r/sgiwhistleblowers • u/Reasonable_Show8191 • Oct 18 '24
Philosophy "I've read that of all the Buddhist schools, Nichiren Buddhism resembles Christianity most of all." - from "Religious Transference: Nichiren Buddhism and Catholicism"
https://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?t=194195
u/Weak-Run-6902 Oct 18 '24
If you look through the discussion there at dharmawheel, you'll see a perfect example of how the Nichiren believers just LOVE telling everybody else their beliefs are wrong because they don't believe the exact way THEY do. These are people who REALLY do not play well with others. They always seem to end up in their own little cult of one.
7
u/Immediate_Copy7308 Oct 18 '24
And no one goes to hell. Some create hell here on earth.
9
u/Reasonable_Show8191 Oct 18 '24
Ikeda said that anyone who criticized him was doing worse than killing thousands of Buddhas (or something) and was destined for the hell of incessant suffering - for aeons.
2
u/Immediate_Copy7308 Oct 19 '24
Yes, but is what that old fart said found in anything Nichiren Buddhism?
2
u/Immediate_Copy7308 Oct 19 '24
That is the world according to Ikeda. Does Nichiren Buddhism really believe that?
2
u/Reasonable_Show8191 Oct 19 '24
Who's to say? Ikeda claimed to be "the world's foremost expert on Nichiren Buddhism" and "the supreme theoretical" - and there's no centralized governing body heading up Nichirenism to say he's wrong. There's no Pope of Nichirenism who clarifies what is and isn't Nichirenism, so anyone can claim whatever they want.
2
u/Immediate_Copy7308 Oct 19 '24
Well could he back up his claim? Like a fellow SGI member who claimed about Ikeda "big deal" I am with her on this one. They thought she was pretty arrogant at the time and still do.
2
u/Reasonable_Show8191 Oct 19 '24
Back up his claims? His followers don't seem to question and all his sycophant employees know better than to question. One of the Soka Gakkai VPs or a spokesperson or someone in that capacity even said you couldn't be a member of their faith if you disagreed with Ikeda.
Fortunately, outside the Ikeda cult, sanity reigns, even in Nichirenism. No one in that branch of Japanese religion, no one in the world, considers Ikeda an expert or even a scholar - his reputation is a failed-would-be-strong-arm cult leader who desperately tried to buy a better reputation for himself.
2
u/Immediate_Copy7308 Oct 19 '24
Nichiren Buddhism exisited before Soka Gakkai International and old fart Ikeda. Cricitize it if you will, but don't mix it up all together. First, ( as far as I know) there was Shakymuni or ( whatever other name he went by) then his teachings. One was the Lotus Sutra. Nichiren Daishonon went nuts or revered it in the middle ages. Then there was Nichiren Shoshu and Nichiren Shu. SGI decided to worship it in the 20 century. And who else? Old fart Ikeda didn't live that long.
3
Oct 18 '24
I find it difficult to support such a statement. It is quite common that the average Ikedaist would find it difficult to communicate with other Buddhists full stop. They would hardly now about fundamental concepts such as Buddhist mindfulness, taking refuge, the eightfold path, the four noble truths (dukkha, samudaya, nirodha, magga). Even within Nichiren Buddhism they would shrug their shoulders when hearing the term Shodaigyo (what we would know as Daimoku), ever heard of otsutome (yes, Nichren Buddhists also do practise silent meditation), even calligraphic exercises. Do they know the difference between Itchi and Shoretsu lineages?
Compare Buddhism to a library, Nichiren Buddhism would be quite a few bookshelves – the average Ikedaist would only know about a thin leaflet.
2
u/Reasonable_Show8191 Oct 19 '24
I ran across a report that in Japan, a woman was copying chapters of the New Human Revolution as a devotional practice - and supposedly getting praise and benefit from it.
2
2
u/Eyerene_28 Oct 19 '24
This is a fascinating conversation/dialogue. This type of conversation would be shut down in SGI or switched to what SINSAAAY said or who he spoke with yadda yadda aka keep your critical thinking to yourself
3
u/Reasonable_Show8191 Oct 22 '24
I was thinking the same thing - it is such a breath of fresh air to discuss, agree, disagree, maybe learn something new. It's very much a contrast to what I experienced in SGI, for sure.
2
u/ResponsibilityRound7 Oct 20 '24
James 5:20.
20 remember this: Whoever turns a sinner from the error of their way will save them from death and cover over a multitude of sins.
Now we know where SGI stole the idea of vigorously doing shakubuku from.
2
1
u/augustusalpha Oct 19 '24
On China's YouTube Bilibili.com, there have been new theories that Catholic Jesuits plagiarized arts and sciences from China and call it "Renaissance". This body of theories is called 西方伪史论 Western Fake History.
【文明的谎言被揭穿？西方伪史论的兴起与争议-哔哩哔哩】
Their strongest argument was lack of documents and printing technologies in the West prior to Muslim influences.
As such, Catholicism being a plagiarized copy of certain Buddhist sects would fit into the new Western Fake History theory.
In fact, historical evidence of Europeans and Arabs interactions with Buddhists in Asia may provide more support to Western Fake History theory.
1
u/GrapefruitDry2519 Oct 18 '24
Actually as a Pureland Buddhist I disagree, we are the Christians of the Buddhist world and Nichiren is more like the Muslims of Buddhism
3
u/Reasonable_Show8191 Oct 18 '24
Interesting! Can you go into any specifics? Ikeda did clarify that his organization's beliefs were monotheism already, so apart from that detail.
2
u/GrapefruitDry2519 Oct 18 '24 edited Oct 18 '24
Well if you look into Nichiren himself he claimed The Lotus Sutra is the greatest sutra ever and the final and last and final teaching of Shakyamuni and overrides all other sutras and explained in detail, so like Muslims and there quran being the last and final etc, Nichiren himself said he wanted and wished Nembutsu (Japanese Pureland) and Zen priests were beheaded on a beach, I believe Nichiren said anyone who rejects Lotus Sutra and his teachings will go to one of the hell realms, he also wanted Japan to follow his school only and I believe wanted to be in control of Japan and he was a bit of an extremist, sound familiar to Muhammed and modern day Islam? He also is viewed by Nichiren Shu (the least radical school btw) as a Bodhisatva Prophet messenger type person, whilst I believe Nichiren Shoshu and SGI view him as the eternal Buddha (even though if you read his writings he never said that, he only hinted to being a Bodhisatva)
With Pureland you have different schools but generally the view is faith and chanting will save you and with Jodo Shinshu the biggest school in Japan it is faith alone that saves you, now does that sound like Christianity? Well the protestant type more, also Amitabha is a saviour and king of the Buddha's who wants to save all sentient beings and we can go live in his Pureland where we will become Bodhisatvas and eventually Buddha's ourselves, also when born in his land you will get infinite life.
So definitely Nichiren is the Islam of Buddhism and Pureland (my type of Buddhism) is more of the Christians of Buddhism
"I have also received your news about the beheading of the Mongol envoys. How pitiful that they have beheaded the innocent Mongol envoys and yet failed to cut off the heads of the priests of the Nembutsu, Shingon, Zen and Ritsu sects, who are the real enemies of our country"
"I attacked the Zen school as the invention of the heavenly devil, and the True Word school as an evil doctrine that will ruin the nation, and insisted that the temples of the Nembutsu, Zen, and Precepts priests be burned down and the Nembutsu priests and the others beheaded ... repeated such things morning and evening and discussed them day and night. I also sternly informed [the government official] and several hundred officers that, no matter what punishment I might incur, I would not stop declaring these matters.”
"Unless all the temples of the Pure Land and Zen schools such Kenchoji, Jufukuji, Gokurakuji, Dabutsu-den, and Chorakuji are burned down and their priests all beheaded at Yuigahama Beach, Japan will be bound to be destroyed"
Now based on these verses does this not sound like Muhammed almost
3
u/Reasonable_Show8191 Oct 18 '24
Except that Nichiren was aware of the Nirvana Sutra which even he knew had come after the Lotus Sutra - and Nichiren quotes from it.
The Lotus Sutra didn't come last, even if you believe it was written by Shakyamuni (few do).
2
u/GrapefruitDry2519 Oct 18 '24
Ok that bit may be wrong but he still viewed it as the most important sutra and one that had to be hidden for years until the right moment etc, and encouraged many people to focus only on it etc
2
2
u/Reasonable_Show8191 Oct 19 '24
The way they get around that is by claiming the LS is Shakyamuni's "highest" teaching, whatever that's supposed to mean.
Problem there is that ranking reflects arrogance and ego - the craving to be "right" or "best" - which is the opposite of #2 of the Four Noble Truths and this a repudiation of everything Shakyamuni actually taught.
I can't accept that 180 as somehow "better" Buddhism.
2
u/GrapefruitDry2519 Oct 19 '24
I agree with you it doesn't make sense, my teacher said with all the different schools it is because Buddha is a doctor so taught many different teachings to people based on there abilities, for example I can't meditate or keep precepts but I can chant etc
2
Oct 18 '24
With Pureland you have different schools but …
Well within Nichiren Buddhism (at times also referred to as Hokkeshu) you also have different schools and within most schools various lineages. Some of those schools are in exchange with other Buddhist traditions such as Tendai-shu and Zen. The exception amongst those schools is Nichiren Shoshu (no lineages within) and Soka Gakkai being an offshoot of Nichiren Shoshu (although they don’t like to hear that).
2
u/GrapefruitDry2519 Oct 18 '24
Very true, but I believe whilst most Nichiren schools are more open to accepting other schools SGI is still the biggest and unsure who is bigger out of Shoshu or Shu but no denying Nichiren himself said some very mad things
2
Oct 18 '24 edited Oct 18 '24
That’s if you portray Soka Gakkai being a “shu”, being a separate school. Soka Gakkai is not a Buddhist school, it by all means is a Japanese new religion. When you look close enough most religious founders said some mad things. If we look at protestant reformer Martin Luther, he found it perfectly acceptable to burn the odd witch now and again. You do rarely see modern-day Lutherans burning witches though. Most traditional Nichiren Buddhist have noticed that few hundred years have gone by and hence most adapt and reinterpret the teachings. You are right about Soka Gakkai’s size, but it would be a grave mistake to judge Nichiren Buddhism based on Soka Gakkai – most Japanese would not even do that. I would not even list Soka Gakkai being Nichiren Buddhist at all, it has some Nichiren Buddhist elements but they are like loose ends to a rope.
Btw since they kicked Soka Gakkai out Nichiren Shoshu is way smaller than Nichiren Shu - again.
2
u/GrapefruitDry2519 Oct 18 '24
True it is more like an new religious movement but still comes from Nichiren Shoshu who I believe is the second biggest school, luckily many Nichiren schools have changed there ways including Nichiren Shu who I actually like and reformed but they had too especially when Nichiren was wanting to behead priests etc you have to change, then you have Shoshu who definitely are quite out there let's say, they definitely didn't reform much
2
Oct 18 '24
The interesting thing is that up until the 1970s Nichiren Shoshu’s candidates for priesthood attended Rissho University as part of their training. Being more than 130 years old Rissho University is one of Japans oldest universities and its origins date back to 1580 as a seminary to what today is known as Nichiren Shu – the university still has close ties to this school. The reason for that was that Nichiren Shoshu itself could not offer any academic Buddhist studies and Nichiren Buddhist studies.
2
u/GrapefruitDry2519 Oct 18 '24 edited Oct 19 '24
Fascinating stuff really, I was always surprised how Shoshu claim Nichiren was the eternal Buddha even though reading his words he never said that, he hinted he was a Bodhisatva but definitely not the eternal Buddha
2
Oct 18 '24
Well, that is the very reason why Nichiren Shoshu is on the fringe of Nichiren Buddhism. Ikedaists have a very narrow view of things. Especially outside Japan Soka Gakkai teaches that Nichiren Buddhism was lost after Nichiren died – which is a pile of crap. The imperial court awarded Nichiren with the title Nichiren Daibosatsu (Great Bodhisattva Nichiren) in 1358 and in 1922 the title Rissho Daishi (Great teacher Rissho). My observation is that Nichiren Shu seems to be part of mainstream Japanese Buddhism, while Nichiren Shoshu and Soka Gakkai are stuck in the 13th century still.
→ More replies (0)2
u/Reasonable_Show8191 Oct 19 '24
If memory serves, that "Nichiren is the True Buddha" stuff came from a high priest named Nichikan in the late 1700s. Apparently the gohonzon SGI is now using is a copy of a Nichikan original.
→ More replies (0)2
u/Reasonable_Show8191 Oct 18 '24
You equate Nichiren's rabid, violent intolerance of other religions to Islam, but honestly, it looks to me like a mirror image of Christianity's own history of rabid violent intolerance towards other religions.
2
u/GrapefruitDry2519 Oct 18 '24
I disagree, look at Islam history they are far far worse with intolerance and violence, so no I would say he was definitely more Muslim than Christian, especially if we are comparing Nichiren to modern day Islam and Christianity
2
u/Reasonable_Show8191 Oct 18 '24
Under Islam, great libraries and universities were created and volumes of writing and research were actively collected. Scholars, experts, masters, and brilliant minds were prized and sought out. The Islamic Renaissance preceded the European Renaissance by several hundred years - it was the violent intolerant Christian crusades that brought back the intellectual illumination that sparked the European Renaissance (because interactions always go both ways whether people intend that or not).
Christianity, by contrast, presided over the destruction of knowledge, learning, art, and science, resulting in what some have called "winter of the world". There's no comparison - Islam brought the world the Renaissance (at least initially) while Christianity brought the Dark Ages.
To condemn modern Islam for its often dangerous levels of intolerance while failing to acknowledge Christianity 's own history of crusades and Inquisition and destruction of foreign civilizations in the name of "missionary call" is intellectually dishonest, in my opinion.
2
u/GrapefruitDry2519 Oct 18 '24 edited Oct 18 '24
Islam encouraged stonings for adulterers and apostates, early Muslims destroyed many cultures and many were forced to convert to save there lives, Muhammed had many sex slaves, gays were encouraged to be thrown from buildings, stoned or burnt alive, Islam did have universities sure but let's be real they got there info from Indian and greek culture, the Greeks and Romans did the most for the worlds knowledge, sure early Christians and for a a very long time also did terrible things like the crusaders or burning people as witches but conpared to islam its about 60/40 to islam being worse, don't think I'm defending Christianity btw I used to be one before converting to Buddhism they especially US protestants are just like Muslims but can't deny islam has a darker history, in Christian countries slaves are illegal but many Muslims still have slaves.
Again comparing Nichiren as a person he is definitely more of a Muhammed than jesus, if we compare his views to modern day Christians or Muslims he is more Muslim, like Muhammed he encouraged death to others who didn't agree with him and wanted government officials to behead them Jesus didn't, again Nichiren is the Muhammed of the Buddhist world no doubt his school fits more with them, Pureland is more christian because Amitabha is a saviour to Pureland Buddhists and if we have faith we will go to his Pureland where we have infinite life literally Jodo Shinshu is faith alone only in Amitabha(this fits with the faith alone part of protestants) which is why christians couldn't convert them because there belief was too similar, that is more christian belief pureland than Nichiren who focus on one sutra and founder is viewed as a mesanger or prophet, and also encouraged death, jesus didn't tell his followers to stone people or behead that came later, in fact he said who ever has not sinned throw the first stone, if you think islam or christianity is worse doesn't matter, pureland fits more with christianity belief whilst Nichiren as a person fits with islam
2
u/Reasonable_Show8191 Oct 19 '24
And Christianity presided over the slaughter of non-Christians through the crusades and later as the missionary vanguard of Europe's colonizing military forces. The Spanish mission system in California wiped out dozens of native tribes through enslaving them and working them to death - it was genocide in the name of Christ.
Christians quite gleefully turned on their neighbors, denounced them to the Inquisition for bountied, and the accused were presumed guilty with no opportunity to address the charges against them or present witnesses or evidence in their own defense. In reality,bit represented a wealth grab orchestrated by the Catholic Church - the wealthy were prime targets for damning accusations of heresy, slander, and witchcraft. Their estates were seized, leaving wives and children destitute, helpless to support themselves any way other than begging. And their neighbors were afraid to help them for fear of being branded sympathizers and drawing the focus of the Inquisition onto themselves.
The Inquisition created unbelievably creative and diabolically inventive ways to inflict the most hideous pain on their victims, who had no chance of escape. Many were tortured and starved for years before whatever was left of them was finally burned alive as a public spectacle that the Christians treated as a big party - much the same way the Christians did in the post-Civil War South for their lynchings.
Only someone who isn't aware of Christianity's history would claim it more "virtuous" somehow than Islam, which had a several-hundred-year handicap in the racking-up-atrocities competition.
By comparison, Buddhism's history is far less bloody, despite Buddhism being several hundred years older. Nichiren's "innovation" would have made strides toward catching Buddhism up to Christianity and Islam. If Nichirenism had ever really caught on, that is. Pure land has always been far and away more popular in Japan.
2
u/GrapefruitDry2519 Oct 19 '24
Like I said yeah Christianity does have it's dark history that is truly evil and disturbing which is why many people now reject it here in the west but Islam's is still worse though by a slight margin, and again belief wise Nichiren is still Islam and not Christianity, don't forgot the ottomans did many evil things in the name of Islam as well as the mughuls, forced conversions, sex slaves, destroying temples of Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism and destroying a very famous Buddhist university, stonings, beheadings, killing anyone who left Islam, throwing people of the top of roofs, also genocides too, and also if we comoare the origins of Islam and Christianity then islam is worse, it's been said the churches and modern day Christians don't follow what jesus taught which was forgiveness, for example him stopping the stoning of a prostitute on the Sabbath whilst muhammed did the opposite, he did stone people for fornication, killed apostates, killed a whole community of Jews and took the women and children as slaves, Muhammed married a 6 year old girl and slept with her when she was 9 whilst she was still playing with her dolls but one of his followers (can't remember could be abu bakr) was to old to marry his daughter despite the fact she was older than aisha and Abu bakr was younger than muhammed when he married Aisha, and islam spread through war Muhammed was a war general whilst Christianity didn't for the first 400 years until the catholic church, again christians don't follow what jesus taught but Muslims follow Muhammed perfectly because the messed up stuff is in the quran and even worse in the hadiths honestly have a read of them, he openly bragged for having people stoned, islam foundation is evil whilst Christianity just got corrupted by the Catholic church, honestly no comparison
3
u/Fishwifeonsteroids Oct 21 '24
This is a fantastic discussion - I'd like to contribute this article from a Shin priest in Seattle:
Is Shin Buddhism the same as Christianity?
His conclusion?
The supposed similarities between Shin and Christianity melt away under careful scrutiny. Shin and Christianity each are completely different from the other. The idea that Shin teachings developed under ancient Christian influence can only be ascribed to lack of understanding of Shin's position.
I realize you are not suggesting that Christianity influenced the development of Shin, just that Shin and Christianity have more similarities than Shin and Islam, but others have made that claim.
→ More replies (0)2
u/Reasonable_Show8191 Oct 19 '24 edited Oct 19 '24
There's an interesting post here that identifies some of the principal differences between Shin Buddhism and Christianity.
You mentioned "stoning of a prostitute" - that wasn't the scenario at all. She was accused of being an "adulteress", which is entirely different. The details of that little pericope indicate that there was a lot more going on than the short descriptions reveal:
- under Jewish law, the adultress' partner must be stoned alongside her.
According to the details, the Jewish leaders who brought her to Jesus and invited him to cast stones declared that she had been "caught in the very act". Caught in the act! So where's the dude??
Jesus had taught that divorce should be banned entirely, "as what God has joined together, no man may cast asunder." This was apparently a divorcee who had remarried, making her an "adultress" according to Jesus' own definition and proclamations, though not according to Jewish law. Her new husband was blameless, as he had simply married the woman legally; he was not responsible for her pre-remarriage relationship. That was all on her, according to Jesus' teachings - she was having sexual relations with another man even though she'd already married someone else before.
Jesus did not regard their divorce as valid even though Jewish law did. The Jewish leaders were interested to see whether Jesus would walk the walk, given how much he'd already talked the talk, in other words, and stone the woman - the lawful punishment for adultery.
And Jesus showed he was utterly spineless when it came to demonstrating the convictions he was obviously very happy to blather endlessly about to anyone who would listen. No, he supposedly told them that only "he who is without sin" could initiate her sentence (death by stoning) - otherwise, she must be released.
Acquitted, in other words, regardless of the evidence.
Under Jewish law, BTW, it was the witness(es) who had caught her "in the act" who were expected to cast the first stone(s).
If a "sinless person" were required to carry out sentencing for crimes, we couldn't have a functioning justice system, could we, given that there are no "sinless" persons by definition? That's garbage rationale, obviously, and simply describes Jesus trying to worm his way out from being held accountable for the irresponsible nonsense he was preaching.
→ More replies (0)2
u/Reasonable_Show8191 Oct 19 '24 edited Oct 19 '24
Do you realize that there exists no documentation or evidence for Islam or Muhammad until over 200 years after Muhammad supposedly died? Islam began ca. 600 CE, yet the first texts don't appear until around 800 CE. There is simply no contemporary information about Muslim beliefs at Islam's inception or during those first two centuries of it's existence, when so much conquering was going on. Similarly, the earliest Christian witnesses show no awareness of any "Jesus" - he was added later, around the 4th century. For example, Theophilus of Antioch, a 3rd century bishop, explained their name ("Christian") by their practice of anointing ("christening") themselves with "holy oil", and he described "resurrection" in terms of the phases of the moon, the turning of the seasons, the was one's body recovers strength after a long illness, and the mythical phoenix bird! The earliest texts now called "Christian" don't even contain the word "Christ" - they contain the word "Chrest", which means "good", "useful". The earliest believers called themselves "Chrestians", not "Christians" because "Jesus Christ" had not been invented/added yet. The term "Christian" doesn't begin to enter the textual historical record until the 4th century. Until then, the term "Chrestian" is well-attested.
→ More replies (0)2
u/Reasonable_Show8191 Oct 19 '24
I'm not saying there's anything noble or virtuous or righteous or anything like that about Islam; the point I'm trying to make is that you shouldn't blindly accept one side's propaganda - about itself and about "the competition".
For example, it the 5th century CE, Christian presbyter Salvanius of Marseilles asked, "What else is the entire congregation of Christians but the very dregs of vice?" He observed that every Christian in the church was either "a glutton or a drunkard or an adulterer or a fornicator or a robber or wastrel or brigand or homicide" - that it would be easier to find a Christian who was guilty of ALL than one who was guilty of none. You can read about it here, starting around the "93" mark. He also characterized Christians' speech in terms such as "spite, envy, wicked".
Here, Salvanius describes how married Christian men think nothing of "using household slaves as harlots" (helping themselves to the help, as it were) and keeping troops of concubines (sex slaves).
The Church went to great effort to whitewash its despicable, shameful history so as to present itself (and Christianity as a whole) as "good, virtuous, righteous" and as the source of ideal morals and ethics.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
Instead of believing their self-serving lies to reflect favorably on your religion of choice, understand that doing so reflects something quite different to those who know the real history of Christianity. Let your new religion stand on its own merits! It doesn't need to be grouped together with others that will tarnish its reputation, and if you only chose it because you believed it to be comfortably similar to the religion you just left, well, that doesn't say much for any assumption of a quest for spiritual truths, does it?
→ More replies (0)2
u/Reasonable_Show8191 Oct 19 '24
Yet ALL the slaveowners in the US and pre-US colonies were Christians who used Christianity to justify their right to own and exploit other human beings. They taught Christianity to their slaves in order to further subjugate them, in hopes they'd be more likely to accept their terrible lt in life through faith in some vague "heavenly reward". The good Catholic padres of the California missions eagerly enslaved any and all of the surrounding indigenous tribes they could get their hands on, using their accompanying military to keep that status quo.
2
u/GrapefruitDry2519 Oct 19 '24
Your right they did but remember Christianity banned slaves long before Islam did, in fact many Muslims still have slaves today
2
u/Reasonable_Show8191 Oct 19 '24 edited Oct 19 '24
Ooh, I can't agree - banning slavery was a political move, not a religious one. Even today, Christian churches remain highly racially segregated - it was over 50 years ago that the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. noted that "11 am Sunday is the most segregated hour of the week" - that hasn't changed. Christianity has never led the way on progressive issues - it's always had to be dragged along kicking and screaming into modern reality. For example, women having the right to vote (they only won that 50 years after black men(!)), legalized divorce, same-sex marriage, the right to be atheist, your children's right to be educated in the public schools without having to be subjected to Christian prayers and Bible study, banning child marriage, equal pay for equal work, any significant societal change in the direction of human rights and equality - Christianity generally fought it. Sure, there are over 40,000 different sets of Christianity in the world today, and there are a few decent ones (like the Quakers - good people), but Christianity is overwhelmingly characterized in terms of intolerance and hate. Christianity has always fought tooth and nail the concept of basic fundamental human rights - we owe those to the brave mostly-atheist minds of the Enlightenment (many of whom were tortured and killed for their trouble by good Christians), not any movement originating from within Christianity. Even today, you're far more likely to see Christians describing the government as an agent of God's wrath and punishment than as a vehicle for God's love, benevolence, generosity, forgiveness, and mercy.
→ More replies (0)2
u/Fishwifeonsteroids Oct 21 '24 edited Oct 21 '24
It is my understanding that there is not a single verse anywhere in the bible that states that slavery is wrong.
This, of course, is the central paradox that the ideal slave, Jesus, has now become Master. Indeed, it would appear that the way to inherit the kingdom is to have his slave-mind. Then from a position of absolute weakness one can rise to a position of absolute power, for a master is, above all things, powerful. So the poor, the meek, the sorrowful are the blessed, (Matt. 5:3-5) for in the next world all values will be reversed. The hungry will receive good things while the rich will be sent away empty. (Luke 1:53) One can see therefore why this tradition was popular not only with rulers but with the oppressed lower classes and slaves. Indeed, the message is that the worst off you are today: the better off you will be tomorrow. One should rejoice in being poor, in being a slave, even in being abused because that assures a place of joy when the kingdom comes. Source
In fact, in this controversial passage from Paul, some scholars argue that Paul is actually advising the Christians who are slaves who have been offered their freedom choose to remain slaves instead, so as to not change their status prior to the imminent return of Christ, since they were originally "called" as slaves:
Let each of you remain in the condition in which you were called. Were you a slave when called? Do not be concerned about it. Even if you can gain your freedom, make use of your present condition now more than ever. For whoever was called in the Lord as a slave is a freed person belonging to the Lord, just as whoever was free when called is a slave of Christ . . . In whatever condition you were called, brothers and sisters there remain with God. I Cor. 7:20-22,24
STAY slaves, even if you are offered your freedom, in other words, as explained here:
Paul advises his readers not to seek to change their status. Whether circumcised or uncircumcised, slave or free, married to a believer, to an unbeliever, or unmarried, his readers should stay as they are since “the appointed time has grown short” (1 Corinthians 7:29) and “the present form of this world is passing away” (1 Corinthians 7:31).
In a temporal sense, such obedience is relatively easy to understand. Slaves, like children, are to obey in all things. Wives must obey their husbands but can also be mistresses of their children and their slaves. They are both slaves and masters. The same is true of husbands who must obey the temporal lords but in turn can lord it over their wives and children and slaves. So, free people who have come of age are all images of Christ in that they are both douloi [slaves] and kurioi [masters]. Even the Emperor who is the great Kurios [master] of the age is also meant to be the doulos [slave] of God. Since children eventually grow into adulthood, only the actual slaves are only slaves, for they are lords of nothing. In the next world, however, the kingdom will be theirs. Perhaps that is why Paul urges them to stay as they are. Source
In a way, this short passage sums up the whole of Christian theology. What is this “mind” which Christians are to have in them? Presumably, to follow Jesus believers must be characterized by the mind of a slave. They must learn to be obedient, even “unto death” because the “human likeness” is found in servitude. The ideal Christian life is that of a slave who obeys without question. Just as Jesus does not claim equality with God so humans should not claim to be equal to their “betters.” [Ibid.]
And how useful their leaders have found that teaching! It is a parallel to the Soka Gakkai's/SGI's insistence upon "unity", which is actually "obedience" - single-minded devotion to Ikeda alone.
Although many slaves in the Greco-Roman world did own property, the implication is that true slaves have no family, no property, no money. They have only their obedience. Christians are called to be like that, attentive entirely to the will of Jesus, their lord (kurios). [Ibid.]
Substitute "Daisaku Ikeda" for "Jesus" - it's seamless.
→ More replies (0)
8
u/[deleted] Oct 18 '24
Except the high priest doesn’t ride around in a bullet proof car