• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

The Case for Christianity

Atheism can be as narrow minded an ideology as any religion.
Or not.
Which differentiates it from religions.
Atheism isn't an ideology, it's just a single idea - that there are no Gods.

As such, atheists can have any ideology at all, as long as it doesn't include belief in Gods; And atheists can be as broadminded or as narrowminded as they like, and can (and do) span the entire human spectrum of broadmindedness.

Atheists can be communists, libertarians, conservatives, liberals, progressives, or any other kind of ideologue; Or they can eschew ideology altogether. They can be rationalists, humanists, nazis, conspiracy theorists, or believers in witchcraft, majick, or the occult. Atheists can be, and are, literally anything - except believers in God(s).
 
Once you die ...then it's judgement. IOW, if someone died at the age of 20 then he only waited 20 years. He may have rested for a thousand years outside his conscious awareness, but once he closed his eyes at death, he opens them again.. instantly like a blink of an eye.
So now you believe, ideologyhunter?
WTF?
Delusional.
Anti religion narratives focus on the negatives of religion but not on the negatives elsewhere.
Well the subject was 'religion'. Are you trying to move the goalposts?
You want to talk about the drug problem? I have opinions on that, you won't like.
You talk like religion (conformaty) is the solution to every social problem. It is definatly NOT. It only claims to be. Especially problems the cults dreamed up.
If you want to label religion as 'evil', in context to what?

The ideological atheist communist systems were horrible. We accuse theists of wearing blinders accusing atheists of being evil while ignoring problems with religion.

What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

Atheism can be as narrow minded an ideology as any religion.
What atheist communist system is that? Stalinism? As a young man Stalin trained at a seminary to become a priest. The nation he ruled had a population that was mainly Christian and who had lived for hundreds of years under authoritarian Tsarism which had secret police.
The Russian character did not change under Stalin, it was embedded in their culture.
Communist Russia was atheist in the same way that modern USA is Christian; it is a label, not a reality.

Stalin was a brutal dictator not because he was atheist (indeed can make a case it was despite being atheist) but because he inherited a system that was already brutal. It is notable that after his death USSR slowly moved towards a less brutal regime culminating in Gorbachev.
Nowadays it is again a brutal undemocratic regime, though now nominally Christian just like USA, so obviously its current state has nothing to do with atheism.

If you watch the first episode of the 2024 TV series 'A Gentleman in Moscow' you can see that that the way the Bolsheviks behaved wasn't because they were communist or atheist but because they were Russians brought up to be brutal.
 
Why the Bible (@bilby #278)
My engagement with the Bible and my path to Christianity are rooted in a personal quest for understanding, approaching the text with an open mind to weigh facts and draw reasonable conclusions (@me #1). After about 50 years of agnosticism, I became a Christian around two decades ago because the answers I found in the Bible "made more sense to me than anything else I've read" (@me #11). My purpose in sharing this is not to convert or condemn, but to offer my personal understanding (@me #1). Fundamentally, for me, the Bible is a collection of "books about human encounters with God written by humans," not a "literally true" text (@me #18). It needs to be carefully read and understood.


My perspective aligns with authors like Leo Tolstoy, whom @ideologyhunter refers to as a "mystic Christian" (@ideologyhunter #146). Tolstoy, in his work The Kingdom of God Is within You, emphasizes that the essence of the divine is "that very love" which needs to be made "manifest in the world" (@Michael S. Pearl #145). He suggests that the "object of this love is not found outside self in societies of individuals, nor in the external world, but within self, in the divine self [God?] whose essence is that very love" (@Michael S. Pearl #145). This resonates with Jesus's summation of the Law: "Love God and Love One Another" (@Michael S. Pearl #145). @pood, while critiquing certain aspects of Tolstoy's views, acknowledges that Tolstoy advocated for "ethical and mystical Christianity" and that the Bible, as a human product, reflects the "human journey writ large in all its highs and lows" (@pood #147, @pood #127). The notion that love is not a duty but arises when fear and dependence are eliminated, becoming a "strange flower," as Krishnamurti articulated, also finds resonance here (@Michael S. Pearl #71, @Michael S. Pearl #147).


Summarizing Christianity through the lens of common understanding, as opposed to theological claims, reveals a focus on simple, liberating principles. Jesus's core message, particularly in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5–7), blesses the poor, the sad, and the humble, addressing the problem of suffering by acknowledging and blessing those who experience it (@me #109). This "upside down" concept is often intuitively grasped by children (@me #109). Jesus emphasizes that true goodness is not for outward display but is quiet and intended to please God, urging followers to "Pray in secret. Give in secret. Fast in secret" and to trust God rather than chasing money (@me #109). He tells people not to worry, as God knows their needs (@me #109). The pinnacle of this teaching, the Lord's Prayer, highlights forgiveness as the key to God's favor, rather than perfect moral goodness (@me #109). This means people are "expected to fail" at being perfectly good, and the emphasis on forgiveness leads to "freedom and peace of mind" (@me #109). The command to "Be perfect, as your Father in heaven is perfect" is interpreted by me not as being faultless, but as being forgiving (@me #109). From this perspective, the "big idea" of Jesus's teaching is about becoming one's "true self not by chasing our dreams, but by following God," which means living life as best one can, loving one another, not holding grudges, and not worrying (@me #109). This contrasts with modern societal pressures to strive for success, which can lead to anxiety and disappointment (@me #109). The essence, as Tolstoy implies, is an inner transformation and manifestation of love, rather than adherence to complex doctrines or rituals (@Michael S. Pearl #145). This practical, accessible understanding of God and Christian principles focuses on inner peace and ethical living, something that is universally relatable and deeply personal (@me #154).

I agree with Tolstoy that true Christianity is found more in the quiet struggles of the common people than in the high-mindedness of theologians and priests (the Pharisees and Sadducees of today).
 
Brunswick

You are testifying, we know that.

Christianity is found more in the quiet struggles of the common people than in the high-mindedness of theologians and priests (the Pharisees and Sadducees of today).

Nice poetry emphasizing Christianity is a subject feeling, not a guide for living.

I wopi8ld say Christianity is found in what people do based on the bible and what it says.

If Jesus is Christianity what was the gospel Jesus?

Angry and violent in the temple.
Fasting in the desert and seeing Satan.
Out in public calling people hypocrites.

You testify to how you came to Jesus and the bile. How specifically do you llive in accordance with all of what Jesus aid and all of what is in the OT?

Christians coming to forums like thus to testify to faith is a modern Christian right of passage.


You come to Jesus, read the bible, and it makes you feel good. Then what? Endless discussion about god?
 
Fundamentally, for me, the Bible is a collection of "books about human encounters with God written by humans," not a "literally true" text (@me #18). It needs to be carefully read and understood.
As an atheist, I find the Bible to be a mishmash, with many base and unacceptable elements. For every exalted, moving passage you might quote, I promise you I could match it with something either a) primitive and barbaric (God says to execute non-virgin newlywed women), b) racist (God says to exterminate all members of various clans or tribes who lived on land he decided to give to Moses' people), c) sexist (women are to remain quiet in church, and ask any questions they might have of their husbands, at home), d) ridiculous (an oversubscribed category, but how about the Nile turning to blood, the manna that rained from the sky, the time that people were cured by the sight of a brass serpent, or that a disembodied hand appeared in the air and wrote words on a wall; that Jesus paid the temple tax by having Peter land a fish that had a coin in its mouth...and can't forget the suicide of the 2000 demon-possessed pigs.) No adult should have to read these things today and make believe that they are true. If you had an uncle who raved about white supremacy, wanted to kill people from the 'shithole' countries, beat his wife because he had hallucinations that she was a succubus... would you care if he also wrote lovely poems about love and God? You'd know deep down he was crazy. That uncle personifies the Bible, for me.
I'm less interested in your faith statements than how you deal with the primitive parts of the Bible. How's that possible? Is it really enough to say "it was written by humans, it's not all literally true"? If that's the case, how much of the Jesus narrative is just made up??
How was it EVER a moral choice for God to give approval for slavery, wars of extermination, the stoning of (supposedly) non-virginal women? Who in the Bible EVER says these things were wrong? How does a Christian living in the 21st century pretend that the sun went backward for King Hezekiah...that magic sticks changed the genetics of goats and sheep? Should children be taught today that this stuff is real? (I guess your answer would be, "Kids, some of this stuff you just can't believe, but some of it is pure gold." And how you'd teach the separation process, I can't imagine.)
Some of the ancients wrote on ethics without reference to gods. It's an entire branch of philosophy. It is possible to live a good life without having to wedge all the Bible absurdities into some integrating formula that purports to explain them...
<end of rant; have a good day>
 
Last edited:
Summarizing Christianity through the lens of common understanding, as opposed to theological claims, reveals a focus on simple, liberating principles. Jesus's core message, particularly in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5–7), blesses the poor, the sad, and the humble, addressing the problem of suffering by acknowledging and blessing those who experience it (@me #109). This "upside down" concept is often intuitively grasped by children (@me #109). Jesus emphasizes that true goodness is not for outward display but is quiet and intended to please God, urging followers to "Pray in secret. Give in secret. Fast in secret" and to trust God rather than chasing money (@me #109). He tells people not to worry, as God knows their needs (@me #109). The pinnacle of this teaching, the Lord's Prayer, highlights forgiveness as the key to God's favor, rather than perfect moral goodness (@me #109). This means people are "expected to fail" at being perfectly good, and the emphasis on forgiveness leads to "freedom and peace of mind" (@me #109). The command to "Be perfect, as your Father in heaven is perfect" is interpreted by me not as being faultless, but as being forgiving (@me #109). From this perspective, the "big idea" of Jesus's teaching is about becoming one's "true self not by chasing our dreams, but by following God," which means living life as best one can, loving one another, not holding grudges, and not worrying (@me #109).
Buddhism came up with this hundreds of years prior, so a "case for Christianity" really is silly here. The Eightfold Path teaches that right living isn't merely one aspect of life, but requires engaging all aspects of one's life. Jesus doesn't even come close to addressing that. So if the 'live as best as one can' is the selling point of Christianity, there is no reason not to adopt a superior model in the Four Noble Truths / Eightfold Path. While nirvana is a make believe construct, the inter-personal relationship with those two doctrines as it impacts oneself personally and society externally covers all of life.

Again, Christianity isn't about being nice, it is about the necessity of crucifixion / resurrection to save our sorry buns... because we are born fallen and flawed. Protestant Christianity looks to take an event and tie a person's redemption (regardless of personal acts) after death, where as Buddhism looks at the release from suffering in life.

Christianity fails at being a viable and reliable set up for peace. 2000 years of wars has proven just how much full of BS the entire Christian faith is when it comes to brotherhood and redemption.
 
The gospel Jesus message was bear your burdens and suffering, believe in me and you get a wonderful eternal afterlife.

24 Then Jesus told his disciples, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. 25 For whoever would save his life[a] will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it. 26 For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul? Or what shall a man give in return for his soul?

What does Matthew 16:24 really mean?
Jesus, though, pictured a self-denial that included willing participation in the death of self. In short, nobody who follows Jesus can hold on to even the smallest bit of their own agenda, their own dreams, their own way of living in the world.


Christians do not really read the bible.

Maybe Brunswick is just lonely.
 
What is ''true Christianity?" What does it look like?
Well, according to our high minded theologian, it resides in the quiet struggles of the common people more than in his own lofty offerings.
I tend to believe that.
 
Once you die ...then it's judgement. IOW, if someone died at the age of 20 then he only waited 20 years. He may have rested for a thousand years outside his conscious awareness, but once he closed his eyes at death, he opens them again.. instantly like a blink of an eye.
So now you believe, ideologyhunter?
WTF?
Delusional
Um ok.
Have you never thought Theist were ever "delusional" before. or have you just arrived to this conclusion,and realization for the very first time? I mean...Jesus walking on water, raising the dead and so on? And you're shocked about my post. 🙄

or you just needed to just say sumink.?



Anti religion narratives focus on the negatives of religion but not on the negatives elsewhere.
Well the subject was 'religion'. Are you trying to move the goalposts?
You want to talk about the drug problem? I have opinions on that, you won't like.
You talk like religion (conformaty) is the solution to every social problem. It is definatly NOT. It only claims to be. Especially problems the cults dreamed up.

Not sure what it is you were reading but steve-b was on topic.
Narrative on religion (positives or negatives) ARE about religion.
 
Last edited:
Why the Bible (@bilby #278)
My engagement with the Bible and my path to Christianity are rooted in a personal quest for understanding, approaching the text with an open mind to weigh facts and draw reasonable conclusions (@me #1). After about 50 years of agnosticism, I became a Christian around two decades ago because the answers I found in the Bible "made more sense to me than anything else I've read" (@me #11). My purpose in sharing this is not to convert or condemn, but to offer my personal understanding (@me #1). Fundamentally, for me, the Bible is a collection of "books about human encounters with God written by humans," not a "literally true" text (@me #18). It needs to be carefully read and understood.


My perspective aligns with authors like Leo Tolstoy, whom @ideologyhunter refers to as a "mystic Christian" (@ideologyhunter #146). Tolstoy, in his work The Kingdom of God Is within You, emphasizes that the essence of the divine is "that very love" which needs to be made "manifest in the world" (@Michael S. Pearl #145). He suggests that the "object of this love is not found outside self in societies of individuals, nor in the external world, but within self, in the divine self [God?] whose essence is that very love" (@Michael S. Pearl #145). This resonates with Jesus's summation of the Law: "Love God and Love One Another" (@Michael S. Pearl #145). @pood, while critiquing certain aspects of Tolstoy's views, acknowledges that Tolstoy advocated for "ethical and mystical Christianity" and that the Bible, as a human product, reflects the "human journey writ large in all its highs and lows" (@pood #147, @pood #127). The notion that love is not a duty but arises when fear and dependence are eliminated, becoming a "strange flower," as Krishnamurti articulated, also finds resonance here (@Michael S. Pearl #71, @Michael S. Pearl #147).


Summarizing Christianity through the lens of common understanding, as opposed to theological claims, reveals a focus on simple, liberating principles. Jesus's core message, particularly in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5–7), blesses the poor, the sad, and the humble, addressing the problem of suffering by acknowledging and blessing those who experience it (@me #109). This "upside down" concept is often intuitively grasped by children (@me #109). Jesus emphasizes that true goodness is not for outward display but is quiet and intended to please God, urging followers to "Pray in secret. Give in secret. Fast in secret" and to trust God rather than chasing money (@me #109). He tells people not to worry, as God knows their needs (@me #109). The pinnacle of this teaching, the Lord's Prayer, highlights forgiveness as the key to God's favor, rather than perfect moral goodness (@me #109). This means people are "expected to fail" at being perfectly good, and the emphasis on forgiveness leads to "freedom and peace of mind" (@me #109). The command to "Be perfect, as your Father in heaven is perfect" is interpreted by me not as being faultless, but as being forgiving (@me #109). From this perspective, the "big idea" of Jesus's teaching is about becoming one's "true self not by chasing our dreams, but by following God," which means living life as best one can, loving one another, not holding grudges, and not worrying (@me #109). This contrasts with modern societal pressures to strive for success, which can lead to anxiety and disappointment (@me #109). The essence, as Tolstoy implies, is an inner transformation and manifestation of love, rather than adherence to complex doctrines or rituals (@Michael S. Pearl #145). This practical, accessible understanding of God and Christian principles focuses on inner peace and ethical living, something that is universally relatable and deeply personal (@me #154).

I agree with Tolstoy that true Christianity is found more in the quiet struggles of the common people than in the high-mindedness of theologians and priests (the Pharisees and Sadducees of today).

Most Christians profess to believe the literal truth of the following Christian myth:

There was a first man and woman, Adam and Even, who lived in a garden of earthly delights named Eden, where lions would like down with the lambs. No death and suffering for anyone or anything.

Then Adam and Even sinned, the Original Sin. For this, they were cast out of the garden and the garden itself somehow became contaminated. Now lions began to eat lambs.

Later, God fed up with the whole thing, drowned the whole world, except Noah and kin and two of every kind of animal. Then God repented and said he wouldn’t do stupid shit like that again.

Still later, God raped a virgin human, birthing his only begotten son who was really himself, and then had himself sacrificed to himself to placate himself over human sin. Now, the only way to enter heaven (Jesus reportedly said this too) was to enter through Christ, i.e. through a literal belief that he was literally resurrected and went to a literal heaven. There will be a Judgment Day, with the sinners (losers) cast forever into hell and the pure of heart (winners) joining God in heaven, where, the bible says somewhere, they can look down and mock those burning in hell.

This is what most Christians profess to literally believe.

Do you believe in the literal truth of the story told above? Why or why not?

Because your fellow Christian in this thread, @Learner, certainly believes in the above. If you don’t believe literally in the above story, why is your version of Christianity right and his wrong?

Perhaps you believe the above tale is a symbolic or metaphorical story, not the literal truth. But at least, do you believe in the literal truth of a literal resurrection and a literal going to a literal heaven? Is THAT the case you are trying to make for Christianity, or are you just trying to make the case for ethical or mystical Christianity?

If you are trying to make the case for the former, you have not even scratched the surface of making it.

I think the reason most people believe in a literal heaven and hell, or at least want to believe in it, is a fear of death. If this is the reason anyone is a Christian, they are not about love, mercy, charity, and forgiveness. They are entirely about looking out for No. 1. They have a selfish need and greed to be reassured that they will live forever, and there are very few people who profess to believe this, while also stating that they are sure they are going to hell. I am quite confident that Learner, for example, believes he is among the elect.

So the question is put to your squarely: are you making a case of ethical or mystical Christianity, or for a literal resurrection and heaven, and a judgment day? Note that if you claim God is not asking us to be perfect but to forgive others, then surely, of course, if that God literally exists, he will send no one to hell, he will forgive even Hitler, because to do otherwise would be the height of cosmic hypocrisy.
 

Because your fellow Christian in this thread, @Learner, certainly believes in the above. If you don’t believe literally in the above story, why is your version of Christianity right and his wrong?
Love it. So weird and true. Deities are invisible and they don't talk back. In a way they're like Barbie -- you can customize 'em however you want. Mexican Barbie, Chinese Empress Barbie, Tattoo Barbie, George Washington Barbie, Oreo Barbie...those are all real. (Please spare us Melania Barbie...)
I have two cousins, sisters, who joined a conservative Protestant group called The Community back in the 70s. One sister eventually married a Catholic man, converted to Catholicism, and is now more Catholic than Mel Gibson + The Pope + Maria Von Trapp. The other is on the Protestant track, and an inerrantist. I have no idea how they discuss faith. One believes in Mary as the most powerful intercessor in heaven, joined by over 10,000 saints who can be prayed to, along with transubstantiation of the communion host, the Pope and the priesthood acting with divine powers, etc. The other must think these are blasphemous fictions. Bizarre and amusing.
 
My own musings on the Abrahamic religions and atheism:

Google shows me that 27% of Europeans are non-religious. Another click shows that Religious fell from 99.6% in 1900 to 78.6% in 1970, rebounding back to 84.4% in 2020. Catholics and Protestants continued to fall during 1970-2020; the rebound was due to Orthodox Christians and Muslims. Atheist soared from 0.1% to 2.1% over the 120 years in this table at academic.oup.com. Combined with 13.5% agnostic this is still much less than Google's 27%. The question's phrasing may explain this. People who admit to being "non-religious" might not admit to either "athiest" or "agnostic."

To compare apples with apples, I'd like one survey that studies two continents. Instead I find
Pew Research said:
Today, about 28% of U.S. adults are religiously unaffiliated, describing themselves as atheists, agnostics or “nothing in particular” when asked about their religion. ... [T]his group [is] often called the “nones.” Our survey data shows:

* Most “nones” believe in God or another higher power. But very few go to religious services regularly.
* Most say religion does some harm, but many also think it does some good. They are not uniformly anti-religious.
* Most “nones” reject the idea that science can explain everything. But they express more positive views of science than religiously affiliated Americans .

Religion has almost NEVER been a topic of conversation in my life. But in recent decades I've acquired an interest in ancient history which intersects with histories of religions. I ended up at this message board after a merger and may not belong here: Atheism is a topic which holds no interest for me. Spirituality is a deeper field which can include the non-religious, but unfortunately it hasn't held interest for me either.

Much of the Bible is regarded as profound and/or poetic. The Omnigod appears to be evil and to suffer from multiple mental disorders, but I assume seminarians have explanations for that. For me the most interesting parts of the Bible are puzzling tidbits, e.g.
  • Is Genesis 46 really intended as a complicated logic puzzle?
  • Is 2 Chronicles 35:3 a grim but concealed confession of a major loss?
  • A 3700 year-old letter from Terru of Urkesh (Terah of Ur of the Chaldees) to the King of Mari tells that Terru's life is in danger and that Terru has "gone out to Sinah to live as habirum [Hebrew, outcast]." The earliest chronological mention of that word in the Torah is to name "Abram the Hebrew." That same mythical(?) Abram is revered as the Second Ulul Azmi of Islam (Noah the Ark-builder was the First Ulul Azmi) and was allegedly (probably fictionally) the son of Terru. Unlikely to be coincidence. Why is this connection not better known?

I have no time for finding obvious contradictions in the Bible. Why not look for inconsistencies in Alice in Wonderland instead? Are the Omnigod's mental disorders really more interesting than those of Dostoevsky's characters?
 
24 Then Jesus told his disciples, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. 25 For whoever would save his life[a] will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it. 26 For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul? Or what shall a man give in return for his soul?


Give your life totally and completely over to me. Be willing to give your life as I do.

Jesus the militant cult leader. Sounds like he is talking to fanatical followers. They existed in the day. Jewish militants retreated to a mountain top, Masada. When the Romans built a ramp they all commited suicide. The Roman battle works can still be seen and there are pottery fragments on which Jews wrote messages.
 
Most Christians profess to believe the literal truth of ...
I am inclined to agree with that assessment. However, and this is just based on my own experience (and maybe at least in part as a result of my manner of engagement), most of those most respond with a readily detectable relief and almost a joy when the subject of the Great Commandment but especially the asymmetric priority of the and the second is like unto it is brought up as the focus, the core of Godly and (in their way of thinking) Christian being. When given the opportunity, when given permission to identify that thinking as the most important aspect of their belief and even their desires, most of those most relish the moment. And it tends to be a mere moment. For a number of reasons. Few have the words or the thought-experience which would enable them to expound upon that core, critical belief. And most of those most find great comfort in the the feeling of certainty that can be had with provided determinate statements which happen also to afford inclusion within an identifiable category and community. But this preference for feeling as certain as possible is just a common human characteristic and has nothing to do with religiosity.

I have had similar experiences with Muslims, Hindus, as well as the few Buddhists I have met (in Bhutan and Mongolia). One of the best such experiences I have had was about ten days ago with a rabbi I met when I was in DC. In those cases, this discussion is not in terms of the Great Commandment test to which Jesus was supposedly subjected. Obviously. For instance, with Muslims, such discussion can occur in terms of the ninety-nine names, but the point (in the terms of this discussion) is that it is almost as if love for neighbor, stranger, and foreigner (which, by the way, is not the sociability that can be explained in terms of evolution) resides constrained and hidden in the hearts of very many people regardless of their religion status. The notion of being set free regards removing that particular constraint.
 
Summarizing Christianity through the lens of common understanding, as opposed to theological claims, reveals a focus on simple, liberating principles. Jesus's core message, particularly in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5–7), blesses the poor, the sad, and the humble, addressing the problem of suffering by acknowledging and blessing those who experience it (@me #109). This "upside down" concept is often intuitively grasped by children (@me #109). Jesus emphasizes that true goodness is not for outward display but is quiet and intended to please God, urging followers to "Pray in secret. Give in secret. Fast in secret" and to trust God rather than chasing money (@me #109). He tells people not to worry, as God knows their needs (@me #109). The pinnacle of this teaching, the Lord's Prayer, highlights forgiveness as the key to God's favor, rather than perfect moral goodness (@me #109). This means people are "expected to fail" at being perfectly good, and the emphasis on forgiveness leads to "freedom and peace of mind" (@me #109). The command to "Be perfect, as your Father in heaven is perfect" is interpreted by me not as being faultless, but as being forgiving (@me #109). From this perspective, the "big idea" of Jesus's teaching is about becoming one's "true self not by chasing our dreams, but by following God," which means living life as best one can, loving one another, not holding grudges, and not worrying (@me #109).
Buddhism came up with this hundreds of years prior, so a "case for Christianity" really is silly here. The Eightfold Path teaches that right living isn't merely one aspect of life, but requires engaging all aspects of one's life. Jesus doesn't even come close to addressing that. So if the 'live as best as one can' is the selling point of Christianity, there is no reason not to adopt a superior model in the Four Noble Truths / Eightfold Path. While nirvana is a make believe construct, the inter-personal relationship with those two doctrines as it impacts oneself personally and society externally covers all of life.

Again, Christianity isn't about being nice, it is about the necessity of crucifixion / resurrection to save our sorry buns... because we are born fallen and flawed. Protestant Christianity looks to take an event and tie a person's redemption (regardless of personal acts) after death, where as Buddhism looks at the release from suffering in life.

Christianity fails at being a viable and reliable set up for peace. 2000 years of wars has proven just how much full of BS the entire Christian faith is when it comes to brotherhood and redemption.

Watch, I bet someone will make a claim that Buddhism and Christianity are the same religion in an attempt to weasel their way out of it.
 
Watch, I bet someone will make a claim that Buddhism and Christianity are the same religion in an attempt to weasel their way out of it.
Where's Lion when you need him? ;)
He's probably working hard for the Heritage Foundation to get Project 2025 fully implemented.
 
Back
Top Bottom