christians, the first Buddhists, until perhaps this generation ... had not a fraction of the knowledge we have access to today ... and what does it really profit us?
The mystery of the centurion is that he was a good soldier and knew it.
There is a Japanese story about the man who went to see a master swordsman for instruction. They crossed swords, then the master lowered his, "what is this? Who are you? I see you are a master of the art! Why do you bother me?" The man was bewildered, "I have been promoted to the Shogun's Bodyguard (O-ban) but I have no skill. My life is useless, but if I am to give it up in his service, then I want it to be of some service to him."
"Then you have learnt the most important lesson," the Master replied. "You have no need of any other."
The will of heaven decides the rest.
Thomas
The term Cafeteria Christian refers to someone who picks and chooses what they believe, and leaves the rest behind. How does everyone feel about people who set up their belief system this way?
I am simply affirming my first response.
At some point one has to stop 'picking and choosing' and commit to something. The bits we 'leave behind' are the bits that test us – that demand something of us. We choose what we like, not what we need, and we look for more of the same ... and if we can't find it here, we'll look elsewhere ... to find more material to set up our own belief system ... so we tailor the word of God to suit ourselves ... we pick this, discard that ... and we make a god in our own self-image ...
On the Christian board someone is questioning man's need to look for signs and wonders, but that is what we do ... and the danger is we spend all our lives seeking out signs and wonders, and never that which gives rise to them ... that is the story of the centurion who's faith was more than all of Israel's:
Matthew 8:8-10
"The centurion answered and said, Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under my roof: but speak the word only, and my servant shall be healed..."
That man never ate at any cafeteria ... he did not need to seek knowledge, signs, or wonders, he just knew the way of it.
"... For I am a man under authority, having soldiers under me: and I say to this [man], Go, and he goeth; and to another, Come, and he cometh; and to my servant, Do this, and he doeth [it]. When Jesus heard [it], he marvelled, and said to them that followed, Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel."
We have to accept the yoke ... it's the last thing we learn ...
Matthew 8:13
"And Jesus said unto the centurion, Go thy way; and as thou hast believed, [so] be it done unto thee. And his servant was healed in the selfsame hour."
One can spend one's whole life learning about something, but not doing it ... I knew a sailor once, who was painstakingly restoring a fishing smack. "When will it be ready for sea?" I asked the Yard Master. "About three years ago," he replied.
Think of everything we know today ... think of everything we've read ... the first Christians, the first Buddhists, until perhaps this generation ... had not a fraction of the knowledge we have access to today ... and what does it really profit us?
The mystery of the centurion is that he was a good soldier and knew it.
There is a Japanese story about the man who went to see a master swordsman for instruction. They crossed swords, then the master lowered his, "what is this? Who are you? I see you are a master of the art! Why do you bother me?" The man was bewildered, "I have been promoted to the Shogun's Bodyguard (O-ban) but I have no skill. My life is useless, but if I am to give it up in his service, then I want it to be of some service to him."
"Then you have learnt the most important lesson," the Master replied. "You have no need of any other."
The will of heaven decides the rest.
Thomas
I don't see why it should have to be that way.
I will, but maybe I'll do so in a cafeteria, or perhaps an international buffet. Unless I hold that this would limit me to light eating, I can't see anything wrong with it.Thomas said:
I really like this (and Earl's post) and I was thinking - this could be a test of whether a person is conservative or liberal?
Willingness to take one dish.
Nick the Pilot
Well-Known Member
Flow,
Are you writing a book too? I am writing a book on advanced Theosophical theory. What kind of book are you writing?
Are you writing a book too? I am writing a book on advanced Theosophical theory. What kind of book are you writing?
Nick the Pilot
Well-Known Member
Thomas,
You said,
"...dubious..."
--> I can point out dubiousness in the Bible. (I already have.) I do not see a value in seeing who has more dubiousness, but your choice of vocabulary seems to have you heading in that direction.
"...masters..."
--> The Masters who started Theosophy? I am thrilled you have opened up this topic. What do you know of the Theosophical Masters?
"...ascended masters..."
--> It is important to distinguish the Theosophical Masters from the "ascended masters" of the "I AM" movement which came into popularity in the early 20th century. I have never seen the Theosophical Masters referred to as ascended masters (within Theosophical literature).
"... doctrine of ... masters ... requires a perhaps greater leap of faith than any of the 'institutionalised religions."'
--> Not at all. When I read Christian theology, I find "dubious leaps of faith". I have yet to find a flaw in Blavatsky's philosophy. What flaws have you found?
"...Olcott's subsequent promotion of the highly dubious doctrine...."
--> I am always a bit puzzled by the church's unhappiness with Col. Olcott, but I guess it cannot be helped. Perhaps a little history will help everyone understand why church leaders just do not like Theosophy.
Around the year 1900, Christian missionaries had almost completely wiped out Buddhism in Sri Lanka. Truly, they were within inches of their goal. In came Blavatasky and Olcott (mainly Olcott), and saved Sri Lankan Buddhism from annihilation. Today, Buddhism flourishes in Sri Lanka, and Col. Olcott is revered as a hero in Sri Lanka to this day.
Link to webpage — Henry Steel Olcott and the Sinhalese Buddhist Revival (The description of Col. Olcott in that webpage as an "American-born Buddhist hero" rings very true.)
(Many people do not also know that Col. Olcott designed the very Buddhist flag that all Buddists use today.) Blavatsy and Olcott also became famous as the first white Buddhists ever, but that is another story for another day.
The Christian missionaries were incensed — years of work had been destroyed (in the eyes of the missionaries.) The battle was on, and church leaders carry on their anti-Theosophical campaign to this day.
Continuing on with your comments, you said,
"...the study of sacred texts and doctrines..."
--> Theosophical scripture and doctrine is just as sacred as Christian scripture, if not more.
"...the AngloAmerican school of empirical analysis ... favours too heavily the diachronic..."
--> It is not a matter of the quality of analysis. It is a matter of pointing out mistakes and misinterpretations which have been perpetuated over the centuries.
You said,
"...dubious..."
--> I can point out dubiousness in the Bible. (I already have.) I do not see a value in seeing who has more dubiousness, but your choice of vocabulary seems to have you heading in that direction.
"...masters..."
--> The Masters who started Theosophy? I am thrilled you have opened up this topic. What do you know of the Theosophical Masters?
"...ascended masters..."
--> It is important to distinguish the Theosophical Masters from the "ascended masters" of the "I AM" movement which came into popularity in the early 20th century. I have never seen the Theosophical Masters referred to as ascended masters (within Theosophical literature).
"... doctrine of ... masters ... requires a perhaps greater leap of faith than any of the 'institutionalised religions."'
--> Not at all. When I read Christian theology, I find "dubious leaps of faith". I have yet to find a flaw in Blavatsky's philosophy. What flaws have you found?
"...Olcott's subsequent promotion of the highly dubious doctrine...."
--> I am always a bit puzzled by the church's unhappiness with Col. Olcott, but I guess it cannot be helped. Perhaps a little history will help everyone understand why church leaders just do not like Theosophy.
Around the year 1900, Christian missionaries had almost completely wiped out Buddhism in Sri Lanka. Truly, they were within inches of their goal. In came Blavatasky and Olcott (mainly Olcott), and saved Sri Lankan Buddhism from annihilation. Today, Buddhism flourishes in Sri Lanka, and Col. Olcott is revered as a hero in Sri Lanka to this day.
Link to webpage — Henry Steel Olcott and the Sinhalese Buddhist Revival (The description of Col. Olcott in that webpage as an "American-born Buddhist hero" rings very true.)
(Many people do not also know that Col. Olcott designed the very Buddhist flag that all Buddists use today.) Blavatsy and Olcott also became famous as the first white Buddhists ever, but that is another story for another day.
The Christian missionaries were incensed — years of work had been destroyed (in the eyes of the missionaries.) The battle was on, and church leaders carry on their anti-Theosophical campaign to this day.
Continuing on with your comments, you said,
"...the study of sacred texts and doctrines..."
--> Theosophical scripture and doctrine is just as sacred as Christian scripture, if not more.
"...the AngloAmerican school of empirical analysis ... favours too heavily the diachronic..."
--> It is not a matter of the quality of analysis. It is a matter of pointing out mistakes and misinterpretations which have been perpetuated over the centuries.
Nick the Pilot
Well-Known Member
Hi everybody!
This has turned into a good discussion about the value of being a cafeteria Christian, Buddhist, etc. There are several types of people being considered here.
(1) A person who is born into their religion, and goes along with those doctrines, not really getting into a bunch of confusing debates, but just trying to lead a good life.
(2) A person who takes a critical look at what is being taught in their religion.
(3) A person who is not confined to one religion, but looks at various ideas in Christianity, Buddhism, etc. (Truly, the cafeteria approach.)
(4) A person who takes a look at various religions, and chooses the one that fits them best.
(5) A person who "gets serious" about their religion, and delves into the deeper teachings of that religion.
~~~
Let's consider some statements that hve been made.
Cavalier said,
"...holding to one religion or denomination is no guarantee getting on with, fully comprehending or understanding anything."
--> I agree, and this is indicative of someone at position (3).
Thomas said,
"I simply warn against the sampling of the cafeteria becoming an end in itself."
--> I agree, to some extent. Some people think that perpetual sampling is OK, but I think that, eventually, a serious religious person will move to position (5) (I believe a lot of people disagree with me on this.)
Thomas also said,
"...but all of it is an avoidance of commitment."
--> Now we are starting to get into the crux of the issue. Can we say a person in position (3) is avoiding committment?
I feel everyone must choose the religion that works for them. (If they happen to already be in that religion, that makes it easier.) But it is this choice, free of coercion, that will eventually take them to position (5). (I suppose some people disagree with this too.) I believe that many people were not born into the religion that fits them best, so they must be free to look around.
It is time to make some value judgements. Is someone at position (3) bad? I say no. (Some people say yes.) Should they hurry up and eventually move on to position (5)? I feel they will, but to tell them to hurry up is a big mistake. Everyone moves at their own pace. Let these things take their own course.
"...if you're going to pick the Jesus dish up, you've got to put the Buddhist dish down ..."
--> I agree, but only when they are ready. They will get there eventually anyway. Let them compare the two dishes for as long as they want.
~~~
One more point must be made. Some people in position (3) may have found some "goofy" ideas in their original religion. (Perhaps a person has moved into position (3) as a way to avoid such "goofiness" without confronting it?) Can a person get to Position (5) without such a confrontation?
This has turned into a good discussion about the value of being a cafeteria Christian, Buddhist, etc. There are several types of people being considered here.
(1) A person who is born into their religion, and goes along with those doctrines, not really getting into a bunch of confusing debates, but just trying to lead a good life.
(2) A person who takes a critical look at what is being taught in their religion.
(3) A person who is not confined to one religion, but looks at various ideas in Christianity, Buddhism, etc. (Truly, the cafeteria approach.)
(4) A person who takes a look at various religions, and chooses the one that fits them best.
(5) A person who "gets serious" about their religion, and delves into the deeper teachings of that religion.
~~~
Let's consider some statements that hve been made.
Cavalier said,
"...holding to one religion or denomination is no guarantee getting on with, fully comprehending or understanding anything."
--> I agree, and this is indicative of someone at position (3).
Thomas said,
"I simply warn against the sampling of the cafeteria becoming an end in itself."
--> I agree, to some extent. Some people think that perpetual sampling is OK, but I think that, eventually, a serious religious person will move to position (5) (I believe a lot of people disagree with me on this.)
Thomas also said,
"...but all of it is an avoidance of commitment."
--> Now we are starting to get into the crux of the issue. Can we say a person in position (3) is avoiding committment?
I feel everyone must choose the religion that works for them. (If they happen to already be in that religion, that makes it easier.) But it is this choice, free of coercion, that will eventually take them to position (5). (I suppose some people disagree with this too.) I believe that many people were not born into the religion that fits them best, so they must be free to look around.
It is time to make some value judgements. Is someone at position (3) bad? I say no. (Some people say yes.) Should they hurry up and eventually move on to position (5)? I feel they will, but to tell them to hurry up is a big mistake. Everyone moves at their own pace. Let these things take their own course.
"...if you're going to pick the Jesus dish up, you've got to put the Buddhist dish down ..."
--> I agree, but only when they are ready. They will get there eventually anyway. Let them compare the two dishes for as long as they want.
~~~
One more point must be made. Some people in position (3) may have found some "goofy" ideas in their original religion. (Perhaps a person has moved into position (3) as a way to avoid such "goofiness" without confronting it?) Can a person get to Position (5) without such a confrontation?
I think you forgot one. One who goes away and searches everywhere, only to find what he had was what he needed to begin with...
C
cyberpi
Guest
Me too, and I think that verse is another example where the acquired knowledge itself is not salvation. However, I submit that obtaining knowledge requires Faith. Thomas, you seemed to say the same thing, that Christianity requires doing... but then you reject doing it with Buddhism.
This is actually where I think a Christian has greater Faith by walking into a foreign religion with someone and trying it their way. Gain full knowledge of it... judge it for oneself, but not by appearance. I am definitely not a Buddhist student yet, but I recognize that everyone should meditate... and I personally recommend biofeedback. My experience with biofeedback was that learning to shut down the brain is powerful... transcending. I found it especially fun to do before playing a sport or a game that requires dexterity.
I would also say that Christianity requires a person to be a cafeteria Christian. I am a heretic... I pick and choose because that is not only what Jesus did, but he tells me to do the same:
Luke 12:57 Yea, and why even of yourselves judge you not what is right?
John 7:24 Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgement.
Behind that judgement or discernment will be the word 'choose'. So if I were to be a cafeteria Christian, I would be like a pig loading up my plate but then sifting through it judging what is right and learning how to jettison or refute the rest. In a way I make each piece of wisdom mine by trying it and judging it... even while the wisdom was not originally mine. As a parent might say to children, "How do you know that you don't like that food if you don't try it?"
However, speaking on the Christian side of things, in my opinion what happened is that Faith is now wrongly considered a belief in a belief... like a dead corpse. The book is constructed of a dead tree. Jesus was not referring to Faith in the bible, he was referring a person's Faith in God, a person's Faith in him, and a person's Faith in another living person. I find nothing in Christianity that must be given up to get involved with people in disimilar religions... just don't be afraid to judge. It seems to me that Buddhism recognizes people being faithful to people, and I consider it Christian to place faith in the faithful and vice versa.
I don't know if this idea has been tossed around... maybe I read it somewhere, but has anyone considered that Bartholomew / Nathanael may have been Gautama Buddha, seen praying under a fig tree and in whom was no guile (nothing false, no deceit)? Maybe a former follower of Buddha born into Israel? Maybe a Buddhist's meditation is disturbed with that notion?
Well Prober not sure if that is a distinguishing element as to the conservative-liberal dichotomy but probably some truth in it as my perception is most who have no problem with it are pretty "liberal." It's an interesting irony that despite Thomas' great discomfort with Christians also practicing Buddhist meditation or even mebracing some Buddhist philosophy, (even to the point of becoming "certified" zen instructors) by far the largest contingent of Christians to do so have historically been Catholic clergy.
have a good one, earl
17th Angel
לבעוט את התחת ולקחת שמות
- Messages
- 9,437
- Reaction score
- 10
- Points
- 0
If it makes them feel good let them... All all these labels of a religion are a piece of mind and such... Something to give hope faith a future whatever.... It makes you feel good... So you buy into it... And they take bits and bobs and buy into that... hence (AGAIN) a religion is born
Nick can't say I entirely agree with your "progression scheme." Your notion of moving from #3 on. That's because you might have some folks like me whose personal interpretation of a religion's teachings do not entirely jibe with traditional explanations but are such that embracing aspects of more than 1 tradition makes a perfectly good choice. On the other hand, do tend to agree with you that if one holds a fairly traditional view of say Christianity, then it would be quite antithetical to holding an equally traditional view of Buddhism. However, as Cyberpi intimated simply the practice of Buddhist meditative techniques have healthful benefits for folks on many levels-particularly the psychological-and therefore are not innately antithetical to practice of Christianity. Continued progress in meditation can be slightly subversive, though, in that its effects can sneak up on someone and make them question some of their more rigidly "fundamental" beliefs.
earlFrancis king
Well-Known Member
Thomas... u say-
"At some point one has to stop 'picking and choosing' and commit to something. The bits we 'leave behind' are the bits that test us – that demand something of us."... but that aint neccessarily so.... the bits I leave out when I'm sampling the food are the bits I don't like: not bits that challenge me, as I like them bits, the tangy, sharp, chilli tastes, not the bits that comfort me, the creamy mashed potatoes and cheesy sauces, nor the things which I have never tasted, like the bok choi and the stuffed olives, but the bones which I swallow and which make me gag, the stale bits of breadcrumb, the rotten fruit.. there is some spiritual food I will not eat, I am afraid- not because I am four years old and don't like the look of it, but because it might kill my appetite...
yes, I have set up my own belief system, but it suffices for me... I am not suggesting that anyone else tries the peanut butter and carrot puree sandwhiches, but they taste great to me...
isn't it better to sample as much as u can from the table and really learn to appreciate food? What if u never know the simple pleasures of spaghetti hoops on toast, and are forced to eat plain brown rice and boiled tofu for all eternity?
yes, ur right- " the first Christians, the first Buddhists, until perhaps this generation ... had not a fraction of the knowledge we have access to today ..."
and that is why ppl today feel free enough to be able to choose what they feel is most suited to them, myself included... what this does is make God a brother, or a friend, rather than a master...
hang on:
table two wants deep fried zen with a waldorf salad...
"At some point one has to stop 'picking and choosing' and commit to something. The bits we 'leave behind' are the bits that test us – that demand something of us."... but that aint neccessarily so.... the bits I leave out when I'm sampling the food are the bits I don't like: not bits that challenge me, as I like them bits, the tangy, sharp, chilli tastes, not the bits that comfort me, the creamy mashed potatoes and cheesy sauces, nor the things which I have never tasted, like the bok choi and the stuffed olives, but the bones which I swallow and which make me gag, the stale bits of breadcrumb, the rotten fruit.. there is some spiritual food I will not eat, I am afraid- not because I am four years old and don't like the look of it, but because it might kill my appetite...
yes, I have set up my own belief system, but it suffices for me... I am not suggesting that anyone else tries the peanut butter and carrot puree sandwhiches, but they taste great to me...
isn't it better to sample as much as u can from the table and really learn to appreciate food? What if u never know the simple pleasures of spaghetti hoops on toast, and are forced to eat plain brown rice and boiled tofu for all eternity?
yes, ur right- " the first Christians, the first Buddhists, until perhaps this generation ... had not a fraction of the knowledge we have access to today ..."
and that is why ppl today feel free enough to be able to choose what they feel is most suited to them, myself included... what this does is make God a brother, or a friend, rather than a master...
hang on:
table two wants deep fried zen with a waldorf salad...
Pathless
Fiercely Interdependent
Uhhhhhkkk--boiled tofu...
shudder
What, there's no puke smiley??
shudder
What, there's no puke smiley??
Well Prober not sure if that is a distinguishing element as to the conservative-liberal dichotomy but probably some truth in it as my perception is most who have no problem with it are pretty "liberal." It's an interesting irony that despite Thomas' great discomfort with Christians also practicing Buddhist meditation or even mebracing some Buddhist philosophy, (even to the point of becoming "certified" zen instructors) by far the largest contingent of Christians to do so have historically been Catholic clergy.
Very Inksteresting...
I wondered...
Am I willing to put down the Jesus dish for the Buddhist dish? No.
Do I wish I could keep the Buddhist dish and the Jesus dish? Yes.
Namaste Thomas,
Who is to say going to the Cafeteria is not committing? Silly question, many will say that...but I posit that one may find commitment in the cafeteria as well. And often this committment is more extensive than some others due to the nature of reading, compiling, utilizing multiple streams of consciousness...
Interesting you picked this scripture as defining one who didn't eat at the cafeteria....this is one that is often under conjecture regarding the social implications of the day...and the duties of a Centurian's servant. Pederasty was still around and the thought is while the Centurian didn't wish Jesus to go to the house and meet his servant, Jesus still knew what was going on...
The same story in Luke, quite different and mentions the value of the servant to the Centurian yet he never meets Jesus, he sends the elders to ask Jesus to heal his servant and when Jesus and the crowd heads toward the house, he sends out another contingent to speak for the Centurian and again keep Jesus from entering and meeting them both...
A good soldier... maybe then, and maybe in our don't ask don't tell world, but this is a portion of scripture that concerns many.
seattlegal
Mercuræn Buddhist
Pathless
Fiercely Interdependent
Awesome!! Thank you for emoting for me.