Jump to content
Dharmaling Forums
Sign in to follow this  
just_me

Christians / Non-Christians

Recommended Posts

Tashi Delek!

 

In the above mentioned situation, I think what matters is what do we define as "Christians"?? From the point of view of the "Christic ideal", or from the Institutions which define themselves as Christians??

I think that the commandments are addressed individually to people, and the teachings as well. So, only a person can follow them. Therefore, I would apply the denomination "Christian" to individual people, not to institutions. How can an institution "love its god with all its heart and all its soul and all its mind"? Or "love its neighbour as itself"? This would be very interesting to see. :wink:

 

NB: Indeed, subject very far from "Partner relationship"... May be someone could start a topic on this matter?

What about Mr Admin transferring the previous messages to another subject? :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But according to my knowledge of history, the Inquisition and Crusades weren't made by "a few" individuals, but by an organisation.
Since when an organisation is not composed of "individuals"! :)) And the above mentioned institutions which organised and 'blessed' the crusads and Inquisition wheren't composed of "few" but thousands of people who defined themselves as Christians, and where recognised as such by their head representative, the Pope! ://

So, try, and set! :mrgreen:

Ay ay, I seem to be put in the role of a pacemaker - excuse me, peacemaker. :wink:

So, I will ask you: if I define myself as an enlightened being, does it make me enlightened? :D So, what does it matter what someone defines about him/herself? Is someone Christian because he says he is? If it works this way, I know a few definitions I will make about myself. :twisted:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems to me that the definition is important - what is it that we have been discussing up until now, if that is not the case? If I call myself a Buddhist - I (intend to) follow the words of the Buddha, if not, I am less likely to. If I call myself a Christian - I (intend to) follow the words of Jesus, if not, I am less likely to. Isn't that so?

In fact, I would say there is more to this than that. Religious communities have followers, the heads of the communities represent the communities; it's a question of authority, being an example; the problem of (having, governing with) power - what you say, people will take as a sacred thing... etc.

 

Best regards,

Khyenrab :*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
Therefore, I would apply the denomination "Christian" to individual people, not to institutions.

I see institutions as real as any other set of concepts and behaviour. Of course we are individuals and free in our choices, but to which extent? :(= I don’t believe that you think that culture, religion, childhood and similar have no influence on us. If I follow you right, I agree that in basis nothing except ourselves prevents us from being free to act rational and according to our ideals. But it isn’t easy to reach that point isn’t it? It’s easier to follow authorities and or our self then to work against our ego and learn to use our own mind, isn’t it? :)zzz This unfortunate comfort makes (religious) institutions more real then necessary. I wouldn’t diminish this part of reality.

 

Best regards, :* Khandro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest admin
Therefore, I would apply the denomination "Christian" to individual people, not to institutions. How can an institution "love its god with all its heart and all its soul and all its mind"? Or "love its neighbour as itself"? This would be very interesting to see. :wink:
:DD This would be to forget that Institution do not exist from themselves! Obvioulsy they are made of individual!

Therefore, a group a people called "Christians" are making an Institution called "Christians", representing Christian perceptions... Ok, when this institution is made of ten people, I would say it is not very representative... But when that Institution is led by the Pope... :(=

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:DD This would be to forget that Institution do not exist from themselves! Obvioulsy they are made of individual!

Surely, this is a very old trick we all seem to believe. That the state is composed of its citizens, democracy and so on. Else, we wouldn't go to the elections. o:)

 

Therefore, a group a people called "Christians" are making an Institution called "Christians", representing Christian perceptions... Ok, when this institution is made of ten people, I would say it is not very representative... But when that Institution is led by the Pope... :(=

Here we must open a new subject, I think - "Marketing and PR". :twisted:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Therefore, I would apply the denomination "Christian" to individual people, not to institutions.

I see institutions as real as any other set of concepts and behaviour. Of course we are individuals and free in our choices, but to which extent? :(= I don¦#146;t believe that you think that culture, religion, childhood and similar have no influence on us. If I follow you right, I agree that in basis nothing except ourselves prevents us from being free to act rational and according to our ideals. But it isn¦#146;t easy to reach that point isn¦#146;t it? It¦#146;s easier to follow authorities and or our self then to work against our ego and learn to use our own mind, isn¦#146;t it? :)zzz This unfortunate comfort makes (religious) institutions more real then necessary. I wouldn¦#146;t diminish this part of reality.

So, please prove that an institution can for example follow the Christian principle to "love the Lord its God with all its heart and all its soul and all its mind". 8O

 

Of course, it depends on what the word "Christian" means to an individual. For me, it means "following the teachings of Christ". For all I know, this definition isn't in discordance with the traditional meaning - is it? But it excludes institutions, and it excludes people who call themselves Christian (for whatever reason, even if their institution gives them that name), but don't follow the teachings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am but a novice, however, I was a "born again" christian. I am also an american. One thing that I've come to realize the basic "end product" in a lot of religions comes down to the same thing. None grasping Love. Unconditionaly. Here in the west everything goes too fast. I was taught to "Think Fast", but no one ever taught me how to weed the garden of thought in my mind. In other words to slow down. I am now a buddhist and I am becoming free of my conceptions and attitudes to allow myself to choose what is in reality "energy". Instead of being drivin by my thoughts, I have some control. I was told when I failed to "try harder" or "do better". This is but a false concept. I live in this moment and do the best for this moment. I feel free. Peace, Will :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was told when I failed to "try harder" or "do better". This is but a false concept. I live in this moment and do the best for this moment. I feel free.

Oh, I like that a lot! Arya Shantideva has a beautiful "saying" to discribe such a peaceful, undisturbed, yet diligent mind! :)

 

"If there is a remedy, what is the use of frustration?

If there is no remedy, what is the use of frustration?"

 

Best regards,

Khyenrab

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest admin
So, please prove that an institution can for example follow the Christian principle to "love the Lord its God with all its heart and all its soul and all its mind". 8O
:roll: Easy! Go to the Church main office, and ask: "who do you love with all you hart and all your soul and mind?". Since they represent the institution, their answer is the answer of the institution! In the same way that when a president signs, he signs for the association or company... :-p When the Prime Minister speaks, we say: "the Government said"... Same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
this definition ... excludes institutions, and it excludes people who call themselves Christian (for whatever reason, even if their institution gives them that name), but don't follow the teachings.

Dear Wangmo!

 

Throughout all the history of sociology two approaches were exchanging dominant position. To simplify: A. society = sum of individuals and their relations, B. society = institutions. First accentuating one¦#146;s values, goals, free will (idealistic approach in sense of proceeding towards one¦#146;s ideals), second accentuating normative and manipulative power of institutions (socially critical approach). It¦#146;s like looking at a forest and a tree. :mrgreen:

 

But of course it¦#146;s up to you to say there¦#146;s no either forest or a tree, if you decide to preserve your view. :wink:

 

To repeat once again: I don¦#146;t believe we are as free as we would like to be, and I don¦#146;t see that we follow our goals as we would like to. If you do, congratulations and lucky you! <|:) I do believe our goals are important drive of our lives.

 

Best regards,

Khandro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To repeat once again: I don¦#146;t believe we are as free as we would like to be, and I don¦#146;t see that we follow our goals as we would like to.

True, I am not as free as I would like to be, BUT I am far from putting the blame for this on any institution, or involving institutions in this matter at all. And indeed, at all teachings I have heard, institutions were never mentioned as a cause of my not-freedom. :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So, please prove that an institution can for example follow the Christian principle to "love the Lord its God with all its heart and all its soul and all its mind". 8O
:roll: Easy! Go to the Church main office, and ask: "who do you love with all you hart and all your soul and mind?". Since they represent the institution, their answer is the answer of the institution! In the same way that when a president signs, he signs for the association or company... :-p When the Prime Minister speaks, we say: "the Government said"... Same.
Sincerely? I never heard a Prime minister say "our state loves the neighbour state with all its heart". o:)

 

But, first, I postulated before that I don't consider as relevant what someone says about him/herself (or I will also make some valid statements about myself :twisted: ), and second, please reveal the mystery how you understand the institution can "love" someone or something? Does an institution have emotions? Thoughts even? So you want to say that an institution has a mind? 8O

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I agree, this freedom never disappears. ;-F Institutions in fact remind me of any other concept that we create. They seem to be as real as much reality we put into them, in a way. I wish would be able to see myself as such "institution" one day :wink: - as something merely conceptual, not existing by itself. l-) l-) l-) l-) l-) l-) l-) l-) l-) ...

 

Best regards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and second, please reveal the mystery how you understand the institution can "love" someone or something? Does an institution have emotions? Thoughts even? So you want to say that an institution has a mind? 8O

There are many sentient beings. Some of them are people. Some of them represent different institutions. What they feel and think are the feelings and thoughts of the institution. :wink::) When elections come, new people come and the feelings and thoughts of the institution (usually, though not neccesarily) change (for better or for worse). :D

 

Au revoir,

Khyenrab

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[

There are many sentient beings. Some of them are people. Some of them represent different institutions. What they feel and think are the feelings and thoughts of the institution.

Aha, thank you. So if I am the president of the Mushroom Pickers' Association of Little Nowhere, and I feel cold one day, the whole Association feels cold? If I think I have too little money in my purse, the whole Association thinks it has too little money in its purse? :wink:

 

So, you see, I don't believe this. For me, an institution is an artificial construction, built by some people who have (had) a specific goal in mind. The rules of the institution are written on the basis of this goal, and also any "opinions" issued by its representatives - they are only means to and end, calculated from the given situation, the goal(s) of the institution and the skill of their writer(s).

Of course, I don't deny there are differences between institutions - some have opinions which are indeed very close to the opinions of their members, others don't. The rules can be supported by all the members, or just invented as a means to an end. The important thing is the motivation of the people upholding the institution - not the motivation they speak about, but the motivation they have "inside".

 

For example, a gang of thieves can form a cultural association, with the appropriate rules which express their deep appreciation of culture and sincere wish to help it spread ... but in reality, they may just want a nice mask for smuggling stolen artefacts. Nevertheless, when they issue an "opinion" of their association, it will be in accordance with their rules, appearance etc., and it won't contain any allusion to smuggling ... But it will be also in accordance with their primary goal, which is smuggling - as it will help to mask it further. But without really knowing all this, you just accept the nice outer appearance they produce.

But I am telling you nothing new here, we can read such things the newspapers almost every day. :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aha, thank you. So if I am the president of the Mushroom Pickers' Association of Little Nowhere, and I feel cold one day, the whole Association feels cold? If I think I have too little money in my purse, the whole Association thinks it has too little money in its purse? :wink::

Exactly! :wink:

I wanted to stress this: the leaders of the institutions set the direction in which the institutions should go in the future. When it comes to the more powerful institutions with great authority and hierarchy - this is the case. They set the "thought" and the "emotional" tone of the whole institution. That is what I believe. With power comes energy and the leaders have it. They direct it. Sometimes successfuly, sometimes not. But when they are listened to, the whole organisation follows the orders - the setting of the emotional and thought attitudes to particular (socially important) questions. That's how I see it. :)

 

Best regards,

Khyenrab

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wanted to stress this: the leaders of the institutions set the direction in which the institutions should go in the future. When it comes to the more powerful institutions with great authority and hierarchy - this is the case. They set the "thought" and the "emotional" tone of the whole institution.

What I wanted to emphasise is that the "thought" and "emotional tone" of the institution aren't necessarily in anything related to the thoughts and emotions of its members, but are (can be) a free invention.

 

If I may remind here - we started with discussing whether an institution can be Christian or not.

So, again, I think that,

- no, an institution can't be Christian, as it can't love its neighbour ...

- but it can have rules which refer to Christian values, and produce opinions which are based on these values (so it calls itself Christian)

- without knowing the real (secret) motivation of its founders/leaders one can't know why it enforces these values - it can be out of personal Christian motivation of its founders/leaders, or any other motivation which is nicely masked with Christian values.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
no, an institution can't be Christian, as it can't love its neighbour ...

- but it can have rules which refer to Christian values, and produce opinions which are based on these values (so it calls itself Christian)

- without knowing the real (secret) motivation of its founders/leaders one can't know why it enforces these values - it can be out of personal Christian motivation of its founders/leaders, or any other motivation which is nicely masked with Christian values.

It's a matter of definition then. But we have Christian Church for example - isn't Christian Church Christian? :wink: If you say no, then the whole Christian faith is also not Christian. Then the Bible is not Christian. The Pope must be Christian under your definition. And so are other Christians. Everything OK with that? 8)

 

Best regards,

Khyenrab

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's a matter of definition then. But we have Christian Church for example - isn't Christian Church Christian? :wink: If you say no, then the whole Christian faith is also not Christian. Then the Bible is not Christian. The Pope must be Christian under your definition. And so are other Christians. Everything OK with that? 8)

I think there is no problem to find at least one "Christian" Church for which the other "Christian" Churches will agree that it isn't Christian, despite the fact that it calls itself so. :wink:

Not so with the Christian faith - as it is in fact the central point of all this. Ok, not the faith, but the teachings. The name "Christian" comes from them, doesn't it?

BTW: You can't call the Bible Christian, as more than half of it is pre-Christian anyway, in fact it's a few thousand years older than Christianity. :wink:

 

Under my definition, the Pope isn't necessarily Christian - he is only Christian if he follows the principles of Christianity, and this I can't say as I don't have insight into his life, thoughts, actions etc. The same for other Christians.

 

I just wish to emphasise that I think we must see a difference between name and essence. A name can reflex the essence of the thing, or it may not. No guarantee here. :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...