Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    Richard,
    	I only know you from your postings, but I do not picture you as one
    who would want to segregate the opinions of non-christians from those
    of christians. Yet this is one possible interpretation of having this
    string here, and it is one that I don't believe either of us supports.
    Are you sure this is a good idea ?

    Re: .1
    
    Not my intention.  I expect non-Christians to participate wherever
    they're comfortable to do so.  At the same time, I also wanted to
    offer a window of opportunity that might not occur within the context
    of other strings.
    
    It's an experiment, to be sure.
    
    I appreciate your sensitivity to the possible implications of this
    topic, and will monitor it with great interest.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

     I do not see this as an attempt to segregate the opinions of
    non-Christians.
     I hope to be able to post some replies her that will create a
    a discussion that will be of benefit to both Christian and Non-
    Christian participants in this conference.
     Right now I have more ideas for what I would like to write here
    than time to write them. 
     I for one think this has possibilities to be a positive experience
    for all of us.

                                                               Mike

Re: 191.8 Ed

>                      -< I'm not OK and neither are you. >-

What a depressing philosophy.  That's one aspect of Christianity that I
completely reject: the "On your knees, sinner!" approach.  Of course I
realize that it doesn't reflect the views of all Christians.

				-- Bob

    
    
    I agree Bob.  I think this is one belief that has caused much
    suffering in this world, and is one of humanities deepest wounds
    that needs healing *now*.  We have to begin seeing ourselves, each 
    other and all creation as images of God.
    
    Carole

 
    
    Sometimes I think that Christians and non-Christians are more alike
  than either realizes and sometimes I think that I am absolutely wrong
  about this. One thing I wound not like is to have this be a note where
  Christianity and Christians get dragged over the coals. It would be
  foolish to pretend that there are not profound differences. It would
  be equally foolish to pretend there are not a great many points of
  agreement.
     The trick would seem to be how to sort out which is which and how
  to go about discussing these calmly with each other. 
     So, where to begin ? Interestingly enough it was in the note about
  what is difficult about being a Christian that the best ideas seemed 
  to pop into my head. It this note more than any other, it seems to me,
  that it is possible to get a feel for what is really important to 
  Christians about the practice of their faith. It is interesting to note
  that one of things that is of the most concern is putting faith into
  practice and not the questions of theology that are the subjects of such 
  long and complicated debates.
     For the most part the finer points of theology leave me blank. They
  are abstractions and have little or no real meaning in the day to day practice
  of our faiths. This is where I have had the the greatest trouble in relating
  to and understanding Christians. This does not mean there is something wrong
  with Christians and Christianity, but that I need to put these ideas into
  a perspective that makes some kind of sense to me.
     One example of this would be when Christians talk about listening
  to what the Holy Spirit is telling them or discerning what God's will for 
  their lives is. I really don't know how to respond to these statements
  because they are alien to my experiences. Leaving aside the whole Trinity
  debate, for me, there is for me the problem of an anthropomorphic God. Which
  inevitably seems to lead back to the knotty theological debates that I
  would like to avoid in the first place.
    However when the subject is along the lines of how to put faith into
  practice it become far easier to bridge the gap. As is the case with all
  religion there is good practice and practice which is selfish in nature.
  That is actions that are done with the intent of personal gain. 
  If something is done with the intent of making one a "good" Christian or
  a "good" Buddhist the result may indeed be beneficial, however if the
  intent was gain some kind of spiritual brownie points at a personal level,
  it was quite empty. 
    Perhaps I can give an example. A local church runs a program called ,
  "The Open Pantry" that provides food to the needy. The focus of these 
  people is on service to others. I have never once heard these people talk
  about anything other than concern for others in relation to this program.
    Are they doing God's will or listening to the Holy Spirit ? I am
  inclined to think so. However I don't think it is something that is being
  done consciously. A Buddhist would say they are thinking with the "big
  mind" and not the small mind of the self. 
    Perhaps what Christians perceive as promptings of the Holy Sprit and 
 what Buddhists call thinking with the big mind are merely different 
 perceptions of the same thing. No debates, no theology, no abstract concepts
 will ever help to define what religion is. To me they detract from the simple
 truth that puts faith into practice. To feed a hungry child is to worship God,
 it is realizing our Buddha nature. When it is done with no self-serving aim
 in mind it faith and practice become one. 
    I am saddened when what I perceive as artificial barriers are erected
 in a attempt to cordon off the truth. To claim some kind of ownership of
 it is to tarnish it with selfishness. Some times Buddhists do this, some
 times Christians do this. 
    The times that I think that I have understood Christians the best is when
 I have gotten beyond the idea of Christianity. It has been very hard to 
 understand. There is a great big wall and it is very hard to see what is
 happening on the other side. I kept banging my head on it and complaining
 about the wall. After a while I realized I was stupid for running headlong
 into it. I was being selfish. The wall was of my own making. I was thinking
 with the small mind.
    The tile of this note is funny in a way. I think when I look through the
 eyes of a non-Christian I will probably see non-Christians. This is because
 in my mind they are already set apart at that point. I have started to put
 up that wall to separate them.
    So, when I read the replies about what people find difficult about
 being a Christian I see many things that are also difficult about being 
 being a Buddhist. The terminology is different, but the basic concepts
 are much the same. 
    We all get caught up in words and abstract concepts and miss what is
 important which is putting what we believe into practice. There are times
 when I feel that I do not understand much about Christianity when I read
 about it in books are read arguments in notes conferences. Then on the
 way home from work I'll see someone coming out of The Open Pantry with
 bags of groceries and their children in tow and think that I understand
 all that I'll ever need to know about it. 
     
      
     
        
                                                                Mike

    Mike .7,
    
    An extremely insightful and poignant note.  Thank you very much.
    
    Karen

    
    Mike, I liked most of what you had to say in .7.  The only question
    I have is - were you referring to previous notes in the string when
    you expressed your concerns about what you would like to see entered 
    in this note?  As a non-Christian, I would like to use this note to
    enter some of my views and responses to others' views.
    
    You have many good things to share.  Please don't put down what others
    have to say in order to get your point across.  Your words stand well
    on their own.
    
    Carole

    Re.9

          No, I wasn't referring to any previous notes in the string.
     Actually they had not been posted yet. I wrote re.7 over  the
     last few days whenever I had a few spare minutes to add to it.
          I'd sort of forgotten that was in there to tell you the
     truth. 

                                                               Mike

    
    Ok, thanks for the reply Mike.
    
    Carole

    Mike, Bob & others,
    
    I've heard from one non-Christian and one ex-Christian that the
    Christian religion is of a more emotional nature and a less of a
    cerebral nature than others.
    
    Any thoughts about this?
    
    Richard

It's difficult for me to compare Christianity to other religions, since
Christianity is the only religion that I know much about.  Christianity is
emotional in areas such as faith healing, speaking in tongues and "mountain top
experiences".  It's cerebral in its "mysteries" and in the vast number of books
written about theology.  The chief value I see in Christianity, though, is that
it inspires a large number of people to be charitable towards their fellow man.

				-- Bob

   Re.12

   Richard:
   
     
      What a coincidence, the next subject I intended to ramble on
  about was the level of emotion, one might even say passion, found
  within Christianity.
      The idea for a reply about this came to me last weekend while
 I was watching a performance of Mozart's C minor Mass on PBS. The emotional
 level and range of this particular piece of music is truly amazing.
 Bach's B minor Mass, Handel's Messiah, The Creation by Haydn and The Infant
 Christ by Berlioz all also works highly charged with emotion. They may not
 express the tremendous range of Mozart's work, but they are most certainly
 emotional rather than thematic or programmatic in nature. If one were to
 generalize, as I am about to, it is pretty easy to claim that sacred
 music in the Christian tradition focuses upon the the emotional nature
 of the religion. 
      What is there about Christianity that brings forth this emotional
 intensity ? As a Buddhist it is particularly startling. If anything Zen
 is passionate about being passionless. So, the emotional intensity that
 I frequently find manifested in Christianity often seems overwhelming. 
       I think that this great welling up of emotion is in part caused
 by a belief that very theologically based. A sort of backlash if you will
 to a religion that is revealed, basically delivered in a completed form
 and requiring a radical shift of consciousness to enable the individual
 to adapt themselves to it. It does not seem to me that such a thing is 
 accomplished without great emotional upheaval. The conversion experience
 is usually described as a traumatic event. Being "born again" seems to
 require the throwing away of the old person and the creating of new
 individual. Could this be done without calling upon calling upon great
 reserves of emotional willpower and bringing a passionate intensity
 to the task ? It hardly seems possible to me.
        Mozart is reported to have said, "The trouble with Protestantism
 is that it is all in the head." I am not sure that I agree with that, but
 I think he was expressing the emotional backlash that I referred to. When
 confronted with doctrines of Christianity which claim to be eternal and
 unchangeable the reaction is to humanize this thing which is regarded as
 supernatural in nature and to appeal to our emotional nature is a very
 basic human reaction.
        How does one one react to that essential claim of Christianity that
 God died for me ? This does does not seem to be something that you could
 calmly intellectualize about or something that one slowly internalizes.
        While Christianity may not be more emotional than other religious
 beliefs it does seen to require great emotional commitment from one who
 would be a Christian. I think that non-Christians often feel frustrated
 when communicating with Christians because they either underestimate 
 or are unaware of this high level of emotion. You are dealing with 
 someone who is, well... in love and I guess we all have a pretty
 good idea of what that can be like.
        Scripture and theology may contain the details, the blueprint, if
 you will of Christianity, but it is the emotional intensity and passionate
 commitment of the individual Christian that seems to bring the faith to
 life. I do not think that it could survive without drawing upon this 
 reservoir of emotion.       
        I am not sure that Christian emotionality is very adequately 
 conveyed in words. Go listen to Mozart's C minor Mass and I think you'll
 have a better idea of what I am trying to get across.


 
                                                               Mike
 

    Re: .12
    
    Thanks, Mike.  That gives me something of an idea of how I might
    appear to others, which I personally find very helpful to know.
    
    Richard

RE: .14, Mike,

>      What is there about Christianity that brings forth this emotional
> intensity ? As a Buddhist it is particularly startling. If anything Zen
> is passionate about being passionless. So, the emotional intensity that
> I frequently find manifested in Christianity often seems overwhelming. 

I guess I find the "passionlessness" of Zen equally startling and, to
*my* way of thinking, sad and empty.  (However, like some of the other
things we discussed, it may be partly a matter of definitions.  In any
case, please don't take offense!)

Anyhow, has this emotional intensity always been "startling" to you?
Do you find it offensive, disgusting, etc.?

> The conversion experience
> is usually described as a traumatic event. Being "born again" seems to
> require the throwing away of the old person and the creating of new
> individual. Could this be done without calling upon calling upon great
> reserves of emotional willpower and bringing a passionate intensity
> to the task ? It hardly seems possible to me.

This *can* be true but is not necessarily so!!  It's like breaking in a
colt (to revert to an analogy I learned as a child).  If the colt is
tamed by its master from its birth, it never remembers anything *except*
belonging to its master.  On the other hand, if it is tamed when it is older,
that experience may, indeed, be "traumatic" and moving to the colt. 8}

I cannot point to "the day and hour" when I accepted Christ, because I
was taught to believe from the time I was very small.  I always believed
I belonged to Him.  There *was* a time when I was about 14 when I felt
specifically called by God to service, and there were many other emotional
times in my religious life.  But for me, "being born again" was a definition of
what it meant to be a Christian rather than a single profound experience.

>        How does one one react to that essential claim of Christianity that
> God died for me ? This does does not seem to be something that you could
> calmly intellectualize about or something that one slowly internalizes.

Well, *this* statement certainly makes a lot of sense!  But I can't quite
grasp what you mean by an emotional backlash to revelation.  Can you
elaborate/explain that a little more?  I mean, I'm not sure that many
people have much "theological knowledge" at the time they accept
Christ as saviour.

>        While Christianity may not be more emotional than other religious
> beliefs it does seen to require great emotional commitment from one who
> would be a Christian. I think that non-Christians often feel frustrated
> when communicating with Christians because they either underestimate 
> or are unaware of this high level of emotion. You are dealing with 
> someone who is, well... in love and I guess we all have a pretty
> good idea of what that can be like.

Guess I can't argue with the first and last sentences of this paragraph,
either, Mike!!  But how does our "being in love" create communication
problems between us and you, a non-Christian?

Oh, and btw, do you know anyone who is not passionate about whatever values
s/he holds dearest?  I mean, maybe Buddhists are, but it seems to me that
a lot of secular folks are pretty passionate about whatever is most important
in their lives.  Forgive me if I sound defensive -- I guess I'm trying to
figure out if the emotional intensity you're talking about is really a
characteristic of Christianity specifically or a characteristic of the
process of valuing.  I find your comments intriguing and hope to learn
more -- What do you think?

>        Scripture and theology may contain the details, the blueprint, if
> you will of Christianity, but it is the emotional intensity and passionate
> commitment of the individual Christian that seems to bring the faith to
> life. I do not think that it could survive without drawing upon this 
> reservoir of emotion.

How do you evaluate this?  As an asset or a liability?

Thanks for thought-provoking comments!
Nancy

   Re.16

    Nancy:
           Before I get to your questions I'd like to thank for your 
    reply and the interest you've shown in what I've written. This is 
    just the sort of exchange that I had hoped could take place.
           Yes, the emotionalism of of Christianity has been a bit
    kind of startling to me. Intriguing might be a better description
    of my reaction rather than offended or disgusted. 
           Your comment about being saddened by Zen emptiness is interesting.
    This is an area where there seems to be parallels with Christianity if
    one looks into it's long history of asceticism and mysticism. Again,
    you may be correct in your observation of that we may be dealing with
    similar concepts and different terminology. I mean just how different
    are Christian asceticism and Zen emptiness ? 
           I realize that an overwhelming conversion experience is not
    necessarily a universal experience for a Christian. Among those I have
    spoken to about this it is usually recounted as being the definitive
    experience of their lives. I would say that that it is safe to generalize
    that many Christians have had such an experience. 
           Now, about emotionalism being a kind of backlash to Christianity
    being a revealed religion. Christianity is a belief system that is very
    much supernatural in nature. There is an all powerful God who becomes
    a human sacrifice to redeem humanity and rises from the dead. Many
    Christians believe that that God influences and directs their actions.
    There is a long also a long tradition of miraculous i.e. supernatural
    events. These are part and parcel of the revealed nature of the religion
    and tend to cause a very emotional response. When you are dealing with
    such ideas as divine revelation and supernatural phenomena it is very
    difficult to embrace them any way but emotionally. Christianity is not
    a religion of logic or reason. It were so, faith, that essential element
    of Christianity, would seem to be greatly diminished. 
           The communication problem I spoke of comes when someone questions
   this very emotional faith response by trying to understand this theology
   rooted in the supernatural with a rationalist approach. Please understand
   that I don't mean this taken as in an offensive way. I am not saying that
   this is something wrong with Christianity, but simply one of it's
   distinguishing characteristics. 
            When you ask if most people are not passionate about what they
   believe I would agree with you up to a point. Quite often it is simply
   a case of the belief being important because it is an extension of the
   the personal identity. I would credit Christian belief as being far deeper
   and far more encompassing than this. 
            I would lean towards the idea that passionate, emotional faith
   among believers in a religion is an asset to that religion. For any 
   religion to survive there needs to be some dynamic factor, some 
   manifestation in the lives of it's believers that allow it to adapt and
   grow. 
            Hopefully I have managed to provide you with some satisfactory 
   answers to your questions. If not or if I have given you some new ones
   please ask away. Once again, thanks for your very thoughtful reply.
   


                                                               Mike
        

RE: .17:
    
    Mike,

How delightful!!

>           Before I get to your questions I'd like to thank for your 
>    reply and the interest you've shown in what I've written. This is 
>    just the sort of exchange that I had hoped could take place.

Great - me too!

>           Yes, the emotionalism of of Christianity has been a bit
>    kind of startling to me. Intriguing might be a better description
>    of my reaction rather than offended or disgusted.

(Whew!)

>           Your comment about being saddened by Zen emptiness is interesting.
>    This is an area where there seems to be parallels with Christianity if
>    one looks into it's long history of asceticism and mysticism. Again,
>    you may be correct in your observation of that we may be dealing with
>    similar concepts and different terminology. I mean just how different
>    are Christian asceticism and Zen emptiness ? 

Well, perhaps I don't understand your concept of "emptiness!"  Is it a ridding
of [what?] for the sake of being rid of something not-good -- or is it an
emptying-as-preparation-for-filling?  I associated it with a desire to be rid
of all human feeling -- and all human*ness* in general on the assumption that
that is somehow bad!!  I also tend to associate Christian acesticism with
that.  (But one thing that Christianity is is an *incarnational* religion! Most
of its forms do not view flesh and humanity and humanness and emotion as bad.)

When I think of mysticism, I think of that second definition of emptiness: an
attitude of openness, expectancy, willingness-to-be-filled with the Other.
In this case, such an emptying-in-anticipation-of-being-filled is a very
*alive* experience and, as such, seems to be the opposite of what I thought of
when you simply said "Zen emptiness."  Moreover, the resulting "filling" is
a very profound, joyful (there's that emotion, again!) experience.

>           Now, about emotionalism being a kind of backlash to Christianity
>    being a revealed religion.... When you are dealing with
>    such ideas as divine revelation ... it is very
>    difficult to embrace them any way but emotionally. Christianity is not
>    a religion of logic or reason. It were so, faith, that essential element
>    of Christianity, would seem to be greatly diminished. 

I agree.  I think my confusion is in your use of the word "backlash" which I
am used to defining as something *in opposition to* something else; ex.,
increased racism as a backlash to forced busing, etc.  So I was puzzled as to
how a revealed religion would cause a person to choose to act in some kind of
*opposite* way because of it.  If you meant emotionalism is a *response* then
I can understand that concept.  Is that what you mean or am I still not getting
it?

>           The communication problem I spoke of comes when someone questions
>   this very emotional faith response by trying to understand this theology
>   rooted in the supernatural with a rationalist approach. Please understand
>   that I don't mean this taken as in an offensive way. I am not saying that
>   this is something wrong with Christianity, but simply one of it's
>   distinguishing characteristics.

Hmm, evidently the perspective you speak of is *so* foreign to me that I find
it difficult to comprehend that anyone would even *try* to understand a
Christian's behavior "with a rationalist approach" and without accounting for
an emotional commitment!! Interesting!  It's kind of like Collis' definition of
discipleship and your analogy to falling in love -- I mean, how much can you
intellectualize something as profound as love and marriage?  And -- from *my*
perspective, *not* as an attack -- how can a religion that does not demand at
least as great a commitment be worth one's time and effort??

>            When you ask if most people are not passionate about what they
>   believe I would agree with you up to a point. Quite often it is simply
>   a case of the belief being important because it is an extension of the
                               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>   the personal identity.
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Explain, please?  You've lost me here.

>   I would credit Christian belief as being far deeper
>   and far more encompassing than this.

And explain this, too?


>            I would lean towards the idea that passionate, emotional faith
>   among believers in a religion is an asset to that religion.

Is it an also asset to the believer?  Why or why not?  What would be your own
reaction to becoming emotionally involved with your religion?  (Not sure
I worded that right, but I can't figure out how to ask it!)

>   For any 
>   religion to survive there needs to be some dynamic factor, some 
>   manifestation in the lives of it's believers that allow it to adapt and
>   grow.

What is that dynamic factor in Buddhism?

>            Hopefully I have managed to provide you with some satisfactory 
>   answers to your questions. If not or if I have given you some new ones
>   please ask away. Once again, thanks for your very thoughtful reply.

Yes, very interesting -- and, yes, "startling" too!!    :-)   :-)   :-)

Thanks!!
Nancy
             

 Re.18

  Nancy:
         Geeze, I thought I asked a lot of questions. I guess
   I have finally met my match :-)
          So, you would like to understand the Zen concept of
   emptiness ? Not an easy thing to put into words. It means 
   to be free of preconceptions and prejudgements. To set aside
   the ideas we bring to our existence that we use as a filter
   to how we experience the present moment. There is an excellent
   quote in Thomas Merton's "Zen and the Birds of Appetite" from
   Evagrius Ponticus on contemplation that is one of the best
   descriptions of Zen emptiness I've found and it is from a 
   Christian monk: 
          "Contemplation - the state of being free from all images
   and concepts which disturb and occupy the soul. It is the favorable
   climate for theologica, the highest contemplation, which excludes
   even the purest and most spiritual of ideas and admits no concepts
   whatever. It knows God not by concepts or visions, but only
   by unknowing."
           Emptiness in the Zen sense and in the manner of the Christian
   ascetics of antiquity is not a denial of our humanity but a realization
   of it by shedding our egotistical illusions and returning to our true
   nature. 
           Now, about my use of the term "backlash". Perhaps "reaction"
   might fit the bill better. Christianity is a faith that forces a reaction
   and demands a response. It pushes on you and might well be said to 
   directional in nature. 
           I think quite a few people approach Christianity from a rationalist
   point of view and have been doing it for quite some time. Some of the
   oldest and most intractable arguments of theology seem to be a result
   of this. Things like the problem of evil or would a loving God send
   people to hell seem to me to be rooted in the rationalist view. 
          You also asked about commitment being necessary to religion 
   being worthwhile. While it is necessary it also may take many forms
   of which emotional commitment is but one. In Zen the commitment should
   reach the point of being unconscious commitment. In effect your everyday
   life becomes your commitment. More than a few Christians have told me
   that this also represents how they would like to have their faith 
   manifested in their lives.
          What I mean by ideas being important because they are an extension
   of the personal identity is that the importance of the idea has to do 
  with it being "MY" belief and not necessarily the belief itself. The idea
  literally becomes an extension of the ego and is more accurately described
  as passionately defended rather than passionately believed.
          I think Christian belief is more encompassing than that because
  it is regarded by the faithful as universal truth. Identity becomes
  an extension of this belief rather than the other way. The belief is
  seen to be an existent reality unto itself. 
          I think that passionate emotional attachment is an asset to
  both the religion and the believer because it is the tool by which
  the belief is made real in the daily life of the believer.
          Now for the hard question, what is the dynamic factor in
  Buddhism ? I could give you a typically obscure Zen answer and say that
  the dynamic factor is the lack of a dynamic factor. While certainly true,
  it would hardly be fair to you at all. Again this is difficult to put into
  words because Zen is deliberately non-conceptual. Perhaps it's simplicity
  and it's lack of belief in it's own importance. 
          Sorry it took so long to get back to you, but I've been very
  busy of late. Hope this is of some help in answering your questions.
  I am certainly enjoying this "discussion" with you.


                                                       
                                                               Mike 
                  

   
     When talking with Christians frequently the subject of the
  sinful nature of humans comes up. A lot of non-Christians get
  put off by this concept. Nobody like to be told that there 
  is something wrong with them. Christians will say that people
  need to hear this, that it is for their own good. Non-Christians
  often forget that Christians include themselves in this statement
  and feel that it is accusatory rather than inclusive in nature.
  The belief that we are sinful in nature and in need of redemption
  from this state of sin is often "square one" of a Christians 
  explanation of their faith to a non-Christian.
     Buddhism, like Christianity, begins with the assumption that there
  is something out of whack with humanity. Zen begins with the view that
  we are all Bozo's on this bus. It is not assumed that this is our
  natural state of affairs, but that it is an unnatural state of affairs.
  It is believed that ignorance, greed and ego attachment cause us to behave
  like a bunch of, well... greedy, ignorant and egotistical people.
      On the surface it appears that there some similarity in these
  views, but I am really not so sure. The Christian idea of sin supposes
  a dichotomy of good and evil. Zen supposes that there is an interdependence
  between the two, that is that one would not be perceived as being what it
  is without it's opposite to provide contrast.
       In Christianity there is a lot of emphasis on salvation, God and
  Christ who acts as mediator between man and God. Perhaps the most 
  intriguing paradox of Christianity is that a religion based on love of
  and service to others is so concerned with personal salvation. I only
  know one person who has told me that salvation was not their primary
  motivation for being a Christian.
      Christianity is based on the view that we must be saved from what 
  we are. Zen on the view that we must return to being what we are. I have 
  read some books that suggest that Christianity is a guilt and shame based
  religion. I am not sure that I necessarily agree with that. I think that 
  guilt and shame may be precursors to Christianity for many. The concept of
  "being saved" changes this to a kind of spiritual cultivation. The very
  thing that is an anathema in Zen.
      The reason that communication with Christians often seems difficult 
  for me is because it always seems to lead to attempts to draw parallels
  and find similarities where, in fact, they don't really exist. It is 
  not desirable to try and ignore these differences and equally undesirable
  to accentuate them.
      I don't think that it is impossible to reach some kind of accommodation
  with Christians. I wouldn't be here if I did. In fact I think it is
  essential for me to do this. Yesterday Bob Messenger asked a very good
  question about how can you be expected to respect a person's beliefs if
  they do not respect yours. The more I thought about this the more I 
  realized that this question seemed to go to the heart of how a non-
  Christians and Christians relate to each other. 
      I don't always get the impression that Christians respect my beliefs.
  There are certainly those who do, but I have to admit that this is the 
  exception rather than the rule.  I have found that some Christians
  regard disagreement as not respecting their faith. I think that this is
  where I have personally had the most difficulty in learning to relate
  to Christians.
      Communication does not always work out neatly. Religious concepts do
  not always have parallels in another faith and it is difficult at best
  to understand the spiritual experience of another. So, I find that I
  often feel frustration when trying to relate to Christians about matters
  of faith. I for one would be interested hearing any suggestions about
  how to reduce the level of frustration I frequently feel.




                                                               Mike
      
 
 

re: Note 190.20 by Mike "Zen: It's Not What You Think"

A few random comments...

>  I only know one person who has told me that salvation was not their 
>  primary motivation for being a Christian.

Well, meet another! .-)  Salvation was not and is not my primary motivation
for being a Christian.  My primary motivation is that God loves me.  A love
that literally saved my life.  I only try to return that love. 

>  Christianity is based on the view that we must be saved from what 
>  we are. Zen on the view that we must return to being what we are. 

Hmm, That second sentence reflects my understanding of Christianity.
I am created in the image of God.  I've fallen, but I CAN get up, with God's 
loving help.  A return to being what I am.

Re: guilt and shame.  I agree.  It does seem to be a motivator for many, and I 
find that sad.

>  I don't always get the impression that Christians respect my beliefs.
>  There are certainly those who do, but I have to admit that this is the 
>  exception rather than the rule.  I have found that some Christians
>  regard disagreement as not respecting their faith. I think that this is
>  where I have personally had the most difficulty in learning to relate
>  to Christians.

>  Communication does not always work out neatly. Religious concepts do
>  not always have parallels in another faith and it is difficult at best
>  to understand the spiritual experience of another. 

So true.  There are even non-parallels within one faith between denominations!
One of my cardinal rules of writing and reading notes is "just because I'm 
right doesn't mean You're wrong", and conversely, "just because You're right 
doesn't mean I'm wrong."

One interesting thing I have seen in other notesfiles is that sometimes, in 
a very heated noting flurry, real understanding can result, producing very 
strong bonds of love and understanding.  Disagreement and confrontation can be 
very traumatic, (especially if there is a core of toxic shame involved).  But 
surviving that can be a very freeing experience.

Peace,

Jim

    Quakers generally don't concern themselves with "salvation", at least
    not in the sense of being "saved" from hell.  Heaven and hell are not
    major concerns of Quakerism; "salvation" is seen more in terms of
    living up to our measure of the Inner Light.  One of my favorite Quaker
    quotes comes from William Penn:  "To help mend this world is true
    religion."

    I don't have much use for any doctrines of eternal damnation, and I try
    not to speculate too much on the concept of an afterlife.  For me,
    religion is a means of healing the self and healing others.  It is a
    way of getting in touch with the Divine that is within all of us.  It
    is a way of communing with a Greater Reality.  That is what is
    important to me, and that is what brought me back to religion after
    years of atheism.

    Although I am not a Christian, I am a Quaker.  Quakerism is an
    essentially Christian religion, but it is not necessary to be Christian
    to be a Quaker.  Thus while most Quakers are Christians (some are even
    fundamentalists :-)), not all are.  My religion roots and background
    are Christian, and that is where I turn to for much of my religious
    inspiration.  

    -- Mike

    I moved the next 5 replies originally posted here to a new topic:
    Note 215.*, entitled "Foundations of your faith."
    
    This action was taken in an effort to maintain the integrity of
    the topic at hand.
    
    Richard Jones-Christie
    Co-moderator/CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE

    What are the thoughts of non-Christians when observable disagreement
    occurs among Christians or Christian factions?
    
    Peace,
    Richard

Re: .24  Richard

>    What are the thoughts of non-Christians when observable disagreement
>    occurs among Christians or Christian factions?
    
When I see disagreement among Christians I say to myself, "Good!  There is
still room for individuality.  There isn't this monolithic religion out there
trying to make everyone in the world conform to their ideas."  I'm glad that
not all Catholics agree with the Pope.  I'm glad that not all Protestants
agree with Jerry Falwell (or Jesse Jackson).

Interesting question, though: if all Christians agreed about everything, would
it make Christianity a more credible religion for me?

				-- Bob

 Richard:

         I don't see disagreement among Christians as any different
    than disagreement that takes place within any group of people.
    We all have different opinions and views about things that we
    consider important. We all have had different experiences in our
    lives that have shaped these views and opinions and I can think
    of no reason why Christians should be any different or why I should
    think of them any differently for being like everyone else.


  Bob: 

      I think it would change my opinion of Christianity if everyone
  held the same opinion. It would scare the dickens out of me is what
  it would do. My opinion would be that something is terribly wrong
  with such a situation. 


                                                                Mike

	What impressions do the non-Christians here have of Christians
who seemingly cannot understand why anyone who has heard the good news
of Jesus Christ would choose to remain other than Christian?

Peace,
Richard

    Richard:

             My impression or more accurately my reaction has changed
        markedly over the last couple of years from irritation to
        a sort of mild amusement.
             Many times the reaction I have received is incredularity
        followed by explanation of how I am either misunderstanding
        things or attempts at explanations of why I have not actually
        had any real experience with Christianity. I have been told that
        I have either done something wrong or I am lying when I tell them
        that my experiences with Christianity has not been one which met
        my spiritual needs. 
             I guess it is just sometimes difficult to convince people
        that that I am better qualified to run my life than they are.

                                                               Mike
       

        >I guess it is just sometimes difficult to convince people
        >that that I am better qualified to run my life than they are.
    
    What a wonderful quote.  :-)
    
    -- Mike

    As a non-Christian, what is your dialogue with door-to-door
    evangelists typically like?
    
    What was your most memorable encounter like?
    
    How did you feel about it?  Uncomfortable?  Misunderstood?  Frustrated?
    Imposed upon?  Indignant?
    
    Peace,
    Richard

I treat door to door evangelists pretty much the way I treat other door to
door salesmen: "Sorry, but I'm not interested".

				-- Bob

    A question for our non-Christian noters:
    
    What have you learned about Christians or Christianity from reading
    the CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE notesfile?
    
    Peace,
    Richard

What a radical you really are, Richard.  :-)

  
   Re.32

    Richard:

             A good question and after thinking about it the answer I came
    up with is a bit different then what I thought it would be.
             What I have learned is that Christianity is a religion very
    much struggling with itself, for direction, for meaning and for purpose.
    This is not because there are many denominations or differing 
    interpretations of Scripture. These are to be expected and are a healthy
    sign. But often I see a religion, literally, at war with itself. A faith
    that wishes to be simultaneously separate from the world and to be the
    dominate force in the world. A religion that would reject the use of
    force and militarism while leading the parade of troops and military
    hardware. A message of universal salvation rings hollow with the 
    concurrent belief that God chooses sides in political conflicts and
    favors one nation over another.
               Sometime I shake my head and wonder how a church can hope
    to confront the problems of the modern world while at the same time
    refusing to acknowledge it's realities.
               In modern Christianity I see a curious combination of 
    of compassion, concern and social action coupled with smug self-
    satisfaction, materialism and greed and often times all within the
    same congregation !
                I perceive the most serious consequence of this to be
    a loss of credibility for Christianity. For Christianity to survive 
    as something more than a sociological curiosity it needs to begin the
    painful process of self-examination. To address the nature of it's past,
    to define it's present and to begin to carve out a future.
                I believe that to a great extent that this is what is
    occurring within this conference. In fact I believe it is the very
    reason C-P exists. 
                What I have learned here is that there is cause for great
    concern, but also cause for great hope. 


                                                               Mike
                
              

That's a Hall of Fame note if I've ever seen one, Mike.

Thanks.

Nanci

    Ditto Mike.    
    
    Karen