The Bible gave us books.

Yes, I actually spent the third and fourth decade of my life studying and experimenting with several faiths, including Buddhism.

How about you, have you given up anything to seek deeper meaning?

Or would you rather discuss these issues without asking personal questions to find motive?

The article was from a Catholic publication, and while I disagree with their conclusions at least they offered verifiable data. There's a lesson for you somewhere in there. How you went from that to "Christianity is THE religion that proposes life after death" is a leap that defies the imagination. It also suggests a very weak grounding in the history & philosophy of religion, but that's your problem. Not mine.

Is it your goal to discuss, or to argue? Your last remark sounds like bait.

*prays for cowbell*

Ah, so he's one of *those* people.

What a waste of time LOL. Somehow in your study of Buddhism you missed one of the primary tenents...Life after death.

Although Christians and Buddhists both believe in life after death they teach radically different things about what it is. The Christian belief in an after-life is based on a linear view of time. This means Christians believe each person will live on this earth once and after that go to be judged by God ('Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgement' (Hebrews 9:27)).
Buddhism teaches something rather different. Buddhists believe time is cyclical. This means they believe people do not live and die just once but are able to be reborn a number of times before reaching their final end state (NB. This is different from the Christian teaching of being 'born again' which refers to spiritual rebirth in this life rather than physical rebirth after death (see John 3:3-.

The belief that after death the soul (or a person) is reborn in this world to live a new life is called reincarnation.

2 decades of searching?!?! LOL

I guess after 20 years you had to glom on to something

Briana Dawson

*give thanks and praise*

im still waiting for evidence hes done true research on christian history.

it is a sad fact the majority of people are ignorant of history. Even those who claim to like it.

In this day and age, that is certainly true, between steam cell research supression, and the "intellectual trojan horse of Creationism" that is "Intelligence Design."

Thanks to the Religious Right, and the general dumbing down of America by politicians on both sides, America is very quickly losing it's scientific edge.

becky turn on your messages , please

Im still trying to figure out how much is caused by the religeous right and how much is just general cultural instituted marginalism.

This is just another one of your pointless rants, how is this maturity?

How are my statements regarded as rants? I'm not violent, and I'm not seeking to anger anyone.

And would your post be a rant about a thread you could easily have ignored?

Traditionally the word rant implied violence and anger, but in modern usage it usally means:
v : talk in a noisy, excited, or declamatory manner [syn: mouth off, jabber, spout, rabbit on, rave]

many people feel morally obliged to correct erroneous information so that it does not propagate

Actually, the info I provided is correct.

On the other hand, you didn't provide info, just a rant, according to your definition.

What exactly does "christian" history have to do with the Bible? Are you blaming the Bible for any actions of people who claim to abide by it's tenants?

Just curious...

You are partially correct. Born again does refer to spiritual birth in this life. I agree with that.

People who study the Bible and try to follow it believe, in general, that at some point we will live in eternity, which is to say future, present and past all at once. As a creature of time and space, we have difficulty grasping these concepts, though Paul did touch on it when he said that we will know, even as we are known.


The difference I find with Buddhism is that Buddhists don't believe we have a soul. That there is no personality retained. That life is like the rain, or something similar, that washes together in the sea and evaporates again to rain once more. That's my analogy...
Here is a snip from the web explaining it better than I can...
"...there is the concept of anatman -- literally, "no soul". Anatman means that all things are interconnected and interdependent, so that no thing -- including ourselves -- has a separate existence."

I think you missed the rest of the thread.

Well first off Mr. Burnman Bedlam gave you credit for knowing something of Christain history. Id say the jury is still out.

Secondly this thread is a Christain historical thread, since you are crediting the guttenburg bible and its supposed aim to "bring the bible to the masses" for being the precipitate for mass produced books in general.

IN fact my earlier posts were pointing out that this was not the case.

That would be the relative to this thread answer to your question.


To answer your larger question - "Christain history" has a HUGE impact on the Bible as it exists today. Indeed it was the church as it became organized that decided on canon - What books and in which prefered version would make the bible up.

Now is the bible at fault for the evil of mankind? surely not - mankind has evil with or without the bible. And the bible is most obviously a book written to help alliviate some of that behavior.

I imagine that even those who disagree with the Christain religeon would agree that those men (divinely inspired or not) who originally put those texts to writing were interested in aiding the human condition as best they could.

Indeed i would say the majority of Christain (Catholic and otherwise) cleregy have also been interested in aiding the human condition. Following in those footsteps.

The biggest difficulties that followed that , however, and its a temptation with any organized religeon, is the use of the bible and Christianity as a force for thought control and political/economic power.

To deny that the bible and christianity have not / and are not now used to those ends is to deny history and reality.

In other words, since the Buddhist view doesn't agree with your Greco-Paulinized definition of an afterlife, you discount their view and claim they don't believe in life after death. Do you really want to slide down that slippery philosophical slope with me? I don't think so. Your narrow cultural certitude isn't going to handle the job as long as you believe it's the only answer. It's nothing of the kind.

The phrase just came to me that describes your statements in this thread: "half-baked".

I have found through experience, that debating/discussing theology with the self-righteous is as fruitful as smacking one's own head with a hammer repeatedly. The self-righteous will always have a justification, misconception, misinterpretation, to reply with... and an total refusal to accept anything but their own view as worth considering.

It is often pointless, since they have convinced themselves that it's "their way or you're evil". So much for "judge not lest ye be judged", "turn the other cheek", "love thy neighbor", or any number of biblical concepts.

The danger of faith without question... is one never has any answers... just a distorted view of a literary work comprised of the opinions and interpretations of a concept written about events that took place hundreds/thousands of years prior.

Missiles gave us defense contracts

Hatred gave us missiles