How can Christians hold up Christ as the ONLY proven way to spirituality?

I'm just saying that I think God should have been a little more clearer on things. He should know not to allow confusing little context errors in his Book if he wants us to accept his credibility as the One. But that's all part of the fun. If God gave us all the answers 'just like that', where would he get his kicks?

 

Where would he get his kicks? To me he would get his kicks by seeing his children prosper in love.

I believe God has been very clear on things; To love each other as we love ourselves and to love God with all of our hearts and souls. If we do this, then this leaves no room to do wrong or to persecute others for living a sinful lifestyle even if all the denominations that exist don't agree on a single doctrine.

Even Samson went with prostitutes, but God still loved him and called him blameless.

 

This is a bit late considering this thread has exploded with the same argument that there is no answer to, and I don't want to get involved with again. However to answer your questions. I don't think Wisdom and Knowledge is strictly defined within each religion. Wisdom is what you learn about the nature of your experiences and knowledge is knowledge, is knowledge, is knowledge. Is knowledge not knowledge in Christianity? I seek all kinds of knowledge and information about the science of things, as well as the knowledge and wisdom offered through art. Love is realizing god in all beings, forgiveness. There must be devotion to that. The major difference is in the meditation. Obviously prayer is Christian meditation, as determined by the bible. Except prayer is used greedily by many religious people, rather than investing hope in god. Meditation is just about pure being, and transcendence.

I don't really care what each religion defines something as, I don't choose any of them. I choose the path of spirituality.

The Bhagavad Gita does not suggest killing is okay because everyone is reincarnated. It was "written" at the time before a major battle between fractions of a family in Hindu history, as truth above the killing about to occur. In the story a leader of the battle faces internal conflict as he realized those he is about to fight are his brothers and is against Krishna's core teachings.

It is religion as it has evolved in Human greed and power that has okayed killing. In Christian (as well as many other religious) history, also killing in the name of their religion.

 

I need to read the Bhagavad Gita again, and more carefully but I remember the overall message of it being, do what you're doing for God and for harmony, not for yourself, and you'll be okay.

 

Marti Nissinem finds scant evidence that homosexuality was part of Caananite worship (Homoeroticism in the Biblical World, 1989), but I agree with your conclusion that Leviticus is not referring broadly to "homosexuality". First of all, nothing is said about lesbian relationships, which the Torah does not prohibit (Saint Paul introduces that taboo). Second, the prohibition seems to be directed at male anal penetration, leaving out a whole range of same sex behavior from kissing onward. Third, gay emotional desire is not prohibited (The New Testament may prohibit that if "lust" is involved. Condemnation of lust may apply to that if ). Fourth, the implications of anal penetration of a male were quite different in the context of ancient Hebrew society than they are in our culture.

Of course, what Leviticus really says is: ve'et zakhar (And a male) lo tishkav (you shall not lie) mishkeve ishah (as in the lyings of a woman); toevah hi (it is abhorrent). (Lev.1822). And chapter 20 makes clear that both parties must be put to death: "If a man lies with a male the lyings of a woman, the two of them have done an abhorrent thing; they shall be put to death--their blood-guilt is upon them." (Lev. 20:13) Mishkeve ishah (lyings of a woman) is an unusual phrase, occurring nowhere else in Hebrew scripture. It would have been clear and straightforward to say "You shall not lie with a man." The term mishkeve is found in only one other place in the Torah, when Jacob, on his deathbed, curses Reuven for raping his concubine.

The linkage to rape seems significant. Throughout the ancient world, sex was associated with male domination. Penetration was something done by men to women, slaves and boys. To penetrate a man was to treat him as a woman, a slave or a boy. Even in Greece, which was notoriously tolerant of male homosexuality, male citizens were expected to resist penetration when they reached adulthood. The Hebrews were unusual in setting the age of manhood at nine years old (sex with males under that age was a misdemeanor instead of a capital offense), and imposing the death penalty on both parties. Possibly this results from the fact that in the ancient world, the males of conquered peoples were subjected to penetration as a form of humiliation, and the Hebrews were a captive nation twice in their history. Does this prohibition apply today, when women are considered equal in status to men, slavery has been abolished, and sex between consenting adults (as opposed to boys) can have a more romantic significance? In other words, whether or not Leviticus had shrine prostitution in mind, it seems also to prohibit penetration of males because of the implications of sexual domination and force, and concern about protecting Hebrew manhood.

 

No one can slave for two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will stick to the one and despise the other. (Matthew 6:24)

 

Nice quotation, referring, as I recall, to the inability of a person to serve God and Mammon. I'd certainly agree with that. But to say that no one can accept two compatible teachings from two belief systems misapplies the meaning of the passage. A person can be a Christian Republican, a Christian environmentalist, a Christian conservative or liberal, etc. The Buddha wasn't a god, and he didin't claim to be a prophet for one. I don't "serve" Buddha or Buddhism. I find many of its teachings spiritually admirable and useful. It isn't slavery; its spiritual liberation.

 

Thank you, Okiefreak for this reply.

 

Does the Bible ever teach the values of transcendence and meditative practices? Other than prayer, Meditation in the Bible is the reflection of God's word found in the Bible and the practice of that word (to use our hearts and hands in correlation together).

To ponder is like a pond, a place of reflection and the Buddha talked about this as well, but the Bible and Buddha described different ways that we can reflect and what to reflect on and taught different truths. If the philosophy of the Buddha asks us to follow practices, even in good spirit, may still lead us to practices that the Bible may or may not ask from us. To me, I highly respect the Buddha and his intentions, but at the same time I find that following his practices may contradict Biblical teachings in very subtle ways and that's what I worry about - The Bible never mentions the Buddha as a prophet - This ties in with OP question, "How can Christians hold up Christ as the ONLY proven way to spirituality".

 

Of course, Christianity and the Bible include a traditions of meditiation and transcedence. (Joshua 1:8; Psalm 1:2;119;19:14;48:9;77:12) Of course the traditions are similar but "subtly" different from Hindu and Buddhist meditation, which include a wide variety of meditative techniques. In Hinduism, the emphasis is on self-realization of oneness with God by discovering one's true self (atman), which is one with god and other selves as part of the divine mind--found today in Transcendental Meditation and in the mantric meditation of the Krishnas. In Buddhism, at least the Vipassanic form that I practice, the emphasis is on developing mindful but disengaged awareness by focusing on breathing, observing transitory thoughts, etc. Buddhists don't embrace the Hindu notion of the atman, our truest self, and instead come to understand anatman (selflessness), or the irrelevance of self as a unit of concern. In Christian meditation, which I also practice, the emphasis is on loving focus on God (contemplatio) and His word (lectio divina).

You're concerned that following Buddhist practices may contradict Biblical teachings in very subtle ways, and I think you're correct. In an earlier post, I mentioned one of them. Buddhist meditation emphasizes mindfulness--being present in the moment--but not being attached. I think that some of the attraction of the dharma is its usefulness in shielding us against the ultimately traumatic consequences of worldly attachments. Once it is seen that we have no self, there is no self to defend and no reason to avoid pain. Yet it seems to me that there is a risk here. While Buddhism is compassionate, I think it can sometimes work against active engagement and resistance to injustice and human suffering, since our own suffering is not particularly important. Of course, pacifistic and quietistic sects of Christianity present similar problems, and I think generalization about variegated belief systems is difficult. There are certainly examples of brave Buddhist martyrs, such as those in Burma, who gave their lives to protest an unjust and oppressive regime; and those Buddhist monks in Vietnam during the sixties who brought down the Diem government by their self-immolations. And the Hindu tradition of satyagraha (truth force) gave us Gandhi and (via Christianity) Dr. Martin Luther King. The Islamic tradition of jihad offers a useful corrective to Buddhist disengagement, but as we know, it, too, can be abused and taken to extremes.

I find a comfortable balance in Christianity--my version, of course. Mindfulness can help us to be mindful of its own risks. As for Biblical teachings, I think Christian fundamentalism presents the risk of Bible worship, a subtle and insidious form of idolatry leading easily to Pharisaism and acceptance of genocide, sexism, slavery, homophobia, etc.--the antithesis of Jesus' teachings and example-- that we encounter from time to time even in these forums. It's a spiritually dangerous world out there. None of this is easy. But the Inner Light can guide us, if we're open to it.

 

At one time that was the law for God's people but Christians have never been under that law and thus the Bible does not suggest to Christians killing homosexuals, disobedient children and people who work on Sabbath is fine.

As for people that don't have the mark, Christians are the ones who don't have the mark and they are the ones who are to be killed by the non-Christians that do have the mark.

 

Yes, the Ten Commandments a piece of Mosaic Law but Christians are not now nor have they ever been under that law.

I couldn't care less what the government does in regard to putting up or taking down the Ten Commandments on government buildings.

The Hebrew Scriptures where a tutor leading to the Christ and now that the Christ has come we no longer need that tutor, although the principles behind the Mosaic Law are still valid and can teach us valuable lessons.

 

Christians do not murder.

 

Seeing as you really don't believe the Bible, I can see where you are coming from but Buddhism is generally considered a religion with religious teachings and the Bible seems to have low opinion of having two different religious beliefs.

And the Scripture is referring to serving two "masters" and the principle would apply to riches or other gods or religions.

 

I take the Bible seriously, just not literally. And whatever Buddhism is generally considered as, it takes no position on God and is therefore not proscribed by the Bible. Buddhism is essentially a philosophy, and Christians have long drawn on philosophies, even "pagan" ones like Plato,Aristotle and the Stoics, to support Christian beliefs.

 

I never said you don't take the Bible seriously. But because you seem to take almost nothing in the Bible literally, why even bother with the Bible since you could do that with almost any book or teaching and come up with the same results.

As for "Christians" having long drawn on philosophies, even "pagan" ones like Plato,Aristotle and the Stoics, to support Christian beliefs, perhaps you haven't noticed but I have long said that true Christians do not do that and that any "doctrines" that smacks of paganism or worldly philosophy are highly suspect.

 

That's where we differ. I think your approach leads to a crabbed view of spirituality which results in a closed, narrow, one-track mind. I find it hard to believe that's what God intended for us. It's simply ignorance masquerading as superior truth. God gave us our intellect to use it. Science, history and philosophy are manifestations of His bounty. It may feel safe and secure to know the words in a book, but to understand their meaning you have to be open to broader knowledge. Otherwise, you unwittingly become an advocate of genocide, sexism, racism, slavery, homophobia and other abominations that are contrary to the central message of Jesus.

 

In order that we should no longer be babes, tossed about as by waves and carried hither and thither by every wind of teaching by means of the trickery of men, by means of cunning in contriving error. (Ephesians 4:13-14)

You seem to think that being that being tossed about by every wind of teaching to be a good thing. Personally, if that is what you want, then fine but I think I'll go with God and the Bible on this one.

PS if you think the Bible advocates abominations that are contrary to the central message of Jesus, to me that just shows how far you have allowed every wind of worldly teaching to carry you.

 

No, I don't think being tossed about by every wind of teaching is a good thing. We need to be critical and discerning about what we read. I don't think the Bible advocates abominations. Those who misunderstand it do. Religious fanaticism and religion are two different things.

 

Good. Too bad you allow it to happen to you.

Yep.

Neither do I. Too bad you feel the necessity to "change" what the Bible says to feel that way.

Yep.

Yep. Except you seem to believe that agreeing with the Bible and what it says is fanaticism, whereas I see those who have their own ideas of what the Bible says, influenced by false religion and worldly philosophy, tend to be the fanatical ones.