Autism Christianity and Buddhism do they truly accept one another

[WittyAspie]

I agree with your posts, I was referring to a general curiosity of mine as to why people want to focus on whether Jesus was "their" color. I think the misconception of Jesus as a pasty white man is mostly due to most medieval and renaissance painters depicting pretty much everyone as a white person as that was the audience they were painting for and the environment they lived in.

Edit: derp, I just repeated half your post. I should probably have a cup of coffee and wake up before posting more.

I don't know about everywhere, but in the US some of the desire to portray Jesus as one's own color comes from racism. Some African Americans have issue with portraying Jesus as white because white people are the ones who oppressed them. Once they broke free from slavery they naturally made art they shows Jesus with dark skin.

Sadly there are also still people who feel that their race is superior. Hopefully, as I have seen in my family, children will let racism die with their parents.

 

[xDominiel]

If you look on you tube you will find blacks saying that they believe they are the true israelites is this true?

I have seen a YouTube video claiming whites were created as a genetic experiment by a big-headed (literally) black scientist called Yakub, and that we went rogue and evil. Lots of strange ideas out there.

 

[WereBear]

There are parts of the gospels where Jesus' own words sound similar to Buddhism. Here's a helpful link:

Jesus and Buddha: The Parallel Sayings

But ironically, most Protestant denominations rely more on Paul's writings than these very verses.

I left Christianity, but so loved the Jesus/Buddha overlap that it led me to the Tao. Which is more of a philosophy than a religion: I no longer consider myself a religious person, but a spiritual person.

For those curious, the Tao is a little book to help us ponder the nature of reality. We do best when we perceive reality as it actually is, and perform actions which will conform with it.

 

[Professori]

I don't know about everywhere, but in the US some of the desire to portray Jesus as one's own color comes from racism. Some African Americans have issue with portraying Jesus as white because white people are the ones who oppressed them. Once they broke free from slavery they naturally made art they shows Jesus with dark skin.

Sadly there are also still people who feel that their race is superior. Hopefully, as I have seen in my family, children will let racism die with their parents.

This is of course very true. I suppose there are a wide range of people who just cannot accept that he was not white. It would destroy their idealology of what the perfect race should look like, despite that fact that there is only one race - the human race.

This is also one of the reasons why Jesus came - to reverse what took place at Babel, but there is such resistance to the Gospel of reconciliation because of the conditioned need to think that a particular culture is superior.

Well, I trust that the younger generation will indeed overcome. God help us with the extremists.

 

[WereBear]

An excellent resource to understand the more "coercive" (fundamentalist) flavors of any religion is the work of Dr. Robert Altemeyer. His free PDF book, The Authoritarians:

http://members.shaw.ca/jeanaltemeyer/drbob/TheAuthoritarians.pdf

Explains how demanding certainty and strict rules, unquestioning obedience to authority, and resistance to change are all psychological conditions; not necessarily religious ones.

 

[WittyAspie]

This is of course very true. I suppose there are a wide range of people who just cannot accept that he was not white. It would destroy their idealology of what the perfect race should look like, despite that fact that there is only one race - the human race.

This is also one of the reasons why Jesus came - to reverse what took place at Babel, but there is such resistance to the Gospel of reconciliation because of the conditioned need to think that a particular culture is superior.

Well, I trust that the younger generation will indeed overcome. God help us with the extremists.

It is interesting (and somewhat appalling) to consider how race is viewed differently be different people. A lot of Americans view anyone from Asia as Asian, nothing more. But "Asian" includes Chinese and Japanese, two cultures that fought wars for hundreds of years and have difficulty seeing eye to eye.

Biologically we are one race, but different races are a very real thing from a cultural perspective.

 

[Alcyon]

Clintos , it's a good thing you like "the attention of others opinions", because you're going to get a few more of them.

I am interested in your assertion that autistics have a "different processing system in their brain". I myself wouldn't have put it quite like that; at most, a difference of degrees, greater or lesser, in various facets of the working, but no more than that. Certainly, my short stay on the forum hasn't convinced me that those on the spectrum are any less or more than human. But, I will keep my mind open to further information about this.

I would like to reiterate and clarify what I alluded to earlier. I have learned over time that it is important to define clearly what I am thinking about. More importantly, if I am talking to others, it is imperative that we are using the same definitions for the words we are using. I can not stress that strongly enough! I have often experienced disagreements either disappear or become more manageable once all parties are, as much as possible, using the same language to speak about the same topic(s).

You are safest with Evangelical theology.

I select this not merely to be mischievous (that's just an added bonus!) and certainly not to be disrespectful, but because it perfectly illustrates what I was speaking of earlier, i.e., the lack of anything resembling a universal Christian view point.

Of the thousands upon thousands of significant, discrete variations of the Evangelical view (and those should be further sub-divided) to be encountered world-wide, which one should be turned to for "Evangelical theology"? How about just Baptists in America, they are fairly well known. Well there are about seventy national organisations of differing Baptist sects. I'll click the link for an article about one I've never heard of: Primitive Baptists; now that splits into over fifty different churches, each one somewhat different from the other. How about Primitive Baptists Universalists? That splits into four organisations, which then splits into thirty-five. That's just the most cursory glimpse at a small portion of what is termed Evangelical, in America. Nail, meet Jello.

So. First you have to define "Christianity", then "Buddhism", then "accept". Then the question can start to be answered.

Happily for all, my coffee cup is empty, and my pipe nearly so, or you would be treated to another disquisition that might very well involve Wittgenstein and a piece of cutlery known as "Hume's fork" to suggest that although the question might be of as great an import as it is of interest, it is arguably unanswerable.

 

[Bolletje]

Alcyon I have to go off-topic here for a second to say how much I enjoy how well-written and thought out your responses are.

 

[WittyAspie]

Clintos , it's a good thing you like "the attention of others opinions", because you're going to get a few more of them.

I am interested in your assertion that autistics have a "different processing system in their brain". I myself wouldn't have put it quite like that; at most, a difference of degrees, greater or lesser, in various facets of the working, but no more than that. Certainly, my short stay on the forum hasn't convinced me that those on the spectrum are any less or more than human. But, I will keep my mind open to further information about this.

I would like to reiterate and clarify what I alluded to earlier. I have learned over time that it is important to define clearly what I am thinking about. More importantly, if I am talking to others, it is imperative that we are using the same definitions for the words we are using. I can not stress that strongly enough! I have often experienced disagreements either disappear or become more manageable once all parties are, as much as possible, using the same language to speak about the same topic(s).

I select this not merely to be mischievous (that's just an added bonus!) and certainly not to be disrespectful, but because it perfectly illustrates what I was speaking of earlier, i.e., the lack of anything resembling a universal Christian view point.

Of the thousands upon thousands of significant, discrete variations of the Evangelical view (and those should be further sub-divided) to be encountered world-wide, which one should be turned to for "Evangelical theology"? How about just Baptists in America, they are fairly well known. Well there are about seventy national organisations of differing Baptist sects. I'll click the link for an article about one I've never heard of: Primitive Baptists; now that splits into over fifty different churches, each one somewhat different from the other. How about Primitive Baptists Universalists? That splits into four organisations, which then splits into thirty-five. That's just the most cursory glimpse at a small portion of what is termed Evangelical, in America. Nail, meet Jello.

So. First you have to define "Christianity", then "Buddhism", then "accept". Then the question can start to be answered.

Happily for all, my coffee cup is empty, and my pipe nearly so, or you would be treated to another disquisition that might very well involve Wittgenstein and a piece of cutlery known as "Hume's fork" to suggest that although the question might be of as great an import as it is of interest, it is arguably unanswerable.

I agree with your emphasis on ensuring words have the same meaning for all parties involved.

The reason I brought up the Apostle's Creed is because it is an ecumenical statement that has been widely accepted for centuries. There are a myriad of different beliefs among Christians, but there are some core beliefs that Christians agree on. Those beliefs are summed up in the Apostle's Creed.

 

[Alcyon]

Alcyon I have to go off-topic here for a second to say how much I enjoy how well-written and thought out your responses are.

I'm blushing, thank-you. I owe it all to espresso and a pipe of tobacco.

More seriously, there are couple of topics here that are interesting and I am looking forward to reading more...

 

[Alcyon]

I agree with your emphasis on ensuring words have the same meaning for all parties involved.

The reason I brought up the Apostle's Creed is because it is an ecumenical statement that has been widely accepted for centuries. There are a myriad of different beliefs among Christians, but there are some core beliefs that Christians agree on. Those beliefs are summed up in the Apostle's Creed.

If you had said "some core beliefs that (some or many or most, your choice) Christians agree on", I would say yes. Right off the top of my head, the phrase "Virgin Mary" is not agreed upon by all. I am certain that there are other words and phrases that would be rejected by any number of believers. It is spurned by some for the very reason that you recommend it: that it's ecumenical.

There is a not inconsiderable number of Christians who, allowing no watering-down of the sola scriptura doctrine, have adopted the slogan "no creed but the Bible!" So all creeds are rejected, which at least has the virtue of simplicity.

So what's a Christian? I dunno. But if memory serves me correctly, anyone who rejects another human being isn't one.

Which of course means I now have to define "reject"...*sigh*

 

[Professori]

Clintos , it's a good thing you like "the attention of others opinions", because you're going to get a few more of them.

I am interested in your assertion that autistics have a "different processing system in their brain". I myself wouldn't have put it quite like that; at most, a difference of degrees, greater or lesser, in various facets of the working, but no more than that. Certainly, my short stay on the forum hasn't convinced me that those on the spectrum are any less or more than human. But, I will keep my mind open to further information about this.

I would like to reiterate and clarify what I alluded to earlier. I have learned over time that it is important to define clearly what I am thinking about. More importantly, if I am talking to others, it is imperative that we are using the same definitions for the words we are using. I can not stress that strongly enough! I have often experienced disagreements either disappear or become more manageable once all parties are, as much as possible, using the same language to speak about the same topic(s).

I select this not merely to be mischievous (that's just an added bonus!) and certainly not to be disrespectful, but because it perfectly illustrates what I was speaking of earlier, i.e., the lack of anything resembling a universal Christian view point.

Of the thousands upon thousands of significant, discrete variations of the Evangelical view (and those should be further sub-divided) to be encountered world-wide, which one should be turned to for "Evangelical theology"? How about just Baptists in America, they are fairly well known. Well there are about seventy national organisations of differing Baptist sects. I'll click the link for an article about one I've never heard of: Primitive Baptists; now that splits into over fifty different churches, each one somewhat different from the other. How about Primitive Baptists Universalists? That splits into four organisations, which then splits into thirty-five. That's just the most cursory glimpse at a small portion of what is termed Evangelical, in America. Nail, meet Jello.

So. First you have to define "Christianity", then "Buddhism", then "accept". Then the question can start to be answered.

Happily for all, my coffee cup is empty, and my pipe nearly so, or you would be treated to another disquisition that might very well involve Wittgenstein and a piece of cutlery known as "Hume's fork" to suggest that although the question might be of as great an import as it is of interest, it is arguably unanswerable.

Yes, but the general basis of evangelical systematic theology remains core, and there is little disagreement in that regard. If there was disagreement then one could not categories evangelical as opposed to any other branch.

It is easy to find differences within any branch of any belief system, and unfortunately that is the basic underpinning of being individualistic human beings.

The bottom line for me is the fact that today, even when one provides indisputable fact when discussing a topic, the response is often 'don't confuse me with the facts, I have made up my mind, and I am not going to change it.' The fact is that there is no disagreement about the core issues defining the Gospel, but because people choose not to accept things they do not like, there have been endless splits - inevitably because of people being unable to back down from their fixed standpoints.

Analyze each of the distinct branches of 'evangelical' theology and you will find little meaningful differences to cause justification for so many splits. However, as mentioned, human pride prevents reconciliation.

These are really complex issues to discuss in writing because there is just not enough flexibility in communication to allow meaningful interaction. I do appreciate your input, and I certainly appreciate the complexities that you have pointed out, even in relation to evangelical theology. I cannot deny the basic truth of the fact that the church has not done a great job of representing the unity that is emphasized by Christ.