So my spiritual "hobbies" consist of going to orthodox church every Sunday and practicing a lot of Zazen and studying...

OP here, this is pretty much my view as well.
Rebirths are Karma are mentioned in the Bible several times actually.
We are sinners by default because we are unenlightened and thus separated from God.
Sin = bad Karma in a nutshell
The aim of Christianity is to have a relationship with your Creator in order to be saved and rid yourself of all negative Karma. Jesus has died for us on that cross and He wiped away a lot of our negative Karma, or sins while teaching us that God loves all the sinners and wants us to get close to Him.
God is infinite Karma and we have been separated from Him. I believe everything said in the Bible as fact, but saying Jesus is real and Buddha isn't is hypocrisy.
Buddha played a huge role on humankind and taught us a way to salvation. He never spoke of God because it was not His role, God would be revealed to us ~500 years later through our Lord Jesus Christ.

Read what I stated above. Buddha was not God, but a simple man who has attained enlightenment and truly reached the state of heaven. I have neither added or removed anything.
I feel sorry if you're dumb enough to think of heaven and hell and material places.
You can also find Karma and Rebirth in the bible.

>you dont follow the bible word for word and thus must have no brain

Buddhism and orthodox share a lot of practices such as meditation, ascetic living, fasting. If you throw away all of the apocalyptic stuff, Jesus and Buddah don't sound all that different. Any well educated person who studies both religions will immediately see the similarities in and that the benefits are the universal. Any religion that practices discipline(fasting,abstaining from degenerate practices) Prayer(meditation) will yield he same results. Christianity is not the only way to salvation, as much as you christcuks love to think it is.

You didn't understand any of the questions I posed you.
>I have neither added or removed anything.
If you believe in modern christianity, you have placed your faith in something which is against what you believe. It has been changed, since it's inception, and that's what you place your faith in. Something which it explicitly tells you not to do.

Again.
>I feel sorry if you're dumb enough to think of heaven and hell and material places.
>You can also find Karma and Rebirth in the bible.
Has nothing to do with the points at hand. Of course you would project since you cannot fully grasp what I am telling you, even though it's so very logically simple.
You can say "well I think Buddah is god", but it doesn't tell you, in your guidelines, it tells you the fucking opposite that anyone telling you information different than the book (doesn't matter if you can see they are the same teachings) it's a heretic testing you.

How can you have such a little understanding of something you believe in.

Truly an idiot. With an idiotic faith. Probably never even read the bible once. Disregarding the fact that you do need to read multiple iterations of the bible AS IT'S BEEN CHOPPED AND CHANGED SO MANY TIMES OVER THE YEARS.

>You can also find Karma and Rebirth in the bible.
There is literally nothing original in the bible.

>as much as you christcuks love to think it is.
Kek. Where in the fuck did you get this from? THe bible LITERALLY, LITERALLY LITERALLY FUCKING LITERALLY tells you to follow the bible word for word and that you cannot fucking change it. Yet you all believe in a version which has been chnaged to suit your modern needs. I am asking you to explain yourselves, something which you are yet to fucking do.

>He thinks morality is objective.

I would probably say yes but I haven't studied the question in any detail.

But I think you're correct to contrast the idea of religion (which absolutely, in different ways, involves a submission of the individual to a tradition) with the kind of post-Kantian individually constructed morality of the present era.

>>he thinks that OP's method of forming your own values based on your preferences isn't the only sane way to live your life.

Sanity is a stupid criteria which you've invoked here for lack of serious thinking. We are attempting to live right lives, good lives, rational lives, inquiry into each of which brings us back to the question of how morality is constituted.

Back to OP, you simply cannot pillage through religious rituals, texts and ideas, throwing out the ones you don't like, keeping the ones you do, and inventing bridges as you see fit. This is nothing but a symbolic arrangement of what you already believe. One of the functions of religion is shifting the will by forcing it (by faith) to accept modalities of thinking and morality which are beyond the individual's existing beliefs.

There is no spiritual progress which is not characterized by an abandonment of self-constituted morality.

If you disagree with this idea, then you're a kind of Kantian and should act that way. You have no need to go to church. I don't care how it makes you feel, your presence there is disingenuous.

What about all the other religions that say their way is the only truth and must be followed word for word?

This thread is realted to christianity? If it were a Muslim thread I would pull all the same references from the Quran as well - as they are also in there.

Fuck off. See that's why the world hates ISIS. They take their book to be real, they don't change it, and they follow it. ISIS is what modern day Christians would look like if they didnt change their bible, it's no wonder they did.

Doesn't make it right though. Should have gone in the bin, not the editing room.

I worship Plato, Hermes Trismestigus, and Jesus Christ

Fight me

Are you attempting to argue against Biblical literalism or something?

Biblical literalism is basically an early 20th century reaction to archaeological discoveries that questioned the Biblical narrative (this is the context in which the word "Fundamentalist" is first used to describe American Christianity, if I recall correctly).

None of the major Protestant sects are literalists. Catholics have never been Biblical literalists.

Does that clarify anything?

>Does that clarify anything?

>we never REALLY believed in what we say we believe

No?

Define literalism.

I don't care for flame wars and if you're intent on having an argument I'll stop responding.

I'm hoping we can have a discussion or something instead.

There is a field of theology called exegesis which is present in each of the Abrahamic religions, and has analogues in other scriptural traditions. Exegesis tries to understand the correct way to interpret text; it develops theories and arguments for how scripture should be understood, and thus forms an extremely important part of the faith.

Each of the religions is well aware of how its own exegesis evolves overtime. The Talmud is filled with dialogues and arguments with rabbies occurring over centuries; they often make remarks about how previous rabbies interpreted verses differently, and make arguments for why they should be changed.

This sort of thing happens in Islam as well, where the science of interpretation is called tafsir, and in Christianity. In the Catholic Church the doctrines of the faith are understood to be products of Holy Tradition and Holy Scripture.

"The Tibetan lama listened respectfully to the Jesuit priest [Father Huc] and replied, 'Your religion is the same as ours.'"

>Resemblances Between the Buddhist and Roman Catholic Religions
>Lydia Maria Child, The Atlantic Monthly, December 1870

>pic Father Huc

You have not once touched the question. You are making excuses. Your opinion has gone into the bin.

I mean, it's not like the bible tells you to not do exactly what you are fucking doing, yet you still place your faith in it.

This has nothing to do with me. I don't care about all the excuses you can make.

You are still so fucking wrong and a sinner in the eyes of god.

See you in hell.

You cannot be a Christian and idolize Buddha at the same time. Idolizing in forbidden in the Abrahamic religion.

>a 200 year old quote outlining modern Christianity is the same as Archaic christianity which says you must believe this version.

Kay'.

>if you throw out the most important part of Jesus Christ he's just like Buddha

You clearly know nothing of Orthodox mysticism or doctrine. Literalism is a radical concept that has no place in the proper Church and has been denounced as such multiple times by multiple Patriarchs.

Furthermore, the Orthodox Bible has more content than any edition after it, with mistakes in translation causing the only possible error as opposed to literal truncation of the holy texts in the Catholic and Protestant traditions.

You probably think that Catholics don't count as "Christians" and only Protestantism is real Christianity, like most ignorant American Protestants.

It's not one specific school or sect, it's basically a chunk of related ideas that scripture should be understood as intending the most immediate meaning of the text.

The belief that the Bible is the "Word of God" is almost nonexistent in Christianity. It's not like the Quran; it didn't come from a single person's revelation over a single lifetime, and it doesn't have the kind of immense theological status that the Quran does (there are contexts in Islam where the Quran is understood as cosmically important, perhaps being synonymous with existence).

Such a view might be advanced by an everyday practitioner, but it is clunky to a theologian (how are we to understand the relationship between the revelation of scripture and the Crucifixion? What do verses like "In the beginning was the Word... and the Word was God" mean in such a context?)

You could say literalism is an anti-exegesis. It denies that such a process as the recovery of meaning via theory/argument exists at all. As I mentioned, it's not terribly popular, I think for obvious reasons.

?

On top of this,

>200 year old buttered up interpretation of Christianity presented to be like Buddhism using Buddhist vocabularies made to sound similar

>Literalism is a radical concept that has no place in the proper Church and has been denounced as such multiple times by multiple Patriarchs.
You understand how retarded this fucking is? AGAIN AGAIN AGAIN, I DO NOT CARE FOR THE EXCUSES YOU ARE MAKING.

THE BOOK TELLS YOU TO NOT DO WHAT YOU ARE DOING

YOU ARE YET TO TELL ME WHY YOU CAN BELIEVE IN SOMETHING WHICH YOU HAVE CHANGED, IT TELLS YOU NOT TO CHANGE IT

Hopefully since I posed the question in caps you will actually broach it.

>they never really believed in it so why should I
That's justification for you? Also I am nott alking about the issue with translation, moreso these parts.

>If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city.

Deuteronomy is literally modern day ISIS. But it's okay, becasue you guys changed your belief, even though it tells you not to do so, but that's okay too, because you never really practiced what you preached.

Am I understanding you?

I'm sure the Jesuit priest didn't feel the same way.

Buddhism and Hinduism are both very inclusive religions. Christianity may be culturally inclusive, but it is not ideologically.

I'm not OP, I'm just someone who's tired of people who are speaking from the context of American "babby's first denomination" Christianity. Does OP literally say "I worship Buddha as God"? Because if he doesn't you have no case in your argument. Being Christian doesn't bar you from accepting or considering moral stances that are in line with Christian values, and likewise admiring someone is not idolization.

And taking the Old Testament at face value is essentially saying that Christianity is a variant of Judaism, because nobody else gives a shit.

I'm guess you're trying to make the following argument, but you sound like a hysterical teenager so I'll make it for you:

"Revealed religions rely on scriptures to convey prophecy, which is understood as a communication between God and man that mandates how humans should conduct themselves.

Given this understanding, human will cannot override the specific demands of the text, because this is inconsistent with the idea that such texts are revealed.

Therefore the only valid interpretations of revealed religions are the most fundamentalist ones: Jews should literally follow all the laws of Deuteronomy like the Haridim, and Muslims should follow all the Quranic verses on war like ISIS. "

You still didn't touch the question I asked you.
>Christianity is a variant of Judaism
What? Holy shit you have literally no understanding of the belief system you place your faith in, I have literally no idea what to say to you. Christianity is literally just a variant of Judaism.

Your ignorance is off the charts. Holy shit.

>ReligionMathGuy
Kill yourself. Sad because no one replied to you? Had to self insert your unwanted opinion, fucking lol.

Kill yourself.

The whole reason that Christian Churches even bother to call themselves "Apostolic" is because it means their leaders are the successors of the Apostles and actually can interpret scripture beyond face value. This is the reason why Ecumenical Councils can change official Church policy, why the Pope has essentially absolute power if he so chooses, and why literalism, if opposed by the denominational tradition, does not apply.

okee dokee

Buddha is just a really fat guy, what could you possibly learn from him?

Yeah I agree. Our friend here, though passionate, was having a hard time making his point, so I made it for him. I don't agree with it either.

youtube.com/watch?v=G5ZW75rsYNA

The guy asking the question is you. Even if you made a valid point I would never, ever seriously reply to a fucking namefag.

Kill yourself.

You undestand you are still simply making excuses.

You are just saying - they never practiced what they preached, so why should I.

I said, over and fucking over again. I don't care for your fucking excuses. How these institutions can convice the masses to believe what they want without consequence. You have dodged the point, over and over again. I AM ASKING WHY YOU, not the church, FUCKING YOU can believe in something which is hypocritical by nature. If you are unable to answer the fucking question, which it seems, tell me so I can move on and write you off as a simple fucking idiot.

>replying to a literal namefag
>2016
What the fuck is happening.

Haha ya borderline illiterate bastard, I very obviously answered your question right in the first paragraph. He's not idolizing Buddha, and if a moral standard is in line with Christianity, there is no flaw in holding it.

Also, saying that Christianity is a variant of Judaism is like saying that America is a descendant of Roman Britannia. There's been so much variation between the two that this is a dishonest and naive comparison. Maybe the very first disciples of Christ still followed a form of Judaism but that's very obviously untrue today. I'm not the ignorant one here lad.

how pathetic

> I don't understand subtlety

also, you clearly didn't understand the part where I said I wasn't OP. Please learn to read before pestering people again, you're such a fucking idiot it's actually painful

>There's been so much variation between the two that this is a dishonest and naive comparison. Maybe the very first disciples of Christ still followed a form of Judaism but that's very obviously untrue today. I'm not the ignorant one here lad.

A hur durr, it's not like this comes back to the very first point where the bible literally says to not change the fucking bible.

Wow. I am simply asking you all over and over again HOW YOU CAN BELIEVE IN SOMETHING WHICH HAS BEEN CHANGED WHICH TELLS YOU NOT TO CHANGE IT

and your excuses are they always changed it so it's okay?
How can you all not see the utter retardation in your logics?

> I very obviously answered your question right in the first paragraph. He's not idolizing Buddha, and if a moral standard is in line with Christianity, there is no flaw in holding it.

He is being led astray by a heretic and failed his test. That's literally what god says, if it's not in the book (buddist teaching while similar are not the ones contained in the bible) then it's a test.

How can you have such little understanding of the thing you have placed your faith in?

>also, you clearly didn't understand the part where I said I wasn't OP. Please learn to read before pestering people again, you're such a fucking idiot it's actually painful

Kek, thanks for the answering the question. I love how when ever I post that image christposters turn into blubbering retards because none of you actually believe.

>how pathetic
>Not doing your part to end name/trip fagging.

Fuck off.

what image ya mong

While he may not have agreed ideologically, he acknowledged certain cultural similarities:

"When Father Huc, a French Jesuit missionary, visited one of these Lamaseries, not many years ago, he was struck with the same resemblance. He says: 'The reception given us recalled to our thoughts those monasteries raised by our own religious ancestors, in which travellers and the poor always found refreshment for the body and consolation for the soul.'"

>ibid
>pic Father Huc

Buddhism and Christianity are perfectly compatible. Christianity just applies to understandings of the soul, being, and divinity at the conventional level. Buddhism just takes you all the way

Are you fucking retarded?

The Bible, as scripture passed down through prophesy, cannot be change except by prophetic individuals. People assume this means that it can't be changed any further, because Jesus is no longer on Earth.

Except the apostles were also considered to have prophetic insight. This is why the Bible contains many of their books as scripture. Modern-day religious leaders can change scripture's interpretation as well as scripture itself because they are considered to be apostles as well.

That's as simple as I can make it.

> He is being led astray by a heretic and failed his test. That's literally what god says, if it's not in the book (buddist teaching while similar are not the ones contained in the bible) then it's a test.

til if a Muslim tells me to be nice because it's morally right to do so and I follow his advice I'm automatically a heretic despite it saying the exact same thing in the Bible

>til if a Muslim tells me to be nice because it's morally right to do so and I follow his advice I'm automatically a heretic despite it saying the exact same thing in the Bible
If you read the bible but do not follow what it says to be 'good' but instead do what a muslims tells you in order to be 'good' then yes, you are a heretic. You have taken the word of a non-beliver over your gods (even if they are the same thing), you failed.

>That's as simple as I can make it.
Did it ever occur to you, that if god did have a hand in writing the bible he would forsee people trying to change his words and he put safe guards into his teaachings to try to avoid this exact outcome, have you thought about anything? No where in those passages does it make exemption's for people to change his word.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostolic_succession

> If you read the bible but do not follow what it says to be 'good' but instead do what a muslims tells you in order to be 'good' then yes, you are a heretic. You have taken the word of a non-beliver over your gods (even if they are the same thing), you failed.

But if you read the Bible, see what it says to be good, and then agree with someone of another religion who believes that same definition, then are you a heretic?

Giving me a link to some articles which outlines how the church is able to circumvent the word of god is nothing new to me, it does not justfy why you believe in a hypocritical belief system.

>I will establish my covenant as an everlasting covenant between me and you and your descendants after you for the generations to come, to be your God and the God of your descendants after you.

Genesis 17:7

>“I the Lord do not change. So you, the descendants of Jacob, are not destroyed.

Malachi 3:6

Seems pretty unchanging to me. Here is something I would like you to do.

DO NOT LINK ME TO WIKI, instead link me to passages INSIDE THE FUCKING BIBLE. Like I am doing.

>and then agree with someone of another religion who believes that same definition, then are you a heretic?
No, why would you be? So long as you take your gods teachings to be true.

Proof that apostles have prophetic insight and should be listened to in spiritual matters:

> Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.
> Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.

1 Corinthians 11:1-2

> To this He called you through our gospel, so that you may share in the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.
> Therefore, brothers, stand firm and cling to the traditions we taught you, whether by speech or by letter.

2 Thessalonians 2:14-15

Proof that apostolic succession can be transferred through divine inspiration:

> Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,
> Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.
> And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias.
> And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen,
> That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place.
> And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.

Acts 1:21-26

>Proof that apostolic succession can be transferred through divine inspiration:
Yes, for those 11 apostles. Nowhere does it state succesion goes 'past' them. Essentially what I am saying, their words are the only words and should not have been changed, as what is said many times throughout the bible.

I mean literally in the first part of the passage it essentially says it ONLY APPLIES TO THE PEOPLE WHO FOLLOWED JESUS.
>Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us

It even pretty much states the line stops with Matthias as the eleventh.
>And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles

I mean, it gives you a fucking number. 11 apostles, not infinite, 11.

Nowhere did I doubt the word of the apostles (no more so than doubting Christiany as a whole). So the passages proving their insight is besides the point.

The point is these 11 men are the messegers of god, it's their word which you have to follow, no where does this prove what you think it does. It does the oppostie, it restricts the word to those 11 men.

Other translations use the word "added" as opposed to "numbered among", and furthermore there are other instances in which laying-on-of-hands causes a transfer of apostolic authority, those being described in the entirety of the Epistles to Timothy and Titus.

Succession is shown, in the Bible, to go past the original 12 apostles.

Do you think Jesus is literally God?

Buddha is certainly not a teacher of salvation any more than the people who created congitive behavioural therapy are.

>Then in the beginning of Kali-yuga, the Lord will appear as Lord Buddha, the son of Anjana, in the province of Gaya, just for the purpose of deluding those who are envious of the faithful theists (Srimad Bhagavatam)

Buddha is an accepted incarnation of the Lord Krsna, who "descends Himself" when adharma (lawlessness/irreligion)
is rising.

Christ is also Krsna in Sanskrit. When Christ says "My Father and I are One"...

>true initiate
Ok let me just interrupt so say that, in Buddhism, the Christian "Heaven" would amount to nothing more than a devanic plane or a Buddha realm at max. "God" doesn't play any role in enlightenment at all because Buddhist don't believe... Sigh.

You know what? Whatever dude.

>Epistles to Timothy and Titus
>letters from Paul THE Apostle

Christ teaches that suffering for the sake of others is good, Buddha disavows all suffering as a distraction in favor of meaningless koans.

You cannot serve two masters.

That's probably the single dumbest explanation of Buddhist teaching I've ever seen. Congrats on not even having the stamina to read the Wikipedia article on Buddhism.