3 ms·

A main one would be a focus on the internal world (self-image, thought processes, confidence, inner peace), Christianity is often too focused on acting correctl

A main one would be a focus on the internal world (self-image, thought processes, confidence, inner peace), Christianity is often too focused on acting correctly instead of thinking correctly/crafting a good personality in my view. Buddhism is stereotypically more focused the other direction. Christian mediation isn't really a thing for example. Please note that I don't want to get into a stupid pedantic discussion about what Christianity may or may not contain/touch on, my point is simply that no single source will ever contain all the wisdom there can be found - which I don't think can be disputed by intellectually honest people.

codingdave 9y ago
> I don't want to get into a stupid pedantic discussion about what Christianity may or may not contain/touch on Except that you clearly don't know all the teachings, so pre-dismissing anyone helping you learn the parts you think are missing seems short-sighted. That being said, you are partly right... In general, Christianity answers the question of "What do I do?", while Buddhism answer "How do I do it?" But there are internally-focused teachings throughout the New Testament. The Old Testament was more what you describe than Jesus' teachings. Sadly, when you conclude that anyone who disagrees with you must not be intellectually honest, it makes me feel you are not very far along ANY spiritual path. Even though again, you are partly correct... your approach to all of this is very ego-driven, and it doesn't sound like you are open to much in the way of discussion.
- kristofferR 9y ago
  A discussion about whether everything knowable about the universe is already known/that a single source can contain all the wisdom there is? You're right, I'm not really open to discussing about that and I'll stand by my statement that people who reject new wisdom are intellectually dishonest. I don't see how being open to new wisdom and science would make someone less spiritually enlightened. However I'm very interested in hearing why you (seem to) think so, that is fascinating to me.
  - thrav 9y ago
    Beat that straw man hard.
RobertRoberts 9y ago
This news story is off the front page, so I hope posting a comment here isn't considered so off topic anymore that it matters. But even something as simple as the "sermon on the mount" is incredibly deep spiritually as well as intellectually. Go read it (it's short) and consider that the list of "physical todos" is always related to some kind of internal concept. I don't think the two can be divorced. Consider the simple concept of saying "thank you" to someone. Even if you don't feel like it or believe it to be useful or necessary, it can have a profound impact on the inside of the person hearing it. I would posit that all physical acts start and end with an internal effect, either or both on the doer and the receiver (if there is one). The law of the old testament is often accused of being a forced list of empty physical requirements. But consider what Jesus said about the law and the commandments, that there are two great commandments, love God and love your neighbor. And then said "On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets." Not only did he state that the most important things you can "do" are things we cherish as purely internal, they are only useful if expressed externally. And then he responds all criticism of the old testament law by stating they "depend" on the love of God and our neighbors. A proverb says something like "being hit by a friend is better than love that is hidden." I proved that having love for my wife was utterly meaningless in any way shape or form if I didn't somehow make her feel it too. And the only way I could do that is through a physical act. Internal only reflections without external expression is selfishness. But to leave this with one more thought, Paul wrote "...whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute, if there is any excellence and if anything worthy of praise, dwell on these things." Maybe there is more the teachings of Jesus than is popularly known or shared?

codingdave 9y ago

> I don't want to get into a stupid pedantic discussion about what Christianity may or may not contain/touch on Except that you clearly don't know all the teachings, so pre-dismissing anyone helping you learn the parts you think are missing seems short-sighted. That being said, you are partly right... In general, Christianity answers the question of "What do I do?", while Buddhism answer "How do I do it?" But there are internally-focused teachings throughout the New Testament. The Old Testament was more what you describe than Jesus' teachings. Sadly, when you conclude that anyone who disagrees with you must not be intellectually honest, it makes me feel you are not very far along ANY spiritual path. Even though again, you are partly correct... your approach to all of this is very ego-driven, and it doesn't sound like you are open to much in the way of discussion.

kristofferR 9y ago
A discussion about whether everything knowable about the universe is already known/that a single source can contain all the wisdom there is? You're right, I'm not really open to discussing about that and I'll stand by my statement that people who reject new wisdom are intellectually dishonest. I don't see how being open to new wisdom and science would make someone less spiritually enlightened. However I'm very interested in hearing why you (seem to) think so, that is fascinating to me.
- thrav 9y ago
  Beat that straw man hard.

RobertRoberts 9y ago

This news story is off the front page, so I hope posting a comment here isn't considered so off topic anymore that it matters. But even something as simple as the "sermon on the mount" is incredibly deep spiritually as well as intellectually. Go read it (it's short) and consider that the list of "physical todos" is always related to some kind of internal concept. I don't think the two can be divorced. Consider the simple concept of saying "thank you" to someone. Even if you don't feel like it or believe it to be useful or necessary, it can have a profound impact on the inside of the person hearing it. I would posit that all physical acts start and end with an internal effect, either or both on the doer and the receiver (if there is one). The law of the old testament is often accused of being a forced list of empty physical requirements. But consider what Jesus said about the law and the commandments, that there are two great commandments, love God and love your neighbor. And then said "On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets." Not only did he state that the most important things you can "do" are things we cherish as purely internal, they are only useful if expressed externally. And then he responds all criticism of the old testament law by stating they "depend" on the love of God and our neighbors. A proverb says something like "being hit by a friend is better than love that is hidden." I proved that having love for my wife was utterly meaningless in any way shape or form if I didn't somehow make her feel it too. And the only way I could do that is through a physical act. Internal only reflections without external expression is selfishness. But to leave this with one more thought, Paul wrote "...whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute, if there is any excellence and if anything worthy of praise, dwell on these things." Maybe there is more the teachings of Jesus than is popularly known or shared?