How Are Christians Regarded In Thai Buddhist Society?

[Brucenkhamen]

Back to the original topic "How Are Christians Regarded In Thai Buddhist Society?". I've been surprised how often Thais have asked me "Are you a Christian?" Even when I've finished telling them what Wats I've been staying at or what Buddhist teachers I like. Even when I was in robes they still asked me that.

I think they are under the impression that in the West we all go to Church on Sunday, that the West is one big Bible belt.

[Xangsamhua]

I think the use of the term "blind faith" is dismissive and probably discourteous. If it means credulity, ignorance or stupidity, it may refer to a lot of people, regardless of their beliefs, but the beliefs of Christians, Jews and Muslims - all of whom take the "risk of faith" in a Creator God - are not necessarily based on mere credulity, ignorance or stupidity.

One might think Theism is not the best option, but those who do may have good reasons for it. After all, there is "something and not nothing" and to accept a creative cause of that something is not an unreasonable option despite the objections that can be brought against it. After all, atheism may be perfectly reasonable, but it doesn't provide an "answer" to the question most people ask at some time of their life.

Presumably no Buddhists have "faith" in the law of Karma, as there isn't any scientific evidence for it that I'm aware of.

[Brucenkhamen]

I think the use of the term "blind faith" is dismissive and probably discourteous. If it means credulity, ignorance or stupidity, it may refer to a lot of people, regardless of their beliefs, but the beliefs of Christians, Jews and Muslims - all of whom take the "risk of faith" in a Creator God - are not necessarily based on mere credulity, ignorance or stupidity.

One might think Theism is not the best option, but those who do may have good reasons for it. After all, there is "something and not nothing" and to accept a creative cause of that something is not an unreasonable option despite the objections that can be brought against it. After all, atheism may be perfectly reasonable, but it doesn't provide an "answer" to the question most people ask at some time of their life.

Presumably no Buddhists have "faith" in the law of Karma, as there isn't any scientific evidence for it that I'm aware of.

Obviously we understand the term blind faith differently, I use it to mean faith without evidence. If someone has evidence that the world was created by God in 6 days I would say their faith is not blind.

I have faith the sun will rise tomorrow, this is based on evidence that it always has done this, it is faith because until it happens I can't be 100% certain but it's not blind as I have hard evidence to base it on.

The same with the law of kamma, I've seen evidence in my life and the lives of others that doing bad things generally leads to bad results and doing good things leads to good results, this is scientific evidence enough. I can't be certain this will always be the case so there is an element of faith but I have good anecdotal evidence so it's not blind.

[camerata]

I read somewhere that the Thai word usually translated as "religion" (satsana) actually means "dispensation" and not at all what Westerners mean by religion. So perhaps they don't make a big distinction between the dispensation of the Buddha, Christ and Mohammad, or between a theistic religion and a philosophy. I expect they would also refer to Shinto as a satsana even though it isn't really a dispensation.

[camerata]

Back to the original topic "How Are Christians Regarded In Thai Buddhist Society?". I've been surprised how often Thais have asked me "Are you a Christian?" Even when I've finished telling them what Wats I've been staying at or what Buddhist teachers I like. Even when I was in robes they still asked me that.

Once when I mentioned being a Buddhist and doing meditation to my physiotherapist she asked me if I went to the temple to pray. I got the impression she thought maybe I was confused and she wanted to check if I understood what real Buddhism was about.

[Mosha]

I think hey have an harder time understanding Athiesm. When the police came with their forms last year, when they were checking on the out of town foreigners. Religion was one of the questions. When I replied Athiest, my wife told him what I said, and he wanted an explanation. I replied I did not believe in a god or creator. All I got back from both was a look of total confusion. The next time someone called with the same question, My wife fielded it and told them I was Christian. When I started to speak, I got "the look". So I kept my mouth shut. Rule #1 don't upset the cook.

[Xangsamhua]

I think the use of the term "blind faith" is dismissive and probably discourteous. If it means credulity, ignorance or stupidity, it may refer to a lot of people, regardless of their beliefs, but the beliefs of Christians, Jews and Muslims - all of whom take the "risk of faith" in a Creator God - are not necessarily based on mere credulity, ignorance or stupidity.

One might think Theism is not the best option, but those who do may have good reasons for it. After all, there is "something and not nothing" and to accept a creative cause of that something is not an unreasonable option despite the objections that can be brought against it. After all, atheism may be perfectly reasonable, but it doesn't provide an "answer" to the question most people ask at some time of their life.

Presumably no Buddhists have "faith" in the law of Karma, as there isn't any scientific evidence for it that I'm aware of.

Obviously we understand the term blind faith differently, I use it to mean faith without evidence. If someone has evidence that the world was created by God in 6 days I would say their faith is not blind.

I have faith the sun will rise tomorrow, this is based on evidence that it always has done this, it is faith because until it happens I can't be 100% certain but it's not blind as I have hard evidence to base it on.

The same with the law of kamma, I've seen evidence in my life and the lives of others that doing bad things generally leads to bad results and doing good things leads to good results, this is scientific evidence enough. I can't be certain this will always be the case so there is an element of faith but I have good anecdotal evidence so it's not blind.

True, there's a fair amount of probability that the sun will rise based on previous observations and records, even though it may not rise tomorrow. I think you're right that faith in the creation myth as an historical event requires a stubborn refusal to accept the findings of science and cultural anthropology - blind faith if you like - but mainstream Christians don't take the creation story literally, so it's not the best example to use.

If karma/kamma is as general as you suggest it is, I agree with you and have faith in karma/kamma too, at least in general terms, but I've not yet seen any empirical evidence that karma impacts on future incarnations. Maybe I don't know enough about it.

Are you basically saying that there's faith, which may be based on at least inferential reasoning, and "blind faith", which is not based on reasoning at all? If so, we do not disagree. What I took issue with was the suggestion that all Christians are governed by blind faith, but Buddhists are guided in all things by the light of reason.

[Plus]

I'm sure many Christians will disagree, it's the difference implied in this forum to stress how Buddhism is not a religion and doesn't rely on faith.

Yes Buddhism does not rely on blind faith in the same way other religions do, but I really don't see how you can use that to make the assertion "Christians are denied any sign of progress until they die, that their practice leave no spiritual marks on their lives until the final judgement, and they must take that on faith only".

Because if Christians experience progress, in whatever form - being closer to Jesus or whatever, you can't call it "blind faith" anymore. They KNOW it works NOW, so they expect it work when they reach the final moment, death, in their case, and ascension to heaven.

The same principle Buddhists use - if I make progress now, it means Buddhism works, and so Nirvana is real and it WILL be reached, eventually.

In both cases the final goal is taken on faith but justified by observing concrete progress now, however small.

>>>>>

Thais have no experience of conversions (not enough, anyway), if you are born Christian, you are Christian, no matter what you are chanting or wearing. Sounds reasonable, since if you are born in a Christian country, it's your karma, if you were meant to be a Buddhist you'd be born here.

BTW, I checked on meanings of dharma, in one way it's an innate quality, you can't change it without changing yourself. Dharma of rivers is to flow, that's what they do, if they don't flow, they are not rivers anymore. Similarly people have their own dharma, you have to follow it, or face negative consequences. Dharma prescribed by Buddha is different from dharma prescribed by hindus, but all people have to follow whatever is given to them. In that sense "satsana", dispensation, seems very accomodating - it's where you get your "dharma" from.

Our definition of religion - something confined to belief in creator god, is too narrow. Vast majority of very religious Hindus don't believe in creator god at all, for example, not it was a requirement in Buddha's days, I suppose.

[Brucenkhamen]

True, there's a fair amount of probability that the sun will rise based on previous observations and records, even though it may not rise tomorrow. I think you're right that faith in the creation myth as an historical event requires a stubborn refusal to accept the findings of science and cultural anthropology - blind faith if you like - but mainstream Christians don't take the creation story literally, so it's not the best example to use.

True, it's not the best example but I didn't want to use an example closer to the core of Christian belief so as not to cause offence.

If karma/kamma is as general as you suggest it is, I agree with you and have faith in karma/kamma too, at least in general terms, but I've not yet seen any empirical evidence that karma impacts on future incarnations. Maybe I don't know enough about it.

Neither have I, this is why most western Buddhists either don't believe that karma impacts on future incarnations or are agnoistic on the topic.

Are you basically saying that there's faith, which may be based on at least inferential reasoning, and "blind faith", which is not based on reasoning at all? If so, we do not disagree. What I took issue with was the suggestion that all Christians are governed by blind faith, but Buddhists are guided in all things by the light of reason.

Certainly there are as many Buddhists out there that rely on blind faith as there are Christians, living in Thailand this will be obvious. The difference is it's not really encouraged in the original scriptures.

It's also true that there are Christians out there that are are guided in all things by the light of reason, but the fundamentalist view is faith is everything, you just have to believe in Jesus and you'll be saved. Obviuously this leads to lots of good things in your life but faith is the foundation.

The thing is I really do see any value in that kind of faith so wouldn't want to base my world view or my religion on it.

[Brucenkhamen]

Because if Christians experience progress, in whatever form - being closer to Jesus or whatever, you can't call it "blind faith" anymore. They KNOW it works NOW, so they expect it work when they reach the final moment, death, in their case, and ascension to heaven.

Yes I can. Because it takes blind faith to still believe that the changes you are experiencing in your life have been made by God.

Surely if you look to the evidence it's more logical to assume that those changes are a result of the spiritual practices you are engaging in, or your motivation to change, or the influence of your newfound friends, or the placebo effect of your blind faith.

I don't disagree that there is evidence that it works, I'm just saying that to assume it works because someone died on the cross 2000 years ago to save you from your sins is not the most logical conclusion so it takes a leap of faith.

The same principle Buddhists use - if I make progress now, it means Buddhism works, and so Nirvana is real and it WILL be reached, eventually.

The difference is my faith is in the techniques, not the storyline.

Thais have no experience of conversions (not enough, anyway), if you are born Christian, you are Christian, no matter what you are chanting or wearing. Sounds reasonable, since if you are born in a Christian country, it's your karma, if you were meant to be a Buddhist you'd be born here.

Good point, I think you're right that this is the Thai view of things. I don't think they search for meaning the way we westerners do.

[suegha]

I'm sure you can lfind philosophy in any religion, and any philosophical system worth mentioning has "religious" followers.

There's one interesting difference between Christianity and Buddhism - it's ok for Buddhists to claim that their practice is confirmed by their personal experiences, so it's scientific and "philosophical", but Christians are denied any sign of progress until they die, that their practice leave no spiritual marks on their lives until the final judgement, and they must take that on faith only.

Simply not true! Christianity, at least for me, is about changing my behaviour and improving day by day. I am preparing for 'life everlasting' here and now!

There's one interesting difference between Christianity and Buddhism - it's ok for Buddhists to claim that their practice is confirmed by their personal experiences... but Christians are denied any sign of progress until they die, that their practice leave no spiritual marks on their lives until the final judgement, and they must take that on faith only.

The above words describe an aberrant view of Christianity at best.

The Scriptures, both Old and New Testaments, are very clear that the maxim "You reap what you sow" applies to experience in this life as well as the hereafter. The entire Bible is replete with stories and practical instruction which describe the short term consequences of a life lived righteously and a life lived selfishly. I'll just give you one book to start out with: Proverbs. The entire book is given over the the maxim that a man who lives according to Godly wisdom reaps rewards in the here and now, as well as the future.

Because of this fact, one's spiritual progress can be easily recognized and experienced over a lifetime. In fact, the book of 1 Corinthians was written to a church that included both "baby" believers (less practical experience) and "adult" believers (those who had progressed along quite well in their spiritual and practical maturity). The monikers "baby" and "adult" had nothing to do with their chronological ages--it referred to the evidence of and rewards experienced in the here and now related to their spiritual/practical experience of living the Christian walk in their church and surrounding culture.

A Christian who lives with only a "pie in the sky" mentality (as the above poster describes) is truly short-changing himself and his opportunities to enjoy personal fulfillment and rich relationships NOW as well as later. If these are the only kinds of Christians the poster has known, and he judges the content of Christianity by them, it's obvious he hasn't read much of The Operator's Manual--the Christian Scriptures.

Coming back to the topic. The more I explore the philosophy of Buddhism, the more similarities I see to many truths in Christianity--especially those truths related to the practical benefits of an ethical and moral life lived in the present.

However, the GREATEST difference, IMO, still stands: Buddhism is a philosophy in which you earn "good points" for this life and in the next life by doing merit. Christianity is a religion in which you do good because you have already been changed on the inside ("born again'). Good deeds are a natural reflection of a changed heart, not done to "earn" one's salvation or eternal place in heaven.

Top post!

[Xangsamhua]

True, there's a fair amount of probability that the sun will rise based on previous observations and records, even though it may not rise tomorrow. I think you're right that faith in the creation myth as an historical event requires a stubborn refusal to accept the findings of science and cultural anthropology - blind faith if you like - but mainstream Christians don't take the creation story literally, so it's not the best example to use.

True, it's not the best example but I didn't want to use an example closer to the core of Christian belief so as not to cause offence.

If karma/kamma is as general as you suggest it is, I agree with you and have faith in karma/kamma too, at least in general terms, but I've not yet seen any empirical evidence that karma impacts on future incarnations. Maybe I don't know enough about it.

Neither have I, this is why most western Buddhists either don't believe that karma impacts on future incarnations or are agnoistic on the topic.

Are you basically saying that there's faith, which may be based on at least inferential reasoning, and "blind faith", which is not based on reasoning at all? If so, we do not disagree. What I took issue with was the suggestion that all Christians are governed by blind faith, but Buddhists are guided in all things by the light of reason.

Certainly there are as many Buddhists out there that rely on blind faith as there are Christians, living in Thailand this will be obvious. The difference is it's not really encouraged in the original scriptures.

It's also true that there are Christians out there that are are guided in all things by the light of reason, but the fundamentalist view is faith is everything, you just have to believe in Jesus and you'll be saved. Obviuously this leads to lots of good things in your life but faith is the foundation.

The thing is I really do see any value in that kind of faith so wouldn't want to base my world view or my religion on it.

Those danged fundos - they get everyone tarred with their brush! I often feel it would be better if we banned the term "Christian" as an umbrella term for all the different sects and trends and shopfront assemblies that use the name. I'd identify with Buddhists any time before I would with some other Christians - in terms of what they profess and the way they do it. It probably wouldn't do any harm to ban the word "God" while we're at it, but the horse has bolted. Anyway, atheism and theism (or perhaps deism) follow the same trajectory; the former simply stops short of the act of faith for perfectly logical reasons, leaving us in suspense. Though I don't know how many "real atheists" there are anyway. Even Richard Dawkins accepts the possibility of a non-interventionist supreme being (the deist God), as does Antony Flew after many years of contestation. John Barrow, physicist-mathematician and Templeton Prizewinner (2006?) for scientific work by a Christian, belongs to a small church that he likes because "it teaches a traditional deistic [n.b. not theistic] picture of the universe" (Wikipedia). It's all so complex.

[Plus]

Because if Christians experience progress, in whatever form - being closer to Jesus or whatever, you can't call it "blind faith" anymore. They KNOW it works NOW, so they expect it work when they reach the final moment, death, in their case, and ascension to heaven.

Yes I can. Because it takes blind faith to still believe that the changes you are experiencing in your life have been made by God.

It takes too to tango. In order to get full benefit of confession you must be really honest with yourself, God won't help you if you don't help yourself.

Do they take on faith that it's Jesus or Virgin Mary that are answering their prayers? Yes, but what does it matter if prayers work? Someone's answering them, it never fails, so they have all reasons to believe that they'll be "saved" when death comes.

But yes, faith plays an extremely important role in Christianity, I just don't agree that it's blind, it grows on experience.

I'm not talking about modern protestant churches where there's nothing more than a one time acceptance of Christ.

[Brucenkhamen]

It takes too to tango. In order to get full benefit of confession you must be really honest with yourself, God won't help you if you don't help yourself.

No it takes two.

Interesting how God won't help you unless you help yourself, sort of leads to the conclusion that you are best to concentrate on helping yourself and let the rest fall into place.

Do they take on faith that it's Jesus or Virgin Mary that are answering their prayers? Yes, but what does it matter if prayers work? Someone's answering them, it never fails, so they have all reasons to believe that they'll be "saved" when death comes.

But yes, faith plays an extremely important role in Christianity, I just don't agree that it's blind, it grows on experience.

Lets see, say I had a strong faith that if I was a good boy Santa would bring me a bike for christmas, and I was a good boy and I did get a bike! Yippee!

Either I could take this as proof positive that Santa does exist and he does bring bikes down the chimney. Do I take on faith that it's Santa that is bringing the bikes? Yes, but what does it matter if my belief works? Someone's bringing them, it never fails.

I'm sure you'd agree that this is a leap of blind faith as the evidence is circumstantial.

A better conclusion is surely to come to see that being a good boy leads to good results, not only did I get the bike I wanted but I'm happier in my family life and get on better with my parents and siblings. If I understand this then maybe I'll look for more opportunities to do good and see if I get more good results in future.

I'm sure you'd agree the latter conclusion requires no blind faith and is a more mature response.

I'm not talking about modern protestant churches where there's nothing more than a one time acceptance of Christ.

I'm generally assuming fundamentalist protestants when I refer to Christians as this is what I've had experience with, so it's understandable we may see it differently.

[threelegcowboy]

There is a Buddhist temple complex just East of Udon Thani. In that complex is statues etc of all the different types of Buddhist. Also in that complex is a large figure of Jesus and Mary. So there you have it. IMHO Buddhist accept open heartedly the Christian faith.

[Plus]

Lets see, say I had a strong faith that if I was a good boy Santa would bring me a bike for christmas, and I was a good boy and I did get a bike! Yippee!

Either I could take this as proof positive that Santa does exist and he does bring bikes down the chimney. Do I take on faith that it's Santa that is bringing the bikes? Yes, but what does it matter if my belief works? Someone's bringing them, it never fails.

I'm sure you'd agree that this is a leap of blind faith as the evidence is circumstantial.

Christians have build whole mythology around imaginary figure of Christ, I'm pretty sure that when they get to meet him and the rest of the angels, up in heaven, it will be nowhere like they draw on Hallmark postcards. Just like the guy depositing a guy under the tree is not really Santa. The goal is getting the bike, getting to heaven. The details and appearances are not important.

And, yes, I agree, the biggest obstacle to getting to heaven lies within yourself. God will hold his end of the bargain, don't blame him.

[camerata]

Well, I think we've had more than enough about Christianity for now. Topic closed.