Mystery Vs. Trust?

Should there be a distinction made between religions that hold having a particular belief as the key to salvation itself versus religions that use belief as a skillful means to the end of living?

For example, Christianity's faith in Jesus Christ as the savior is the definitive criterion for salvation. When someone accepts the belief deeply enough, it is said that they are saved from their worldly existence and the fate of Hell, and can then begin a relationship aware of God for everyday living and forever afterward in Heaven.


In Buddhism's case, belief is not seen as an end in itself to suffering, but knowing the teachings is instrumental in transforming the suffering here and now into awareness. The belief in itself is empty (sunya) of intrinsic essence. Putting the teachings into action is what seems to be more the goal in this religion.

So, salvific power is directly imbued in believing in the case of Christianity, whereas in Buddhism salvation is a gradual result of the teachings and deep contemplation of one's own self-conflict and riddles of living.

And in a religion like Hinduism, it's seen as bad karma to change your religion, no matter what you believe! That certainly seems to show how much Hinduism thinks of belief in of itself.

Therefore, it stands to reason that there are actually two types of faith here, and they perhaps deserve different names because of this. The one shared by Christianity seems to be what might be called Mystery Faith, because it encourages belief as the salvific tool without directing perceiving what it is that is being believed in, and thus actualizes it for the individual as it did in the Mystery Religions of the Greco-Roman world.

The second kind would perhaps call for the name Trust Faith, because it does not (at least in most forms of Buddhism) promise instantaneous Salvation. It is merely an expedient on the path to the sublime state.

I was wondering if there were any challenges, agreements, or further elaborations that could be made?

Hmm, I'm not sure about the term 'Trust Faith'. I mean, all faith is based on trust. Let's face it, if there was any proof of the existence of a god, it wouldn't be called 'faith', it would be as simple as 'knowing' or 'understanding'.

You pose an interesting point, but I'm not sure really where one would draw the line between different beliefs. Personally, I believe the universe was born 6 or so million years ago due to explosive cosmic events. But I have no grounds on which to discredit Hinduism of Christianity since all I have is a belief too. Science is a religion, but not many people see it that way.

I'd call Christianity a "trust faith". "Just believe in this and this, sign here under the dotted line, bash people of x or y if you want, and everything'll be fine."

Originally Posted by fratey

I'd call Christianity a "trust faith". "Just believe in this and this, sign here under the dotted line, bash people of x or y if you want, and everything'll be fine."

The reason I called it Trust Faith for the others but NOT Christianity is because the faith is ONLY trust, as in, it's not salvation in itself.

Originally Posted by fratey

I'd call Christianity a "trust faith". "Just believe in this and this, sign here under the dotted line, bash people of x or y if you want, and everything'll be fine."

What term would work better to describe the non-salvational expedient belief system, then, if Trust Faith is too similar to the thought of the salvational faith belief system? Does there need to be a distinction at all?

As a Buddhist, I feel unfairly grouped with the other type of religion when people talk about having faith. I don't believe in the supernatural, because faith isn't integral to Buddhism in that fashion.

And while I would say the Christian stance on homosexuality and such is a passive-aggressive sort of bashing, let us not make it the focus of this thread.

Originally Posted by Evilsbane

Ladies and gentlemen, the name of the game is: "Sweeping generalisations based on limited observation". My turn:Being Swedish makes you get into car accidents a lot.

Ladies and gentleman, here's Mr Evilsbane. Mr Evilsbane loves putting in people in subjects, when the subject is not about people.
He also seems having a hard time understand "sweeping metaphors". But of course, it's impossible posting without treading on some religious' toe.

Originally Posted by Dead Zealot

What term would work better to describe the non-salvational expedient belief system, then, if Trust Faith is too similar to the thought of the salvational faith belief system? Does there need to be a distinction at all?

As a Buddhist, I feel unfairly grouped with the other type of religion when people talk about having faith. I don't believe in the supernatural, because faith isn't integral to Buddhism in that fashion.

And while I would say the Christian stance on homosexuality and such is a passive-aggressive sort of bashing, let us not make it the focus of this thread.

I don't even call Buddhism a religion anymore as it's so vastly different, and, dare I say without getting the Christian train on me, smarter. The closest I can get is "belief" or "lifestyle" but even that feels far-fetched.

Originally Posted by fratey

I don't even call Buddhism a religion anymore as it's so vastly different, and, dare I say without getting the Christian train on me, smarter. The closest I can get is "belief" or "lifestyle" but even that feels far-fetched.

Like most eastern religions, Buddhism is often called a philosophy. From your view, is that a suitable description for it?

Originally Posted by Sabbo

Like most eastern religions, Buddhism is often called a philosophy. From your view, is that a suitable description for it?

Not as the only description, but that probably ends up the closest. Especially as there are differing "grades" of Buddhism, is what makes me feel it's more like a philosophy and "lifestyle".

I'd consider Hinduism a religion, though.

Originally Posted by Evilsbane

It's actually not hard at all; a little something called respect goes a long way, surprisingly. Oh, and I didn't put anyone in the subject. I referenced an occurence that involved Swedishness.

Except that the king technically is French. Tee hee hee.

Originally Posted by Evilsbane

Interesting. The profile says he was born in Solna, but oh well. I guess that a person should make sure to check their facts before ridiculing an entire group of people. *hint hint*

I'd love it if you would spot a personal attack against Christians in this thread at all, troll.
I'm sorry if you cannot comprehend the very simple metaphor of "sign the dotted line", which is what Christianity is...

Originally Posted by Evilsbane

The swipe was aimed at Christianity, was it not?

No swipe in there. I could say the same about numerous religions.

Originally Posted by Evilsbane

You missed the rest of what you said.
A few things (working backwards):

Oh boy.

Originally Posted by Evilsbane

1-You may not realise this, but many Christians believe what they do not because they want reassurance that everything will be fine, but because they want to do good.

Ever heard of "you're doing it wrong"? Voting against rights basing on sexuality is not "doing good".

Originally Posted by Evilsbane

2-Although there are many bigoted elements in the Bible, you'll find that 99% of it (if not all of it) is in the Old Testament. Christianity is based on the teachings of Christ. This means the New Testament or, if you're very strict about, just the four gospels.

Too bad the romans wrote it, amirite?

Originally Posted by Evilsbane

Jesus emphasised several times the importance of tolerance

He also emphasized on cutting off limbs if they sin, and killing your not so obedient children.

Originally Posted by Evilsbane

the most quoted instance being 'let he who is without sin cast the first stone'. So bashing people of x or y is not an accepted practice and certainly not encouraged.

Is it weird if I see more freethinkers or Buddhists follow that than Christians? :/

Originally Posted by Evilsbane

3-'Just believing in something' and 'signing on the dotted line' are in no way claimed by Jesus to have an impact on one's salvation.

That's what the majority believes, though, therefore "sign the dotted line" is a nice little wordplay on it.

Originally Posted by Evilsbane

4-This is not to say that I don't understand where you're coming from on this. I myself am disgusted by the many examples of people twisting their religion to suit their prejudices when it explicitly denounces such prejudices.

That makes us... *counts*
two.

Originally Posted by Evilsbane

However, this twisting makes the belief something other than true Christianity, as it ignores the actual teachings of Christ.

What's true Christianity? Everyone says they propagate for true Christianity.

Originally Posted by Evilsbane

Hopefully this helps you understand why I felt Christianity was being unjustly maligned.

In fact, it doesn't, because to me it looks like anything that could be interpreted as negative against Christianity causes the army of Messias to get on my back.

Originally Posted by Evilsbane

I apologise if my response offended you but I was attempting to use an easily understandable example of how a generalisation of an entire nation or religion based on observations of only high-profile members of that group can lead one to tar many people with the same brush, undeservedly. Maybe I came off as unreasonable.

Though, my putting of it in the first post wasn't exactly the smartest way of putting it - or, rather, I could of left about twenty percent out.

Originally Posted by Evilsbane

Hug?

Anytime. ;3

Originally Posted by Evilsbane

Ladies and gentlemen, the name of the game is: "Sweeping generalisations based on limited observation". My turn:Being Swedish makes you get into car accidents a lot.

So what you're saying is that the defining concept of Christianity is not faith in Christ?

If I missed a huge conversation which already addressed this, my bad, my battery is dying, and I don't have enough time to read everything in this thread.

Originally Posted by Evilsbane

Oh, there's no doubt that we're all doing it wrong. And I can't speak for others, but I'm trying to do better.

Oh, me too, the difference is that I don't really need laws by men in huts, I prefer analyzing the situation of how it is now.

Originally Posted by Evilsbane

Do you mean this?

And if your hand--even if it is your stronger hand-causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.

I'd ask the question 'ever hear of a metaphor?', but this whole tangent started because of a metaphor, so I guess you have.

Thank you! You do know what a metaphor is!
No more stupid tests from my side that could be interpreted as rude, sorry.

Originally Posted by Evilsbane

Just like the Good Samaritan. Your faith isn't worth anything if you can't turn it into good deeds.

I wish everyone thought of it this way.

Originally Posted by Evilsbane

I know you're being facetious, but I still have to ask: you don't really believe there aren't any other Christians who are good people, do you?

I'm going to be honest here and say that I know only of few Christians that have the intelligence level to have a serious conversation with that don't make me feel like I could do something more useful, like watching hentai, cleaning my room, or philosophizing if the Dead Sea is actually dead. I might come off as rude here, but those Christians that make me feel like I am talking to someone useful, they know who they are. Compliments to you.
Of course, it's a matter of personal experience...

Originally Posted by Evilsbane

Well, I always defined true Christianity as 'following what Christ ACTUALLY SAID'.

The thing is, there's so many interpretations of what he said.

Originally Posted by Evilsbane

OK, I'll leave it at that - I've said my piece.

You're not one of them.

I kind of feel we're getting off-topic. I thought the belief in Christ was the definitive criterion? Sola Fide? By Faith alone? This is how I've perpetually taught of Christianity, and having once been a Christian, it seems a bit odd I would not yet know this is not the case.

I may have to contest whether or not you're basing this entirely on scripture, Evilsbane.

Originally Posted by Dead Zealot

Should there be a distinction made between religions that hold having a particular belief as the key to salvation itself versus religions that use belief as a skillful means to the end of living?

For example, Christianity's faith in Jesus Christ as the savior is the definitive criterion for salvation. When someone accepts the belief deeply enough, it is said that they are saved from their worldly existence and the fate of Hell, and can then begin a relationship aware of God for everyday living and forever afterward in Heaven.

I can't speak for Buddhism, seeing as how I know so little about it, but what you've said about Christianity is a very particularly evangelical view--and not necessarily the focus of many other strands of Christian practice in the world.

For example, many Mennonites and Anabaptists see "faith in Christ" not so much as passing from one otherworldly destination to the other, but rather as the impetus for nonviolent social action here and now, in this present world order. Likewise, I've been a part of numerous Christian meditation services and exercises that are remarkably similar to Buddhist meditations (especially Taize services).

In other words, I don't think the distinction is quite as stark as you think.

Originally Posted by fratey

I'd call fundamentalism a "trust faith". "Just believe in this and this, sign here under the dotted line, bash people of x or y if you want, and everything'll be fine."

Fixed. (Probably would've prevented some issues later on in this thread as well. )

Originally Posted by fratey

Ladies and gentleman, here's Mr Evilsbane. Mr Evilsbane loves putting in people in subjects, when the subject is not about people.

The trouble is, when you make a remark about a religion or worldview, you are implicitly making a statement about the people who follow said worldview. If I were to make a sweeping claim about atheism, for instance, you should rightly feel the need to correct me.

He also seems having a hard time understand "sweeping metaphors". But of course, it's impossible posting without treading on some religious' toe.

"Sweeping metaphors," as you call them, are problematic in precisely the sense that they are sweeping, generalizing. Heck, above in "fixing" your quote, I daresay I even misrepresented fundamentalism to an extent.

Originally Posted by fratey

I'd consider Hinduism a religion, though.

Hinduism is more a loose conglomerate of various Indian religions and pantheons that were somewhat artificially grouped together when the British came in to occupy India several centuries ago.

Originally Posted by fratey

I'm sorry if you cannot comprehend the very simple metaphor of "sign the dotted line", which is what Christianity is...

I personally see a call to follow a Peacemaker down the path to selfless sacrifice and nonviolence as "what Christianity is," but that's just me.

Originally Posted by fratey

Ever heard of "you're doing it wrong"? Voting against rights basing on sexuality is not "doing good".

I went to seminary with homosexuals who were training for the ministry who would most eagerly vote for those sorts of rights. I too would vote on the side of homosexuals myself as well, even though I'm both hetero and Christian--heck, I'd vote for rights because I'm Christian!

Too bad the romans wrote it, amirite?

Hebraic citizens very likely located in Palestine, actually. Admittedly they could've been Roman citizens, though.

He also emphasized on cutting off limbs if they sin,

Hyperbole.

and killing your not so obedient children.

Annnnnd you lost me here. You're going to have to tell me where exactly Jesus advocates the killing of children (or anyone, for that matter)?

That's what the majority believes, though, therefore "sign the dotted line" is a nice little wordplay on it.

Majority?

That makes us... *counts*
two.

Three?

What's true Christianity? Everyone says they propagate for true Christianity.

Even I with my Divinity School training couldn't specifically lay out what "true Christianity" is. (Nor do I actually think that's the point, the more I think about it.)

Would it make me a cop-out to say, though, that we can rule out what's contrary to Christianity even if we can't explicate fully what is truly and wholly Christian?

In fact, it doesn't, because to me it looks like anything that could be interpreted as negative against Christianity causes the army of Messias to get on my back.

Either that, or it's because of those "sweeping metaphors" you're so fond of using.

Originally Posted by 8bit

So what you're saying is that the defining concept of Christianity is not faith in Christ?

The issue is not if faith in Christ is the defining element of Christianity--I think it's more the question of how faith in Christ shows itself faithfully in the Christian's/community's life.

Originally Posted by Dead Zealot

I kind of feel we're getting off-topic. I thought the belief in Christ was the definitive criterion? Sola Fide? By Faith alone? This is how I've perpetually taught of Christianity, and having once been a Christian, it seems a bit odd I would not yet know this is not the case.

This is a particularly Protestant criterion, however, and wasn't really present until the 15th century.

Of course, most Protestants allege that Paul was the original advocate of Sole Fide, but it's important to note that while Paul advocated living by faith, it wasn't just faith alone.

Indeed, a growing segment of NT interpretation sees the phrase "faith in Jesus Christ" referring more to the "faith/faithfulness of Jesus Christ," thus removing that "sign on the dotted line" or "repeat a prayer after me" approach to Christian faith of most evangelicals and fundamentalists.

Also, the letter of James ought not to be passed over, who said that living by faith alone didn't cut it if one's faith was not exhibited in good works, particularly on behalf of the downtrodden in society (e.g. the widow, the orphan, the poor, etc.).

Originally Posted by Rew

Fixed. (Probably would've prevented some issues later on in this thread as well. )

Don't worry, debating is never an issue - besides, if we cut out the latter part, that's what most believe.

Originally Posted by Rew

The trouble is, when you make a remark about a religion or worldview, you are implicitly making a statement about the people who follow said worldview.

Believing in idiocy (no, not saying it is idiocy, I want to make a point here) doesn't make one an idiot.

Originally Posted by Rew

If I were to make a sweeping claim about atheism, for instance, you should rightly feel the need to correct me.

Sure I will, if it's baseless. If it holds truth in it, I won't object.

Originally Posted by Rew

"Sweeping metaphors," as you call them, are problematic in precisely the sense that they are sweeping, generalizing. Heck, above in "fixing" your quote, I daresay I even misrepresented fundamentalism to an extent.

You'll have to excuse my lack of English knowledge here, Rew. :p

Originally Posted by Rew

Hinduism is more a loose conglomerate of various Indian religions and pantheons that were somewhat artificially grouped together when the British came in to occupy India several centuries ago.

Just as Christianity is based off several religions. They all originate from different religions. :/

Originally Posted by Rew

I personally see a call to follow a Peacemaker down the path to selfless sacrifice and nonviolence as "what Christianity is," but that's just me.

The same could be said about all faiths, really.

Originally Posted by Rew

I went to seminary with homosexuals who were training for the ministry who would most eagerly vote for those sorts of rights. I too would vote on the side of homosexuals myself as well, even though I'm both hetero and Christian--

There you have a reason why I don't consider you the average.

Originally Posted by Rew

heck, I'd vote for rights because I'm Christian!

Or, you'd vote for rights because you're human and have a good heart.

Originally Posted by Rew

Hebraic citizens very likely located in Palestine, actually. Admittedly they could've been Roman citizens, though.

Rew hurts my brain.
I'll save you the time of having to explain what you meant in that sentence by giving up. ;D

Originally Posted by Rew

Hyperbole.

Already answered that part below, Rew. ;p

Originally Posted by Rew

Annnnnd you lost me here. You're going to have to tell me where exactly Jesus advocates the killing of children (or anyone, for that matter)?

Jesus is criticized by the Pharisees for not washing his hands before eating. He defends himself by attacking them for not killing disobedient children according to the commandment: “He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.” (Matthew 15:4-7)

Originally Posted by Rew

Majority?

I mean, that's my impression of America. If one of the most liberal states take away rights of sexuality, I wonder how it is in the average state or the fundie states...

Originally Posted by Rew

Three?

<3

Originally Posted by Rew

Even I with my Divinity School training couldn't specifically lay out what "true Christianity" is. (Nor do I actually think that's the point, the more I think about it.)

Rew, not even I know.

Originally Posted by Rew

Would it make me a cop-out to say, though, that we can rule out what's contrary to Christianity even if we can't explicate fully what is truly and wholly Christian?

I'd definitely agree to that - but hey, there's interpretations there too.

Originally Posted by Rew

Either that, or it's because of those "sweeping metaphors" you're so fond of using.

Once.


Rew, you're a good man.

Originally Posted by Evilsbane

I'm preeeeetty sure he was being facetious.

Proves my point about interpretation. It's about as facetious as the quotes about homosexuality.

Originally Posted by Evilsbane

Because that whole thing about death to children who curseth the father or mother was already in place from Old Testament times.

"It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid." (Luke 16:17 NAB)

Originally Posted by Evilsbane

As much to say 'If a rule is stupid you ignore it - even if it's God's. You were born with a brain - use it'.

I wish people did.

Originally Posted by Evilsbane

The previous sentence was commenting on how unjust people believed they could buy their way into heaven while ignoring morality:

"The Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John; since that time the gospel of the kingdom of God has been preached, and everyone is forcing his way into it."

Taken together, it means that just because God is forgiving, it doesn't mean that you can just do what you want and expect to be rewarded for sinning. Your line also only applies to a regular person trying to change the rules: Jesus himself said that he was announcing a New Covenant from God, which implicitly superceded the Old.

Implicitly? If you took an implication as truth, then you've taken your own interpretation... and there is nothing which makes your interpretation correct rather than those of others. (Unless you can find where the old testament is explicitly superseded of course).

Originally Posted by Evilsbane

I'm preeeeetty sure he was being facetious. Because that whole thing about death to children who curseth the father or mother was already in place from Old Testament times. As much to say 'If a rule is stupid you ignore it - even if it's God's. You were born with a brain - use it'.

Wait, so I can disregard anything written in the bible as long as I don't agree with it? Hell, I guess I'm a Christian then.

If I were to make a sweeping claim about atheism, for instance, you should rightly feel the need to correct me.

If you were to state that "Atheists do not believe in a god." I would feel no need to correct you, as that is the basic definition of Atheism.

What is the definition of Christianity? Being raised Christian, I was taught it was faith in Christ. Was I taught wrong?

I'm going to be honest here and say that I know only of few Christians that have the intelligence level to have a serious conversation with that don't make me feel like I could do something more useful, like watching hentai, cleaning my room, or philosophizing if the Dead Sea is actually dead. I might come off as rude here, but those Christians that make me feel like I am talking to someone useful, they know who they are. Compliments to you.
Of course, it's a matter of personal experience...

I've met quite a few intelligent Christians, and quite a few pants-on-head retarded atheists. I've also met quite a few intelligent/stupid Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Rastas, Buddhists, Shintos, Norse pagans, and Sikhs. (Well, except for Sikhs. I've only met intelligent Sikhs, but I've also only met like two.)

The issue is not if faith in Christ is the defining element of Christianity--I think it's more the question of how faith in Christ shows itself faithfully in the Christian's/community's life.

And how should it show itself?

Okay, so, let's try to bring this debate back on track. This isn't about atheism, or whether Christianity is true, but there is validity in discussing how to interpret Christian texts regarding the context of Salvation.

Evilsbane, please just explain how Christianity attains Salvation, if not through belief in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Please use biblical quotes that specifically are from the mouth of Jesus dictating how Salvation may be achieved.

Could someone be considered Christian if they just followed the teachings of Jesus without taking the Resurrection as literal truth? If this could be done, then it really would be more on par with Buddhism. But that would be VERY liberal Christianity, I bet.

We have to keep in mind this is just all to contrast it and compare its faith to Buddhism, since that's the best example I know for a religion that doesn't teach believing in the Teachings themselves to be the end itself of achieving Salvation.