Why Are So Many Christians So Un-Christian?

PostmodernProphet said:
you would be wise to wonder about all of them.....
Click to expand...
I dunno. I'm thinking maybe this is from the Pali Cannon.

Can't recall ever reading many directed quotes from Buddha - most of what i've read is based on the teachings.

Did you look at any of the "Jesus was a Buddhist Monk" stuff?
 
the wisdom of both are in your soul.


search your soul for them instead of the remaining physical world trails of their tails.

Just be a decent person.

care for others

stop worshiping things and money
 
annata said:
I dunno. I'm thinking maybe this is from the Pali Cannon.

Can't recall ever reading many directed quotes from Buddha - most of what i've read is based on the teachings.

Did you look at any of the "Jesus was a Buddhist Monk" stuff?
Click to expand...

I've dealt with ridiculous bullshit like this from dozens of atheists over the years.......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
here's a link to some accurate statements regarding what Buddhists actually claim about Buddha's life.....
http://orias.berkeley.edu/visuals/buddha/life.html

you're not going to find any similarities with Jesus Christ here.....
Click to expand...
the idea was does Jesus have any similarity to Buddha, since Buddha pre-dates him, and teachings prolly available.

I got the "Jesus was a Buddhist Monk" from a guy who called himself a 'Nicene Buddhist' which is beyond my ability to trace.
The BBC documentary is of interest - I've settled on Buddhism as my personal Path, but was raised catholic.

Maybe it's just an 'attachment', but i always found holy ideas/deeds/words are of intrinsict value - afterall they are limited,
unless one looks towards a cultish following.

Finding studies in comparative religion to be of interest, but extremely time consuming, i never followed up on it.

I waste too much time on politics/current events as it is. lol

EDIT: http://orias.berkeley.edu/visuals/buddha/life.html decent link -TY
 
annata said:
the idea was does Jesus have any similarity to Buddha, since Buddha pre-dates him, and teachings prolly available.
Click to expand...

as the first link I provided indicated, the parallels found in the list of texts primarily date from a codex attached to the Buddhist text published around 1100 AD.......
 
this link?

http://www.letusreason.org/buddh6.htm

I'm getting overwhelmed with text, what happens whenever I delve into any type research, i am not on firm ground associated here.
If you want to -c/p the relevanr material ( not needed, but a way to end this)

But to try to cut thru -the "codex attached" means that the further written texts were added as Buddha quotes?

Which DOES make sense - since it would be impossible to go back and find written texts earlier then the Pali Cannon,
as Buddha taught by the oral tradition.

From what I know of the Gospel, they too were written as an aggregate, in the time past Constantine??

See what I'm saying here, is there any utilitarian use in taking one's time to try to find some ....original intent ( as it were) ?

It's very tedious/taxing/ and I wonder of what worth to an older person like myself, whom really just wants the ideas..

I suppose (answering my own thought here) is it is more then enough to consider the Path as the way out of cyclic rebirth, and use the time I have alive wisely.

One of these days, if you want to, tell us/me how you came to such a knowledge base. Must be fascinating to delve thru all this.......
 
annata said:
Jesus understood that religion did not work in the world of politics.
(render unto Caeser what is Caeser's ; render unto God what is God's)

Keep the seperation of church and state the founders wanted, so both religion and politics can work better on their own
Click to expand...


Jesus understood that his religion would never get off the ground if he became the unofficial leader of an armed revolt against the Romans.


The separation of church and state is what you want because you don't want the people as holding a representative government but instead a government controlling the people.

None of the founders wanted a separation of church and state. There's nothing in the Declaration Of independence or the Constitution that says they did. You want the separation because you want the people subservient to the government and the government as their church.
 
Last edited:
philly rabbit said:
Jesus understood that his religion would never get off the ground if he became the unofficial leader of an armed revolt against the Romans.


The separation of church and state is what you want because you don't want the people as holding a representative government but instead a government controlling the people.

None of the founders wanted a separation of church and state. There's nothing in the Declaration Of independence or the Constitution that says they did. You want the separation because you want the people subservient to the government and the government as their church.
Click to expand...
not even going to debate you about what the founders wanted.

Instead simply LOOK at the part I bolded above -to use your own words in rebuttal, you are arguing for a theocracy.

In other words, to put it as plainly as possible:

The separation of church and state is what you want because you don't want the people as holding a representative government but instead a government controlling the people.
Click to expand...
a "government controlling the people" IS a result of theocratic rule.

Without the seperation of church and state, religion does creep into politics/governance.

Just look at Iran, or other Islamic states -is that what you want??
 
evince said:
woulda coulda ?


how about what we KNOW Christ did about such things?

Christ whipped the money changers for exploiting the poor.

He was pretty upset for a guy who preached peace.

so much so that he commited a violent act against these monsters.


Now do you think Christ would have whipped the money changers IF they were working with the local government to feed and house the poor?


We all know the answer and your thin rack of distraction you placed in front of the REAL morals of Jesus just fell to the ground
Click to expand...


What makes you an authority on the gospel of Jesus Christ .. you vile mouthed creature you?
 
annata said:
not even going to debate you about what the founders wanted.

Instead simply LOOK at the part I bolded above -to use your own words in rebuttal, you are arguing for a theocracy.

In other words, to put it as plainly as possible:

a "government controlling the people" IS a result of theocratic rule.

Without the seperation of church and state, religion does creep into politics/governance.

Just look at Iran, or other Islamic states -is that what you want??
Click to expand...

Where did the founders want a separation of church and state?

Which of the founders declared: There shall be a separation of church and state.

There is no founding document declaring a separation of church and state. YOU are a socialist and the arch enemy of socialists is Christianity and this myth about a separation has been told for so long too many people believe it and too many people believe it's what the founders wanted. You want it and you keep propagandizing the lie.
 
philly rabbit said:
Where did the founders want a separation of church and state?

Which of the founders declared: There shall be a separation of church and state.

There is no founding document declaring a separation of church and state. YOU are a socialist and the arch enemy of socialists is Christianity and this myth about a separation has been told for so long too many people believe it and too many people believe it's what the founders wanted. You want it and you keep propagandizing the lie.
Click to expand...
read the first amendment to the Constitution...

I'm not going to argue with you as you have a tendency to *froth*; to engage in namecalling without any substance.

It's absolutely pointless to do so.
 
annata said:
read the first amendment to the Constitution...

I'm not going to argue with you as you have a tendency to *froth*; to engage in namecalling without any substance.

It's absolutely pointless to do so.
Click to expand...


The first amendment does not declare that there shall be a separation of church and state. What it says is that there shall be no state sponsored church like there were in the countries in Europe. So where else do the founders declare the separation? Which founding document states it?
 
oh man. I knew this was going to happen....the first is not just about say like the Anglican Church of England.. the text has been interpreted as NO LAW.
Not just the "establishment of a state religion"

If you want to argue this, take a case to SCOTUS -but you don't have standing, and it's stare decisis, so you're out of luck.

No theocracy today for you.
 
Article VI provides that all state and federal officials "shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."
The First Amendment's Establishment Clause ) provides that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"--meaning that not only no church but no "religion" could be made the official faith of the United States.
Finally the Free Exercise Clause provides that Congress shall not make laws "prohibiting the free exercise" of religion
http://www.theatlantic.com/national...tion-doesnt-separate-church-and-state/240481/

a nice liberal rag to drive you up the wall of seperation of church and state
 
philly rabbit said:
The first amendment does not declare that there shall be a separation of church and state. What it says is that there shall be no state sponsored church like there were in the countries in Europe. So where else do the founders declare the separation? Which founding document states it?
Click to expand...

This what it says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

At its most basic: any laws that the govt attempt to force on others, based on religious beliefs, is unConstitutional as it prohibits someone else's free exercise of their faith if they dont agree with it.
 
annata said:
oh man. I knew this was going to happen....the first is not just about say like the Anglican Church of England.. the text has been interpreted as NO LAW.
Not just the "establishment of a state religion"

If you want to argue this, take a case to SCOTUS -but you don't have standing, and it's stare decisis, so you're out of luck.

No theocracy today for you.
Click to expand...


The founders expected and wanted the American people to continue being a religious and moral people and they DID NOT put up an impregnable wall between church and state. On the contrary, they expected the country's religious moral foundation to sustain the constitution and let the republic nurture and grow on account of it.

Separation of church and state has been perverted by you on the left to leave the impression that government was the moral authority of the country but by no means was this the intention of the founders. They hoped the constitution and the country would continue to be upheld by a religious moral people and they also believed that it was impossible to uphold the constitution by a non religious immoral people.

And I noticed that you could not quote any other founding document stating the separation because there was none including in the constitution's first amendment which I pointed out to you.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top