I'm afraid I don't understand this point. Jesus said one should love your neighbor. I think that's fairly straightforward. What other way can one interpret that. And the historical and cultural apects have nothing to do with it. The ethics in Christian teaching are supposed to be timeless , to apply to all periods. — Ross

What do you think was the significance of the question ‘who is my neighbour?’ prompting the parable of the good Samaritan? Do you really think there’s only ever one way to interpret ‘neighbour’? This parable suggests that there is more to ‘love your neighbour’ than just a moral injunction. In order for this teaching to be timeless, we need to understand how one’s interpretation of the word ‘neighbour’ can be subject to cultural or ideological limitations.

By follow he means the same thing as worship. He just uses a different word. When christians worship Christ they are FOLLOWING his teachings . — Ross

1. I don't think "follow" and "worship" are the same thing. You can perfectly well follow someone without worshiping them.

2. People worship pop stars, politicians, and other "celebrities". Why not a religious leader?

Love is at the heart of Christian teaching . It's not a matter of debate. — Ross

Perhaps not of debate but of interpretation. How are we to "love our neighbor"?

Without a proper understanding of how to apply this in practice, it is meaningless.

Moreover, if love is so central, then it should be extended to all, Jesus (or God) included.

I don't know jack shit about Buddhism but in seeking an answer to the thread title, I would ask which one is more successful at getting it's adherents to live more wisely. If you are comfortable with your understanding of wisdom and living wisely, then there is your answer. Caveat: use of the word "more" could be problematic. I'm not so sure wisdom is a "more" or "less" thing. I think a singularity has the whole package in one and one is less than more. Maybe wisdom is like that.

My exposure to Christianity has me thinking it's a huge fail. But there may be a numbers difference and, like I said, I don't know about Buddhism. There is also my idea that spirituality is one thing and religion is a completely different thing. The latter is a drag on progress, but some folks seem to love it.

Perhaps not of debate but of interpretation. How are we to "love our neighbor"? — Apollodorus

Loving kindness (metta) in Buddhism includes love for all living things. I think what's missing from Christianity is that it doesn't emphasize loving all living creatures as in Buddhism.

Loving kindness (metta) in Buddhism includes love for all living things. I think what's missing from Christianity is that it doesn't emphasize loving all living creatures as in Buddhism. — Ross

I get that. But my question was how does a Christian love his or her neighbor in practice?

What do you do? Do you send them thoughts of love? Hugs and kisses? A large check?

What is it that constitutes Christian love?

I get that. But my question was how does a Christian love his or her neighbor in practice? — Apollodorus

The New Testament doesn't seem especially unclear on this. Are you saying it is hard to understand what Jesus recommends? If you are saying it is difficult to ascertain what we should do here, then maybe we should give up all reading of philosophers/religion for lack of clarity?

"Socioeconomic success is wisdom"? (transl: Greed is good :roll:) ...

:pray: The Church of JC CAPITALI$T :halo:

"Join now!" :smirk:

The New Testament doesn't seem especially unclear on this. Are you saying it is hard to understand what Jesus recommends? — Tom Storm

My question was addressed to @Ross.

He/she seems to have their own definition of "worship" and "follow". How can we have a discussion without a definition of terms?

I get that. But my question was how does a Christian love his or her neighbor in practice? — Apollodorus

Doesn't Christ make it clear what one should do to show love. Now I'm not a Christian and I'm not very knowledgeable about the content of the gospels, except what I remember from going to mass as a youngster and reading about the philosophy of religion. I did a philosophy degree in college and that covers a bit about religion.
To get back to your question. Didn't Jesus say what a Christian should do to show love, to visit the sick, to help the needy, to be patient, kind and helpful, to forgive those who hurt you. It's encapsulatef in the first Letter of Saint Paul to the Corinthians:
Love is patient, love is kind. It is not jealous, is not pompous, it is not inflated, it is not rude, it does not seek its own interests, it is not quick-tempered, it does not brood over injury[/b]

Love is patient, love is kind. It is not jealous, is not pompous, it is not inflated, it is not rude, it does not seek its own interests, it is not quick-tempered, it does not brood over injury[/b] — Ross

Well, that sounds more like what Christian love is not, than what it is.

And would you say that this love applies to Jesus/God too, or just to our neighbor?

comment deleted

He/she seems to have their own definition of "worship" and "follow". How can we have a discussion without a definition of terms? — Apollodorus

Ok to clarify the issue:,-
Following Jesus means a radical abandonment of the pursuit of things like money, possessions, addictions, and sin. Following Jesus means you’re pursuing Him by reading the Bible, obeying it, praying, and growing as a new believer.
The above is what I read in a religious magazine.
Now to me the last part they say about praying to God and obeying the Bible seems to me to involve the act of worshipping Christ

Following Jesus means a radical abandonment of the pursuit of things like money, possessions, addictions, and sin. Following Jesus means you’re pursuing Him by reading the Bible, obeying it, praying, and growing as a new believer. — Ross

So, this is the meaning of "following" Jesus/God. But is there anything known about "loving" him?

This would be a topic in which much could be said if it were possible to measure wisdom. I don't know how that could be possible.

Buddhism has many interpretations as does Christianity. We may speak of dominant trends in one or the other, but if one includes sub-schools and the like, it's practically infinite. So I don't see how to proceed here.

:up:

Loving kindness (metta) in Buddhism includes love for all living things. I think what's missing from Christianity is that it doesn't emphasize loving all living creatures as in Buddhism. — Ross

Not all Buddhist schools emphasise ‘loving’ in an interactive way. That’s the ‘out’ for Buddhism - that general inaction, ignorance, intellectualising or asceticism are acceptable ways to deal with the overwhelming task of loving indiscriminately. Buddhism doesn’t view love as a feeling, but as a logical interconnectedness. So the less you interact with the world, the less of this interconnectedness you need to manage. It’s much easier to ‘love’ the world in this way when you’re not an active participant.

Christian religion’s emphasis on love as an energy source or feeling renders discrimination or selective ignorance, inaction and asceticism as acceptable ways to deal with the overwhelming task of loving ‘unconditionally’, with intensity of feeling. If we interpret our ‘neighbour’ as someone most like us, then it’s easier to ‘love’ them actively and intensely, no matter what they do.

Of course, there is also general asceticism in Christianity, and selective ignorance in Buddhism.

Ok to clarify the issue:,-
Following Jesus means a radical abandonment of the pursuit of things like money, possessions, addictions, and sin. Following Jesus means you’re pursuing Him by reading the Bible, obeying it, praying, and growing as a new believer.
The above is what I read in a religious magazine.
Now to me the last part they say about praying to God and obeying the Bible seems to me to involve the act of worshipping Christ — Ross

This is an interpretation that equivocates ‘Jesus’ with ‘God’, and the Bible with ‘His word’. The ambiguity of ‘pursuing Him’, ‘obeying’ the Bible and ‘growing as a believer’ enables another authority to then dictate what all this means. This is why your personal interpretation of ‘praying’ and ‘obeying’ seems to be worshipping - it’s what you’ve been taught. But that’s not really what worshipping is.

To follow the teachings of Jesus is to strive to understand what he meant by what others claim he said in relation to how he lived as a human example, and then to act in accordance with that understanding. When we rely on other authorities to tell us what he meant or how to act, then we’re not following Jesus, we’re following another authority...

Worship refers to maximal value, and is either recognised in or attributed to a relation. The question then becomes: are you praying because you’ve been told this act has value/potential, or because you recognise maximal value in the relationship behind it? And is that relationship with God or with the authority that told you to pray? Are you obeying the Bible (as interpreted by yourself or some authority) or obeying God? Do you understand the authority with which you’re aligning your actions?

All of these questions are addressed in the teachings of Jesus, but most are obscured by the teachings of the church - especially the Catholic Church, which assumes its own authority. Read and think for yourself.

This is an interpretation that equivocates ‘Jesus’ with ‘God’, and the Bible with ‘His word’. — Possibility

Correct. However, I think that the equivocation is understandable in light of the fact that in the Bible Jesus is referred to as "the Son of God" and as conceived by God's agency (Holy Spirit).

And if the Bible is not the word of Jesus/God, how can we know what Jesus/God taught?

When we rely on other authorities to tell us what he meant or how to act, then we’re not following Jesus, we’re following another authority... — Possibility

Jesus didn't write anything therefore we have to RELY ON OTHER PEOPLE namely the writers of the gospels who passed his teaching to posterity. Just like Socrates who didn't write anything its from Plato that we are getting the formers philosophy. But I don't think many christians have a problem with that. Jesus appointed his disciples who then wrote down his teachings. An analogy might be a spokesperson for an organization , we generally accept that that person is passing on the truthful information that management gave out because they were appointed by management.

most are obscured by the teachings of the church - especially the Catholic Church, which assumes its own authority. Read and think for yourself — Possibility

I wonder is it really true that the Catholic church are obscuring Christ's teaching. That's a huge sweeping statement. I hardly think that hundreds of millions of practicing Catholics in the world are all that naive that none of them have ever questioned whether their church is true to the teachings of Christ. There's been a lot of religious scholarship going on for over a hundred years examining these very issues by Catholic scholars. I'm not very knowledgeable about this field but if what you say is correct then Catholics are not true Christians at all if they're not being true to Jesus s teaching.

However, I think that the equivocation is understandable in light of the fact that in the Bible Jesus is referred to as "the Son of God" and as conceived by God's agency (Holy Spirit). — Apollodorus

There’s an argument to be made that any claim of divine descendency attributed to Jesus’ role in the Bible is a misinterpretation. It would never have been possible to prove that this relationship of ‘son’ to ‘father’ ever had a materiality - even with all the technology we have now. All we have are the words of writers who couldn’t possibly have known, trying to piece a story together that made sense to them. This renders any father-son relationship here a construction of perceived significance, value or potentiality. That’s different from false. Anyone who’s been raised by someone with no genetic link will understand this. Jesus calling God ‘Father’, others corroborating this relationship, and even Jesus calling himself ‘God’s son’ - none of this means he is actually the son of God.

And if the Bible is not the word of Jesus/God, how can we know what Jesus/God taught? — Apollodorus

We can’t know. We can only infer. We’re supposed to use reasoning to assess the validity of statements made throughout the Bible, and to question those that make supernatural or illogical claims. But it isn’t about dismissing these claims so much as understanding the human experiences behind them. Fear and desire in circumstances of ignorance, isolation or exclusion obscures understanding.

Jesus didn't write anything therefore we have to RELY ON OTHER PEOPLE namely the writers of the gospels who passed his teaching to posterity. Just like Socrates who didn't write anything its from Plato that we are getting the formers philosophy. But I don't think many christians have a problem with that. Jesus appointed his disciples who then wrote down his teachings. An analogy might be a spokesperson for an organization , we generally accept that that person is passing on the truthful information that management gave out because they were appointed by management. — Ross

Scholars will argue that it wasn’t disciples of Jesus who wrote down his teachings, but later generations of followers - and that the four selected Gospels were drawn piecemeal from several earlier sources. There’s no way to even know if Jesus (or Socrates, for that matter) was a real person.

But is that even relevant? The question is not whether the words or the man can be trusted, but whether these teachings lead us to wisdom. That’s the whole point of obscuring the source. Socrates, too, never told us precisely what to think or how to act - he himself claimed to know nothing, and was convicted of corrupting the city’s youth. The authority/wisdom is not in the words or the speaker - it’s in the wisdom and perceived potential we find in ourselves by striving to understand and follow the right teachings.

I wonder is it really true that the Catholic church are obscuring Christ's teaching. That's a huge sweeping statement. I hardly think that hundreds of millions of practicing Catholics in the world are all that naive that none of them have ever questioned whether their church is true to the teachings of Christ. There's been a lot of religious scholarship going on for over a hundred years examining these very issues by Catholic scholars. I'm not very knowledgeable about this field but if what you say is correct then Catholics are not true Christians at all if they're not being true to Jesus s teaching. — Ross

I don’t believe all the obscurity is intentional. Most of it has been a case of fear and desire leading church authorities away from wisdom. They’re humans, and there’s been so much political intrigue in Christianity and particularly the Catholic Church since the inception of both. The entire structure of the Catholic Church has been designed to reduce the schisms of the past, and to maximise automatic trust and compliance in the clergy as a hierarchy of authority (above the Bible). We were taught to believe that by obeying our Catholic parents, teachers and clergy, who taught us how to think and what to do, we were obeying God. Suffice to say, this needs a rethink, and I haven’t entirely written them off yet, but it’s a big ask...

So, yes - I would say that most are probably that naive. Or they’ve questioned and then relied on answers from within this church structure, instead of using their own capacity for reasoning. It’s what has made the structure so effective so far.

Incidentally, I don’t think there is any clear way to define a ‘true Christian’. It’s just not a useful category anymore. I think the same goes for a ‘true Buddhist’.

Loving kindness (metta) in Buddhism includes love for all living things. I think what's missing from Christianity is that it doesn't emphasize loving all living creatures as in Buddhism. — Ross

Christianity succeeded Buddhism. Is the conspicuous exclusion of animals in Christianity an improvement in or a deterioration of moral standards in re Buddhism? I ask not because I believe animals shouldn't be included in ethics but simply because it is a question that can be asked.

You cannot compare two different religions, their teachings, their principles, etc. and "weigh" the results to establish which of them contains more wisdom!

And then, wisdom for whom? A Buddhist, a Christan or a non-adherent to either of them? I suspect you mean the latter. But then you should indicate that, to increase the viability of your question.

Anyway, it is almost the same with asking, "Does Plato's teachings contain more wisdom than Aristotle's?" Has such a question any meaning at all?

Jesus calling God ‘Father’, others corroborating this relationship, and even Jesus calling himself ‘God’s son’ - none of this means he is actually the son of God. — Possibility

Correct. But "Father" can have more than one meaning, especially in theology. This had already been a form of address for the deity as applied, for example, to Zeus in the Greek tradition. As the father or “pater familias” was the ruler of the house, God was the ruler of the cosmos. Basically, the term implies authority and the respect and obedience due to that authority.

As regards the attitude of Christian believers to God, it is interesting to note that Jesus himself gives his disciples two commandments, (1) to love God, and (2) to love your neighbor.

However, though Jesus expressly describes commandment (1) as the “first and great commandment”, there seems to be a modern tendency to treat this as an inconvenient (and to some, embarrassing) relic to be ignored together with the concept of soul.

I may be wrong, but one gets the impression that there is a general effort in modern theological discourse to dissociate Christianity from traditional core concepts such as God and soul, and to replace it with a humanitarian-political movement concerned exclusively with “feeding the poor”, “sheltering refugees”, and “smashing capitalism” ....

We were taught to believe that by obeying our Catholic parents, teachers and clergy, who taught us how to think and what to do, we were obeying God — Possibility

Do you mind me asking but What kind of church did you belong to because I'm from Ireland which when I was a child in the 60's was a very conservative Catholic country, but I don't remember my parents commanding me to obey them even though they were practicing Catholics. I was given full freedom to think for myself by them and my teachers. Of course 90% of people at that time attended mass. Religion was everywhere. But I think the Irish, although it was a conservative Catholic country, are by their nature quite a liberal minded, freedom loving , irreverent and progressive people's and just ignored the Church,s pronouncements or attempts to control our minds and hearts. I remember the wild parties full of casual sex and almost orgies, even back in the 70,s in so called Catholic Ireland. One Irish Professer on tv said "we Irish were straight-laced by day and hedonistic by day"

hedonistic by day" — Ross

That should be hedonistic by Night

Correct. But "Father" can have more than one meaning, especially in theology. This had already been a form of address for the deity as applied, for example, to Zeus in the Greek tradition. As the father or “pater familias” was the ruler of the house, God was the ruler of the cosmos. Basically, the term implies authority and the respect and obedience due to that authority. — Apollodorus

The difference is in the term ‘Abba’. But this implication of entitled authority is brought into question from the get-go. Joseph is technically Jesus’ father, and by cultural rights has authority over him - except that he doesn’t. Our understanding of the paternal role has developed over millennia, just as our understanding of leadership has developed. The leader of a dominion assumes stewardship of its inhabitants and a pastoral responsibility, not control or unquestioning authority, as was once assumed. This development is apparent across the historical progress of biblical writings.

As regards the attitude of Christian believers to God, it is interesting to note that Jesus himself gives his disciples two commandments, (1) to love God, and (2) to love your neighbor.

However, though Jesus expressly describes commandment (1) as the “first and great commandment”, there seems to be a modern tendency to treat this as an inconvenient (and to some, embarrassing) relic to be ignored together with the concept of soul.

I may be wrong, but one gets the impression that there is a general effort in modern theological discourse to dissociate Christianity from traditional core concepts such as God and soul, and to replace it with a humanitarian-political movement concerned exclusively with “feeding the poor”, “sheltering refugees”, and “smashing capitalism” .... — Apollodorus

I think perhaps the embarrassment is in clinging to ‘traditional’ interpretations of these core concepts, in ignorance of logic. Recognising the logical impossibility of certain properties traditionally attributed to core concepts such as ‘God’ and ‘soul’ inspires fear and doubt. But we cannot argue our way out of this: to ‘love God’ is to intentionally increase awareness of, connection to and collaboration with, experience outside of logical possibility.

to ‘love God’ — Possibility

The passage from Matthew is taken from Deuteronomy 6.5. It follows the passage known in Judaism as the "Shema", from the first word of 6.4, meaning hear:

Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one.

It goes on to say:

Do not follow other gods, the gods of the peoples around you

for the LORD your God, who is among you, is a jealous God and his anger will burn against you, and he will destroy you from the face of the land. (6:14-15)

Matthew poses the problem: if the Messiah is the son of David then, citing Psalm 110:

‘The Lord said to my lord, “Sit at my right hand, until I put your enemies under your feet”’?

how can David call him lord if he is his son?

This is fraught with problems. The term 'lord' is being used to translate two different terms, first Yahweh and second Adonai. Both terms are used as names for God, but Adonai is also used to mean a king. Why was no one able to make the distinction and why did no one dare to ask him more questions? Perhaps it has something to do with the difference between the claim of being the son of David and the son of God. Perhaps this has something to do with God being one. Perhaps their not daring to ask more questions is meant to indicate that we should not dare ask more questions.

There is another issue here. In what way is one to love God? The answer is given in what is here referred to as the second commandment:

And a second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’

It is in the second being like the first that he answers the question of how God is to be loved, that is, by loving your neighbor. This raises the question, again going back to Deuteronomy: "Is your enemy your neighbor?" As we see, Christians are no less likely to distinguish between "us and them" than anyone else.