Industrial Deals Beauty Best Books of the Year So Far STEM nav_sap_plcc_ascpsc PCB for Musical Instruments Starting at $39.99 Grocery Handmade Wedding Rustic Decor Home Gift Guide Off to College Home Gift Guide Book House Cleaning TheTick TheTick TheTick  Amazon Echo now $99.99 Limited-time offer: All-New Fire HD 8 Kids Edition, starting at $99.99 Kindle Paperwhite AutoRip in CDs & Vinyl Tailgating STEMClubToys17_gno
Customer Discussions > Self-help forum

Can a Christian be a Taoist or Buddhist??


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 476-500 of 528 posts in this discussion
Posted on Apr 24, 2012, 10:59:11 AM PDT
T. Haenni says:
WWJS? (What would Jesus say) Personally I choose to follow what He said, did and proclaimed and not confine him to a cross. Jesus said to love God with all your heart and love your neighbor as yourself. Therefore, if one loves their Higher Power (i.e. - gratefully accepts that there IS a higher power that has given rise to all life), Creator of all that is, by whatever name you choose, and treats others with love and kindness, it matters not what we call it. I don't believe God loves any one being more than another, regardless of where or if they go to church.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 24, 2012, 11:01:09 AM PDT
CBP

"I really don't see what my religious beliefs have to do with interpreting your arrogance. You're the one who continually asserts that your version of Christianity is the only true one (and you've done it again in the post I'm now replying to). That's arrogant. You're the one who refuses to accept that there may be other (equally Christian) ways than yours to interpret various parts of the bible."

No, not arrogance since I do not assume that I am perfect (in any sense) and I certainly do not assume that I know better than anyone else.
What I do believe - from long experience - is that people who start offering very vague "you can believe anything you want"-type interpretations of the Bible invariable end up giving out totally invalid information.

Which is one of the main reasons why I am taking my time about answering your claims.

My understanding of the Christian scriptures, FWIW, is simply to take what is in the Bible literally where it is apparently meant to be taken literally, and to do my best to understand the metaphors where things are meant metaphorically.
In all of this, as Carol and I recently agreed, on another discussion group, one should always seek, and accept the guidance of the Holy Spirit as one's primary guide to understanding God's word..
So I'm afraid your closing comment is equally inaccurate:

"... the only way that you can assert definitively that your interpretation of Christianity is "the truth" is to deny the possibility of human error in yourself, thereby putting yourself on a level with God."

But as I've just said, as far as possible (allowing that I DON'T do anything perfectly) I am entirely dependent on God, in the form of the Holy Spirit, for guidance in understanding His word.

You might want to consider this comment in a book that arrived yesterday:

"At some point in their Christian walk, many believers ask some difficult questions: Is Christianity really true? ... After all, if atheism is true ... Why should we insist on views that alienate others, especially the claim that Jesus is the only way to heaven?"
("The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus", Habermas & Licona, 2004. Page 13)

So I guess this isn't just a personal failing on my part, but one which attaches to most (all?) Bible-believing Christians at some time or other if they insist on being true to their faith.

Che sera, sera ;-)

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 24, 2012, 11:13:33 AM PDT
Hi again CBP

Sorry, but in the case of the so-called logic in an earlier post I'm afraid that really is nonense dressed up as "reason":

Presumably none of them understand simple logic. I don't mind spelling it out again, though:

1) They refuse to admit the possibility of error in their beliefs

Speaking for myself I have never made any such claim. FWIW I accept that it is conceivable that I am completely mistaken in every one of my beliefs.
Indeed, if I thought my every belief was true then they wouldn't be beliefs, would they?

2) Therefore they are claiming to be perfect (at least in this regard).

Since the first clause is not necessarily correct, this second clause is by no means proven. On the contrary, the clause is a serious DISTORTION of the view of any reasonably intelligent Christian. Why? Because no sensible Christian would claim perfect (i.e. exhaustively true) knowledge about anything.

3) But since they claim only God is perfect, therefore they are claiming to be God.

Not only is this untrue in it's own right, but the fallay is evident by virtue of the falsities in the first two clauses.

Still, if you ever do find someone who fits the descriptions in clauses 1 & 2 you might have a basis for your 3rd clause. Unless the pperson in question denies it. In which case the argument remains invalid.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 24, 2012, 11:23:13 AM PDT
Hi T. Haenni

"I choose to follow what He said, did and proclaimed and not confine him to a cross"

In what sense do you imagine Christians "confine" Jesus to the cross?

The heart of the Christian message is NOT that Jesus died, but that he was resurrected by the power of God. In short, Jesus transcended the limitation of death, thus proving that the power he claimed was genuinely his.

"I don't believe God loves any one being more than another, regardless of where or if they go to church."

Again, where does this come from? Jesus died as a sacrifice for sin that is open to EVERYONE. Not only regardless of what church they go to, but even regardless of whether they go to church at all.

Maybe you would like to read the Bible with more care (assuming that you have already read at least part of it. You may find that Jesus taught something quite different from what - going ONLY by what's in your post - you seem to think is there.

If, on the other hand, you asre simply claiming that not all Christians live up to God's expectations, of course you're right. None of us do. That's why Jesus died for us, we could never have claimed salvation on the basis of our own actions/words/thoughts.

Posted on Apr 24, 2012, 12:08:55 PM PDT
My goodness but doesn't AJ love to hear himself talk! I might point out, that although he doesn't recognize arrogance within himself, it still doesn't mean that he isn't! By the example of him constantly needing to correct everyone he disagrees with, as IF his knowledge is superior is proof enough of his arrogance. His opinions do not prove others wrong, because they are only just that; opinions. But AJ has a desperate need to prove himself, and yet provides no PROOF, only a different interpretation based on his opinion. He needs to give it a rest!

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 24, 2012, 5:38:15 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 24, 2012, 11:02:17 PM PDT
"Speaking for myself I have never made any such claim. FWIW I accept that it is conceivable that I am completely mistaken in every one of my beliefs. Indeed, if I thought my every belief was true then they wouldn't be beliefs, would they?"

What in the heck do you think they'd be instead - facts? No, they wouldn't. Beliefs don't turn into facts just because you thought they were true.

As for refusing to admit the possibility of error, you've done it over and over again. I've pointed it out over and over again. I first got into this discussion by pointing out that your beliefs weren't the sum total of Christian thought, which you then vigorously denied. I cited the dictionary in the argument over whether it was valid to write bible rather than Bible, and you claimed your dictonary was "more accurate" (and quoted it selectively). In response to an earlier accusation of arrogance you said "What you call "arrogance" I'd call "conviction"." No suggestion of doubt or willingness to accommodate other viewpoints there.

"On the contrary, the clause is a serious DISTORTION of the view of any reasonably intelligent Christian. Why? Because no sensible Christian would claim perfect (i.e. exhaustively true) knowledge about anything."

I agree that no reasonably intelligent Christian would claim perfect knowledge about anything. But name me just ONE place in this entire thread where you've actually accepted that a different view to yours might be more accurate. Without that, I argue that you're claiming, by implication, inerrancy.

"Unless the pperson in question denies it. In which case the argument remains invalid."

Denies what? That God is perfect? Or that they are claiming to be God? And you really think that if they deny it, that makes the argument fall down? That's exactly contradictory to your other stated position, that denying something doesn't make it untrue.

At one point you defined arrogance: "arrogance - which I interpret as a [sic] attitude of superiority". Your line that "only an uneducated person would call it the "bible"" is just one example of where your words exactly fit that definition.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 24, 2012, 5:48:47 PM PDT
>>So I'm afraid your closing comment is equally inaccurate:
"... the only way that you can assert definitively that your interpretation of Christianity is "the truth" is to deny the possibility of human error in yourself, thereby putting yourself on a level with God."

But as I've just said, as far as possible (allowing that I DON'T do anything perfectly) I am entirely dependent on God, in the form of the Holy Spirit, for guidance in understanding His word.<<

But you still think that how you understand the Holy Spirit's guidance is better than how anyone else does, because you don't admit any other interpretation of the bible. Claiming dependence on the HS means nothing in relation to my point (it merely means that you pretend that your perfection is God-inspired rather than your own doing) unless you also acknowledge that your understanding of that guidance might be flawed.

And for God's sake, get your Spanish right! "Che sera, sera" - um, no! If you want to use "che", then it's "che sara, sara" (Italian).

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 24, 2012, 6:09:06 PM PDT
Since you say all I need to do is give you my source and you can look it up for yourself, go ahead:
The Source New Testament With Extensive Notes On Greek Word Meaning

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 26, 2012, 11:55:19 AM PDT
Hi CBP

"Since you say all I need to do is give you my source and you can look it up for yourself, go ahead."

Thank you for the link. It seems the book is out of print in the UK, so I've had to oder a copy from the US. Which will take a couple of weeks to get to me. So don't expect to get a quick answer on that one.

Having said that, regarding the "utter rubbish" claim, even the words are there, the claim that Paul was quoting from the Corinthean's letter is itself still nonsense.
Likewise (from a review of the book on Amazon) I gather that Nylund objects to the translation of Chloe's role as described by Paul.
Unfortunately for Ms Nylund she doesn't seem to know that "Chloe's house" would be the most likely translation because in those days Christian services were held in the houses of individual Christians.
Nor could Chloe have been the head of the congregation since she apparently followed Paul's instructions. She may, however, have been a deacon of that "congregation".

Still, I'll reserve any further comments until I've had time to read the book for myself.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 26, 2012, 12:44:15 PM PDT
Jamie says:
If you're a Christian with an open mind, you can most definitely also be a Buddhist or Taoist. There's no contradiction. If you're afraid of practices you don't know - or want to know - then you'll never know this. Plenty of highly respected people - like Phil Jackson, who calls himself a Zen Christian, subscribe to the principles of Christianity and Buddhism.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 27, 2012, 1:41:06 PM PDT
lisarenee62 says:
Hummingbirder, I know this! I am a christian, I believe that Jesus Christ is our savior redeemer and Lord! I have been saved for a long time, I have gotten away from God a time or two in my life, and most of it come from depression, severe life situations, bad choices you name it. But this I know, I recently was in severe depression and have battled it most of my adult life, I was abused as a child and also had an ugly divorce (unwanted). I lived for too many years grasping only to what I learned from Christianity and what I have been taught in Church, but it was from reading a book by two spiritual teachers that taught about the teachings of Christ, Budda and Tao, to help me realize that I was holding onto past pain and it was the cause of my suffering. I also started meditating. I became free from anxiety and depression for the first time in my adult life, it got so bad last year I thought of suicide. The teachings didnt always align with my beliefs but the core truth was the same as what Jesus taught. Once I was free from all of this, it helped me with my walk with God. I am not a buddist or Taoist. I do not worship or follow the teachings. but I learned so much that it set me free from my own negative thinking! Jesus came to bring truth not ONE form of belief! I dont agree with everything these teachers do, but I am a big girl I know how to learn something great and apply it, and the stuff I shouldnt I reject. it is simple as that. there was no deceit in it. When I meditate, it helps me to rid myself of the worries and insessant thinking our minds do so that I can truly pray now, the way I believe it should be, I dont pray for prosperity, or have to pray for the depression to leave, God made a way for me and it was through these teachers. Dont dismiss others belief, God can use anyone! But. The bible does say that Jesus is the way the only way and that I still believe in and will always. God Bless

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 27, 2012, 1:42:01 PM PDT
lisarenee62 says:
R. Singer, yes that was my point exactly! Thank you!

Posted on May 24, 2012, 12:12:26 AM PDT
K. Geddings says:
no you idiot.

In reply to an earlier post on May 24, 2012, 4:31:16 AM PDT
lbjr says:
Was this a response to the OP? And could you please enlighten us as to why you feel this way? From your post I assume you are a very wise person with much to share. Please bless us with your knowledge and wisdom, and elaborate on your very articulate statement. Thank you.

In reply to an earlier post on May 24, 2012, 3:37:52 PM PDT
witchie+ says:
How is Hinduism supporting the Chinese in Tibet?

In reply to an earlier post on May 24, 2012, 3:39:23 PM PDT
witchie+ says:
I too consider myself a Christian and practice Kriya Yogan. I know Jesus, he is always in my resence, and he accepts my Christianity.

In reply to an earlier post on May 24, 2012, 3:41:14 PM PDT
witchie+ says:
What Jesus meant by "I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the father except through me." is that you were to become like him and that way you get to God.

In reply to an earlier post on May 24, 2012, 3:52:35 PM PDT
witchie+ says:
MZ: "terrorize people into thinking that if you do not act good you will be born as a worm."

Actually, being born as a worm is not an option given in any of the teachings about reincarnation that I have read. However, ending up in hell is far worse than the option of having another human life to correct past mistakes.

In reply to an earlier post on May 31, 2012, 2:32:14 AM PDT
Katherine wrote:

'What Jesus meant by "I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the father except through me." is that you were to become like him and that way you get to God.'

1. I wonder how you happen to know something very different from generations of theologians (theologians aren't all Christians, in fact not all theologians are even "believers").

2. How on earth do you get from "except through me" to "be like me"?

3. If we accept the logic of your argument, the only way we can get to God is by being executed by crucifixion. Are you sure about that?

In reply to an earlier post on May 31, 2012, 2:49:27 AM PDT
"1. I wonder how you happen to know something very different from generations of theologians (theologians aren't all Christians, in fact not all theologians are even "believers")."

Actually there are plenty of theologians - believers and not - who interpret that verse in a similar way. It's all in how you understand the word "through". It's not, after all, as if you're not putting a particular interpretation on it yourself; you certainly don't understand it as walking through the physical body of Jesus. Again, you demonstrate your arrogance by implying that any other interpretation than yours is incorrect.

"3. If we accept the logic of your argument, the only way we can get to God is by being executed by crucifixion. Are you sure about that?"

That's just plain ridiculous! "Being like" is not the same as "undergoing the same life/death experiences". If it were, then the various references in the bible to becoming like God would mean that we have to experience the same things as God does - a patently absurd assertion.

In reply to an earlier post on May 31, 2012, 7:41:39 AM PDT
witchie+ says:
That is what my [Christian] church teaches. We are all to become like Jesus, not just worship him. I do not think that he meant that we had to go through crucifixion. I think you are being way too literal. He also said we could do greater things than him which clearly indicates that he intended us to develop ourselves spiritually beyong where we are now. To get to be like Jesus, you will need his grace so "except through me".

Posted on May 31, 2012, 8:10:56 AM PDT
Hummingbirder, you are so far off, and it is your own intolerance that keeps you stuck. You are VERY confused. Christianity is a religion, Buddhism or Taoism are not religions, they are philosphies. Also, there is no worshipping of a "god", so it does NOT go against Christian doctrine to also practice these other philosophies.

Posted on May 31, 2012, 2:18:23 PM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on May 31, 2012, 8:18:53 PM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 4, 2012, 6:53:31 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 4, 2012, 7:02:36 AM PDT
Tim S. says:
From my readings of Taoism ( Everyday Tao: Living with Balance and Harmony ), it said it's good to be aware of other religions, and to respect them. On the other hand, it asked how can a religion use threats (Hell, obviously) to intimidate. I think you need to choose one or the other, and moreover, I think the more you get into Tao, the less you want to stay in Christianity. It's one thing to respect other religions but practicing multiple religions (or mythologies) is somewhat schizo, in my opinion. Just ask your local shrink. (winking at ZD)

Posted on Jun 4, 2012, 7:15:27 AM PDT
hello Sargon. While you might find that you are drifting away from Christianity that might not always be the case with others. Now I cannot agree with you on your comment in regard to practicing multiple religions, as I've already explained, and I know you are very aware of; Christianity is a religion, and Buddhism or Taoism are philosophies. Since it is still possible to worship the Christian God and still find useful tools in learning how to cope with everyday life in Buddhism, there really is no hindrance and no disrespect to "God" because there is no worshipping of other deities or idols.
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the Self-help forum (422 discussions)

 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Self-help forum
Participants:  121
Total posts:  528
Initial post:  Nov 9, 2007
Latest post:  Aug 6, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 12 customers