Jump to content

Are Buddhism and Christianity compatible or mutually exclusive?


phetaroi

Recommended Posts

...

You can never understand Buddhism if you do not free your mind from christianity.

Buddhism can accept christianity but christianity cannot accept Buddhism...

I think perhaps you should read some of the works of the Buddhist monk Thich Nhat Hanh (such as "Living Buddha, Living Christ") or the Dalai Lama.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 230
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Since some of you want to talk about Buddhism and Christianity, I've split this post off into a separate topic. But lay off the sect-bashing.

Thich Nhat Hanh has equated nirvana with the Kingdom of God, and made statements such as:

"You are what you want to become. Why search anymore? You are a wonderful manifestation. The whole universe has come together to make your existence possible. There is nothing that is not you. The kingdom of God, the Pure Land, nirvana, happiness, and liberation are all you."

But is he on the right track or just trying to maintain good interfaith relations?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since some of you want to talk about Buddhism and Christianity, I've split this post off into a separate topic. But lay off the sect-bashing.

Thich Nhat Hanh has equated nirvana with the Kingdom of God, and made statements such as:

"You are what you want to become. Why search anymore? You are a wonderful manifestation. The whole universe has come together to make your existence possible. There is nothing that is not you. The kingdom of God, the Pure Land, nirvana, happiness, and liberation are all you."

But is he on the right track or just trying to maintain good interfaith relations?

There are a lot of questions related to the topicquestion.

I noticed in trying to understand what Buddhism is, as the outcome of the life of Buddha, the fact hat even Buddhists, and certainly the contributors overhere, show to have different concepts about or out of Buddhism makes it very difficult.

If I would have the time I could make an interesting overview overhere with a stock of different and quite often even contrary concepts to find on this forum about Budhism.

And ofcourse there will be some people disagree with me, but they seem to posses the ultimate truth about Buddhism wich makes every other person 'go wrong'.

To discuss Buddhism in relation to Christianity, to see if they are compatible or not or mutually exclusive or not, is even more complicated since everyone will discuss out of his or her own concepts of both phenomenons. For what is Christanity?

I do not think we can have a fruitfull discussion about it overhere just because it is too complicated, the main thing we will achive is the exhibition of all concepts we personally have about the subjects of the discussion.

I would say to me that is interesting since I like to know about all I meet in life but as written by Camerata when people start to go into sect bashing I cannot join in or continue.

As I wrote before I am not part of any religion, or sect, but out of some methaphysical knowledge , - cos who realy knows me? - I am accused, even 'stalked' in some - in fact indecent - way by some people overhere to be part of a christian religion or some sect. .

This fact alone doesnot contribute to understand the life and works of Buddha.

I like to look at the handling of thoughts itself in their own context, and I am interested to see if a thought or concept is in contradiction with itself.

That is why I do question and challenge by some of my statements.

Reading what is repeated above from Tich Nath Hanh, the question arises in my mind: How about autists. Is an autist what he or she wants to become? Is an autist in his autisme a wonderfull manifestation? How about the whole universe coming together to make his or her autistic existence possible? There is nothing that is not autistic? I cannot or should not need question why the autistic adolescents I have worked with are autistic and other people are not and have a balanced life and can take care oneself? I should not do because I am a wonderfull manifestation and happy and in liberation?

Is this concept compatible with christianity, does it include christianity with this concept, or does it exclude it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since some of you want to talk about Buddhism and Christianity, I've split this post off into a separate topic. But lay off the sect-bashing.

Thich Nhat Hanh has equated nirvana with the Kingdom of God, and made statements such as:

"You are what you want to become. Why search anymore? You are a wonderful manifestation. The whole universe has come together to make your existence possible. There is nothing that is not you. The kingdom of God, the Pure Land, nirvana, happiness, and liberation are all you."

But is he on the right track or just trying to maintain good interfaith relations?

Thich Nhat Hanh and Tan Buddhadasa follow the right track. Thich Nhat Hanh, Tan Buddhadasa and the Dalai Lama were the spiritual fathers of the INEB (International Network of Engaged Buddhists.), representing the main schools of Buddhism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since some of you want to talk about Buddhism and Christianity, I've split this post off into a separate topic. But lay off the sect-bashing.

Thich Nhat Hanh has equated nirvana with the Kingdom of God, and made statements such as:

"You are what you want to become. Why search anymore? You are a wonderful manifestation. The whole universe has come together to make your existence possible. There is nothing that is not you. The kingdom of God, the Pure Land, nirvana, happiness, and liberation are all you."

But is he on the right track or just trying to maintain good interfaith relations?

Thich Nhat Hanh and Tan Buddhadasa follow the right track. Thich Nhat Hanh, Tan Buddhadasa and the Dalai Lama were the spiritual fathers of the INEB (International Network of Engaged Buddhists.), representing the main schools of Buddhism.

I sometimes think TNH and HHDL and other Buddhists who have said nice things about the Jesus of the Sermon on the Mount and the parables are a bit naive. That is one version of Christianity, and is found in Quakerism, Unitarian Universalism, liberal Protestantism and liberal Catholicism, but there is a dark side, too, and it is very strong.

It is exemplified in people like the televangelists, the radical religious right in the US, Mel Gibson, the pastor who wanted to burn the Qur'an and all those who want to evangelize on behalf of an uninformed, pre-20th century, intolerant, sometimes anti-semitic view of the Bible as the inerrant word of God.

There is also a dark side to Christianity to be found in the New Testament scriptures themselves and largely constructed not from the teaching of the actual Jesus but from the issues and priorities of the early communities from which the various texts emerged. From these texts we find the xenophobic Jesus, the esoteric Jesus, the angry and paranoid Jesus, the Jesus who thought he was God, and so on.

If we're going to ask whether Christianity and Buddhism are compatible, we'd need to know: Which Christianity? The pre-modern, modern or postmodern (post-ecclesiastical) one? And which Buddhism? The one rooted in the Pali Canon or the more "developed", "evolved" or experimental and experiential forms? Or the bridge-crossing Buddhism of Ven. Buddhadharsa and others?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we're going to ask whether Christianity and Buddhism are compatible, we'd need to know: Which Christianity? The pre-modern, modern or postmodern (post-ecclesiastical) one? And which Buddhism? The one rooted in the Pali Canon or the more "developed", "evolved" or experimental and experiential forms? Or the bridge-crossing Buddhism of Ven. Buddhadharsa and others?

Yes you're right, the question is too big because there are so many variations of Buddhism and so many variations of Christianity, of course some will be compatible some won't.

However I do think ideas like heaven and nibbana are synonymous are just naive wishful thinking, just obscures the question.

I meet quite a few practising Christians on insight meditation retreats, some clergy. This I think is because the religious content of insight meditation as practised in the west is much less if it is there at all, this makes it compatible with pretty much anything. Why would Christians want to practise it? I think it's exactly what Christianity lacks, a well established methodology for training the mind that works.

I'm not sure what Christianity can offer Buddhism that it lacks, after all if you want to attach to a god-like concept you can get that in some forms of Buddhism. I think the strong tradition of helping the poor and helpless would be the thing that Christianity could offer Buddhism.

You might notice both of the above are practises not doctrines.

One very important part of Buddhism you might think is lacking in Christianity is the practise of viewing all experience as not self in order to see things objectively and let go of attachment to self. However I think Christianity (at least in it's more contemplative forms) and many other theistic religions has a different way of trying to achieve the same thing, you learn to let go of your self by attaching to a much bigger and greater self aka God. Of course further down the track one would need to let go of that second attachment also if one wanted to progress but still I think both approaches can have a similar affect on the mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think one of the big differences between the two is that:

With Christianity, if you believe and follow Gods word as stipulated in the bible, he will give you eternal life in Heaven after your death.,

Failing to follow these rules, or not accepting that Jesus was the son of God and was sacrificed so your sins would be forgiven, you will be dambed to hell for eternity.

on the other hand

With Buddhism, if you follow a set of instructions referred to as Dhamma and regularly practice these, through self experience you can gain insights and develop awareness to a state which will allow you to overcome suffering.by extinguishing the cycle of re birth.

With Christianity you must die to realize the promise.

With Buddhism you can attain self experience in this life.

With Christianity you only have one shot at it. Fail and you will suffer in hell for eternity (infinity).

Buddhism allows you to try again infinite times through the cycle of re birth.

Both offer salvation.

Thoughts:

If the bible is false, after death, do you get an opportunity to spend a few minutes in a waiting room where you're informed that it was all mythology and have time to digest it before you finally die. Unless you do you will lapse into death without knowing whether you were right or not.

If the Dhamma is false, as enlightenment is rare and until this occurs you have no knowledge of previous re births, you can go to your death with the thought you will reappear but in fact may also be headed for eternal death.

Christianities hook is the offer of eternal life in heaven.

Buddhism also offers immortality in a state of enlightenment (nirvana) through the unconditioned force which shares or is common to your re births.

Christianity are mutually exclusive but both offer immortality.

Edited by rockyysdt
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would say the question is:

- how can a human reach a state he or she can become aware of the answers to the questions of the topic ?

- what state is it out of wich a human can become aware of the answers to the questions of this topic ?

how can a human evolve to this level of understanding?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would say the question is:

- what state is it out of wich a human can become aware of the answers to the questions of this topic ?

Don't bother trying to steer the topic to your favourite subject of "awareness." The topic is simple enough. Everyone can answer according to their current understanding of both religions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't bother trying to steer the topic to your favourite subject of "awareness." The topic is simple enough. Everyone can answer according to their current understanding of both religions.

Indeed, it's not a matter of awareness it's a matter of relevance. It's relevant for people who have roots in both practises, or a history with both practises, or family and friends in one practise while you're trying to practise the other, or for people who can't make up their mind or want to hedge their bets.

Otherwise I don't see the question as relevant, the stated aims of both practises are very different (though some schools of each are much closer to each other than to the rest of their own religion).

However wisdom is wisdom no matter where it comes from, I think there are some very evolved people who got that way practising another religion besides Buddhism. Buddhist practise is not the only way to attain wisdom though I suspect it's the only way to perfect it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can never understand Buddhism if you do not free your mind from christianity.

Taken literally, I disagree with this. None of the leading Western (non-monastic) scholars of Buddhism that I know of are Buddhists, but they understand the subject deeply. If they are not Christians, they have presumably been immersed in a Judeo-Christian culture for most of their lives. If we are talking about attaining nibbana in this life, I don't believe it can be done if one clings to the belief of God or Christ as a saviour who can grant everlasting life in heaven.

Buddhism can accept christianity but christianity cannot accept Buddhism.

I would say Buddhism can tolerate just about any religion or system that teaches solid ethical principles. Of Christians, it seems to be mainly evangelicals who actively denigrate Buddhism.

As for Thich Nhat Hanh's comment equating nirvana with the Kingdom of God, I agree with Bruce. This is wishful thinking. Heaven clearly involves a self/soul, being with God and (popularly) being with loved ones for ever. Nibbana doesn't involve any of this. Also, nibbana is attainable in this life.

The Dalai Lama has said things like "Don't change your religion - be a good Christian" to Western audiences. I think he is just talking about religion as an ethical system and he's being mindful of the difficulties of adopting a religion that is alien to your culture. Obviously he wouldn't say that to someone who understood Buddhism and had started the practice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can never understand Buddhism if you do not free your mind from christianity.

Taken literally, I disagree with this. None of the leading Western (non-monastic) scholars of Buddhism that I know of are Buddhists, but they understand the subject deeply. If they are not Christians, they have presumably been immersed in a Judeo-Christian culture for most of their lives. If we are talking about attaining nibbana in this life, I don't believe it can be done if one clings to the belief of God or Christ as a saviour who can grant everlasting life in heaven.

Buddhism can accept christianity but christianity cannot accept Buddhism.

I would say Buddhism can tolerate just about any religion or system that teaches solid ethical principles. Of Christians, it seems to be mainly evangelicals who actively denigrate Buddhism.

As for Thich Nhat Hanh's comment equating nirvana with the Kingdom of God, I agree with Bruce. This is wishful thinking. Heaven clearly involves a self/soul, being with God and (popularly) being with loved ones for ever. Nibbana doesn't involve any of this. Also, nibbana is attainable in this life.

The Dalai Lama has said things like "Don't change your religion - be a good Christian" to Western audiences. I think he is just talking about religion as an ethical system and he's being mindful of the difficulties of adopting a religion that is alien to your culture. Obviously he wouldn't say that to someone who understood Buddhism and had started the practice.

Right, elementary ethics for all you can find it in this declaration:

http://www.parliamentofreligions.org/_includes/FCKcontent/File/TowardsAGlobalEthic.pdf

This decalaration was initiated by Prof. Kueng, Catholic Professor at the University of Tuebingen, Germany. He was ejected by the Pope for his teachings.

This declaration was signed in unaminity. No representives from the offical catholic church, but some groups of Islam, of Jewish religion.

In Wat Umong, Chiang Mai I met the representive of Thai Buddhism, abbot of a Theravada Wat in Denver, US. He remplaced the invited Tan Buddhadasa.

I remember only that he told me that he found a good friend at this Council: An Indian Chief, representing the animism/shamanism religion of Indian tribes in US and Canada.

Look at the declation: Me, I see the Teaching of the Buddha, otherone can see the Teaching of..........

We are all right..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are simple core tenants in Christianity which sum up the faith, no reason to bring sects into it.

John 3:16-17 is simple enough

"For God so loved ithe world,that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him."

This on it's own conflicts with Buddhism in the sense that, in Buddhism the individual is responsible for their own salvation, despite the karma which is magnitudes easier to acquire than it is to shed.

In Christianity it is a known quantity that man cannot escape his sin and therefore redemption must come from God

But in daily practice there are some areas where there is common ground. Like James 1:27

"Pure and undefiled religion in the sight of our God and Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.

In Matthew 22:37-39 Jesus puts compassionate works one notch behind the primary and essential belief in God

“You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself."

In my estimation a Buddhist following Christian practice would be exemplary in Buddhist practice.

A great many Buddhist and Christian parables share the same moral teaching in different words.

But Christianity is firm on salvation through faith/belief

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't bother trying to steer the topic to your favourite subject of "awareness." The topic is simple enough. Everyone can answer according to their current understanding of both religions.

Indeed, it's not a matter of awareness it's a matter of relevance. It's relevant for people who have roots in both practises, or a history with both practises, or family and friends in one practise while you're trying to practise the other, or for people who can't make up their mind or want to hedge their bets.

Otherwise I don't see the question as relevant, the stated aims of both practises are very different (though some schools of each are much closer to each other than to the rest of their own religion).

However wisdom is wisdom no matter where it comes from, I think there are some very evolved people who got that way practising another religion besides Buddhism. Buddhist practise is not the only way to attain wisdom though I suspect it's the only way to perfect it.

Why don't you start a new thread if you have so much to say that is not directly related to the OP ?:D ( I am learning much more than Buddhism here)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But Christianity is firm on salvation through faith/belief

But it lacks logic and reasonings, in order to justify and complete your statement.

Let me elaborate in simple layman's way(most of the members here are too Buddhistic in their words, making them very difficult for non-Buddhist or the ordinary people to understand :rolleyes: :

Christianity is taught to make people think that whatever wrongs he did in a lifetime, as long as he believe in "their" god and pray to him, he will be forgiven and heaven reached after death OR a christian can be bad for 6 days every week, go for confession on sunday, 6 days' sins forgiven. Then start again next week. It lacks logic and very unconvincing, isn't it ? Now in my country, many people are starting to realise the unreasonability of christian beliefs. On the other hand, "bad" people will like it. They need not fear being sent to hell after death, It will also be easier and simpler to accept for the more simple-minded people.

Buddhism is different. Karma is accumulative and not one time off. One may do a lot of good deeds in a lifetime but if he did something very bad near the end(murdering a good person out of greed, for example) he may still be punished in his next life. This way of rebitrth and punishments or rewards difinitely is more reasonable and sensibleb than christianity beliefs.

While both may just be beliefs and not true, at least the Buddhism way is fair and able to create a better society. The christianity way is certainly less likely to be true because GOD(if exists) sure cannot be so unreasonable and unfair. I will not need to mention about the 7 days creation or adam and eve stories which are all proven to be untrue by science. My views are: if the most important parts are found untrue or wrong, why should I believe the rest of it ? They may be some motives behind its creation which we don't know yet.

On the other hand, the Buddhism theory, as many see it, is very coherent with scientific laws of the energy formula(energy cannot be destroyed but can be transformed, so rebirth) as well as the law of relativity(similar to karma). I strongly believe that in times to come, science will eventually prove them right. This deserves a different topic thread.

Edited by healthcaretaker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But Christianity is firm on salvation through faith/belief

But it lacks logic and reasonings, in order to justify and complete your statement.

Let me elaborate in simple layman's way(most of the members here are too Buddhistic in their words, making them very difficult for non-Buddhist or the ordinary people to understand :rolleyes: :

Christianity is taught to make people think that whatever wrongs he did in a lifetime, as long as he believe in "their" god and pray to him, he will be forgiven and heaven reached after death OR a christian can be bad for 6 days every week, go for confession on sunday, 6 days' sins forgiven. Then start again next week. It lacks logic and very unconvincing, isn't it ? Now in my country, many people are starting to realise the unreasonability of christian beliefs. On the other hand, "bad" people will like it. They need not fear being sent to hell after death, It will also be easier and simpler to accept for the more simple-minded people.

Buddhism is different. Karma is accumulative and not one time off. One may do a lot of good deeds in a lifetime but if he did something very bad near the end(murdering a good person out of greed, for example) he may still be punished in his next life. This way of rebitrth and punishments or rewards difinitely is more reasonable and sensibleb than christianity beliefs.

While both may just be beliefs and not true, at least the Buddhism way is fair and able to create a better society. The christianity way is certainly less likely to be true because GOD(if exists) sure cannot be so unreasonable and unfair. I will not need to mention about the 7 days creation or adam and eve stories which are all proven to be untrue by science. My views are: if the most important parts are found untrue or wrong, why should I believe the rest of it ? They may be some motives behind its creation which we don't know yet.

On the other hand, the Buddhism theory, as many see it, is very coherent with scientific laws of the energy formula(energy cannot be destroyed but can be transformed, so rebirth) as well as the law of relativity(similar to karma). I strongly believe that in times to come, science will eventually prove them right. This deserves a different topic thread.

It was not my intention to begin a which-is-better discussion. the topic is compatibility. But in reply, I think you are approaching Christianity the wrong way. If a person considers Christianity as a man made system then how can they believe and be saved? This is a paradox. The belief needs to be genuine. So those who follow the religion of Christianity without the belief are wasting their time, although I think many do exactly that.

Now you propose that the Christian system creates opportunities for abuse because sinners will still sin and then ask to be forgiven. Well how many people do you know that have the ability to stop sinning entirely, even for a week. Remember even gossip is a sin, I don't know any. Since God is pretty smart he recognized that man will frequently lose his battle with the flesh, and for this, a sincere (genuine) apology is sufficient to put you back on track. It becomes more about your relationship with God, than the actual details of your life. But if one intends to keep sinning and has no desire to change, the apology is insincere and not valid. Can't fool God you know.

So I would say that the Christian system motivates real change, where Buddhism offers unspecified lifetimes of practice(if you return as a Buddhist) but both offer the current life rewards achieved by being good and selfless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...where Buddhism offers unspecified lifetimes of practice(if you return as a Buddhist) but both offer the current life rewards achieved by being good and selfless.

Two things in relationship to your post. Hmmmm...I never heard anyone bring up that in a next life you may not come back as a Buddhist. Interesting. Gotta think about that for a while.

In regard to karma, which I think you allude to in regard to "unspecified lifetimes of practice", and the concept of karma being "fair" (not your point, I know): the fairness issue of karma is something I have thought about quite a bit. And to me there are two aspects of it. One you might call "short-term karma", or the "karma of this lifetime". Very logical -- every action you take has a reaction; if you are mindful in your daily actions (right, thought, right action, right speech, etc.), the result will be positive karma. This is turn will strengthen your own tendency toward right thinking, right speech, right action,etc. The bigger issue in the "fairness" of karma, is karma over successive lifetimes. For example, the Thais will usually say that a handicapped individual is suffering from bad karma in a previous life...something he cannot have knowledge of, and therefore cannot apply any logic to developing traits of right speech, right thought, right actions, etc. So on the one hand, "karma of this life" seems very logical to me, "karma extending over lifetimes" does not. Your thoughts?

Since the general topic of this thread is, as you point out, compatibility between Buddhism and Christianity, and NOT one religion is better than the other, the question of compatibility should not be so much about proof (just as we cannot prove there is a god, I have yet to see proof that there have been 28 Buddhas). I think a better way to look at compatibility is to look at the individual principles and see what comparisons can be made.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's very difficult to deal with the OP's question unless we try to define the terms, which might be a pedantic and unhelpful exercise. "Buddhism" and "Christianity" are not fixed terms. There is so much diversity within them, to the extent that, as Brucenkhamen pointed out, some on the margins of each religion are perhaps closer to the other religion than to their fellow-religionists.

"Christianity" is what emerged in the mid to latter years of the first century, inspired by the writings and evangelism of Paul and the hellenized Johannine community that gave rise to the Gospel and Epistles of John at the turn of the second century. This was taken forward in the second century by people like Ignatius and Polycarp, Justin Martyr and Irenaeus - all products of Greco-Roman philosophy and culture.

Canuckamuck is quite right in saying that John 3:16, "the gospel in a single verse" represents a core teaching of the religion that emerged from the early Jesus communities. To believe what that verse states marks one as a Christian in the traditional sense. However, since the advent of critical studies of the biblical texts in the 18th century and the historical Jesus quests of the 19th and 20th centuries serious questions have emerged as to which of the sayings and teachings ascribed to Jesus are actually his sayings and teachings and which are words put into his mouth for various reasons by the writers and editors of the gospels.

The three synoptic gospels - Mark, Matthew and Luke - are generally regarded as being closer to an account of Jesus' sayings and doings than that of John. Mark is the earliest. Matthew and Luke draw on Mark, their own sources and on a "sayings gospel", no longer extant, known as "Q". There is considerable overlap in the gospels of Matthew and Luke with Mark and with each other, as well as some differences and inconsistencies. John, however, is not regarded as an historical gospel at all and is considered to draw on a tradition quite distinct from that of the synoptics.

Hardly anything ascribed to Jesus in John's gospel can reliably be sourced to Jesus himself. John is an essentially theological work, written to show that Jesus wasn't just a Galilean Hasid, or a Jewish prophet, or the Davidic messiah, but God's self-expression on earth and the one who had to suffer death as an oblation to God on behalf of mankind in order to wash away their sins. It is highly questionable, however, that Jesus, as a Galilean Jew thought of himself that way or would have had any following at all if he had.

So "Christianity" consists partly of historical and ethical beliefs that are found in the synoptic gospels with their multiple sources, in John with its theological agenda, in Paul with his outreach to the diaspora Jews and their gentile sympathizers (the "God-fearers") based on a Jesus he had never met except in a vision, and the early leadership found outside Palestine (the Jewish church had been destroyed with the sacking of Jerusalem and the scattering of the survivors). The outcome of all this was the Church, and Christianity has been defined by what the Church (and later the Churches) has/have taught in the past 1900 years or so.

But many "Christians" no longer buy the Church's message or its authority to say what the message is. Theologically educated Christians in particular are looking to retrieve the original teachings of Jesus and gather around a corpus of core doctrine and ethics that has jettisoned many, if not most, of the claims of the major churches. They may be a minority, even a small minority - who would know as they don't collect membership data? - but they are alive and reasonably active within and outside the mainstream denominations. The rest of the mainstream church in Europe, Britain and Australia (Canada? New Zealand?) is moribund. The US is a bit different, and in societies that have not inherited the Enlightenment (Africa, parts of Asia), Christianity is an emerging force.

Perhaps the question would have been better phrased as something like "Are the core teachings of the Christian churches, as articulated by their spokesmen, compatible with those of the Buddha, as recorded in the canonical Pali texts?" But this would exclude Jesus's voice, as he was never a spokesman for the "Christian Church".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since awarenes is a too difficult topic and we are so fond on demonstrating our concepts, answering the quest for simplicity I like to state according what I have learned to know here about Buddhism and what I have learned about Christianity also on some other forums.

Buddhism denies the existence of the soul and the I of a human

Christanity is all about the soul and the I of the human.

Buddhism is about compassion and methods to end suffering.

Christianity is also about compassion and methods to end suffering.

Out of these facts I would say Buddhism seem to exclude - the core points of - Christianity, and Christianity doesnot seem to exclude Buddhism.

Quite simple I would say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's very difficult to deal with the OP's question unless we try to define the terms, which might be a pedantic and unhelpful exercise. "Buddhism" and "Christianity" are not fixed terms. There is so much diversity within them, to the extent that, as Brucenkhamen pointed out, some on the margins of each religion are perhaps closer to the other religion than to their fellow-religionists.

"Christianity" is what emerged in the mid to latter years of the first century, inspired by the writings and evangelism of Paul and the hellenized Johannine community that gave rise to the Gospel and Epistles of John at the turn of the second century. This was taken forward in the second century by people like Ignatius and Polycarp, Justin Martyr and Irenaeus - all products of Greco-Roman philosophy and culture.

Canuckamuck is quite right in saying that John 3:16, "the gospel in a single verse" represents a core teaching of the religion that emerged from the early Jesus communities. To believe what that verse states marks one as a Christian in the traditional sense. However, since the advent of critical studies of the biblical texts in the 18th century and the historical Jesus quests of the 19th and 20th centuries serious questions have emerged as to which of the sayings and teachings ascribed to Jesus are actually his sayings and teachings and which are words put into his mouth for various reasons by the writers and editors of the gospels.

The three synoptic gospels - Mark, Matthew and Luke - are generally regarded as being closer to an account of Jesus' sayings and doings than that of John. Mark is the earliest. Matthew and Luke draw on Mark, their own sources and on a "sayings gospel", no longer extant, known as "Q". There is considerable overlap in the gospels of Matthew and Luke with Mark and with each other, as well as some differences and inconsistencies. John, however, is not regarded as an historical gospel at all and is considered to draw on a tradition quite distinct from that of the synoptics.

Hardly anything ascribed to Jesus in John's gospel can reliably be sourced to Jesus himself. John is an essentially theological work, written to show that Jesus wasn't just a Galilean Hasid, or a Jewish prophet, or the Davidic messiah, but God's self-expression on earth and the one who had to suffer death as an oblation to God on behalf of mankind in order to wash away their sins. It is highly questionable, however, that Jesus, as a Galilean Jew thought of himself that way or would have had any following at all if he had.

So "Christianity" consists partly of historical and ethical beliefs that are found in the synoptic gospels with their multiple sources, in John with its theological agenda, in Paul with his outreach to the diaspora Jews and their gentile sympathizers (the "God-fearers") based on a Jesus he had never met except in a vision, and the early leadership found outside Palestine (the Jewish church had been destroyed with the sacking of Jerusalem and the scattering of the survivors). The outcome of all this was the Church, and Christianity has been defined by what the Church (and later the Churches) has/have taught in the past 1900 years or so.

But many "Christians" no longer buy the Church's message or its authority to say what the message is. Theologically educated Christians in particular are looking to retrieve the original teachings of Jesus and gather around a corpus of core doctrine and ethics that has jettisoned many, if not most, of the claims of the major churches. They may be a minority, even a small minority - who would know as they don't collect membership data? - but they are alive and reasonably active within and outside the mainstream denominations. The rest of the mainstream church in Europe, Britain and Australia (Canada? New Zealand?) is moribund. The US is a bit different, and in societies that have not inherited the Enlightenment (Africa, parts of Asia), Christianity is an emerging force.

Perhaps the question would have been better phrased as something like "Are the core teachings of the Christian churches, as articulated by their spokesmen, compatible with those of the Buddha, as recorded in the canonical Pali texts?" But this would exclude Jesus's voice, as he was never a spokesman for the "Christian Church".

I would say this is an interesting contribution.

Two remarks however, Wasn't John the most beloved discipel of Jezus? Isn't the Bible telling so? And if so what does it mean John was the most beloved discipel of Jezus? John was not just an evangelist, he not only seem to have written the most spiritual Gospel in the Bible but he also seem to have written the book of Revelation. As described this book consists the outcome - can we say experience of enlightement ? being called a vision? - of a personal high spiritual experience.

The other remark is about the core teachings of the Christian churches as articulated by thier spoekesman, even when we look if they are compatible with Buddhism then still that doesnot cover the total of 'Christianity'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was not my intention to begin a which-is-better discussion. the topic is compatibility. But in reply, I think you are approaching Christianity the wrong way. If a person considers Christianity as a man made system then how can they believe and be saved? This is a paradox. The belief needs to be genuine. So those who follow the religion of Christianity without the belief are wasting their time, although I think many do exactly that.

I'd agree with that, this is why I don't really see the point when people say Christianity is just a set of moral principles or an inspiration. I guess they're saying they believe that parts of the gospels reflect the true teachings of Jesus but all this son of god stuff and salvation and resurrection stuff were later embellishments.

Now you propose that the Christian system creates opportunities for abuse because sinners will still sin and then ask to be forgiven.

In Thailand you'll see Buddhism creates the same opportunity, people make merit to make up for all the things they know they are doing that are wrong.

So I would say that the Christian system motivates real change, where Buddhism offers unspecified lifetimes of practice(if you return as a Buddhist) but both offer the current life rewards achieved by being good and selfless.

So you are saying you think that the change that comes from practising Buddhism is not real? As someone who spent 8 years in fundamentalist Christianity and then 16 years in Buddhism in my experience the opposite is true. I found that change I experienced would come crumbling down whenever my faith waned or whenever I felt estranged from the support of the Christian Clique. Whereas I have found Buddhism has changed me from the inside out, that change I'm confident would remain should I stop practising tomorrow, it isn't dependant on faith or belonging.

Edited by Brucenkhamen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But Christianity is firm on salvation through faith/belief

But it lacks logic and reasonings, in order to justify and complete your statement.

Let me elaborate in simple layman's way(most of the members here are too Buddhistic in their words, making them very difficult for non-Buddhist or the ordinary people to understand :rolleyes: :

Christianity is taught to make people think that whatever wrongs he did in a lifetime, as long as he believe in "their" god and pray to him, he will be forgiven and heaven reached after death OR a christian can be bad for 6 days every week, go for confession on sunday, 6 days' sins forgiven. Then start again next week. It lacks logic and very unconvincing, isn't it ? Now in my country, many people are starting to realise the unreasonability of christian beliefs. On the other hand, "bad" people will like it. They need not fear being sent to hell after death, It will also be easier and simpler to accept for the more simple-minded people.

Buddhism is different. Karma is accumulative and not one time off. One may do a lot of good deeds in a lifetime but if he did something very bad near the end(murdering a good person out of greed, for example) he may still be punished in his next life. This way of rebitrth and punishments or rewards difinitely is more reasonable and sensibleb than christianity beliefs.

While both may just be beliefs and not true, at least the Buddhism way is fair and able to create a better society. The christianity way is certainly less likely to be true because GOD(if exists) sure cannot be so unreasonable and unfair. I will not need to mention about the 7 days creation or adam and eve stories which are all proven to be untrue by science. My views are: if the most important parts are found untrue or wrong, why should I believe the rest of it ? They may be some motives behind its creation which we don't know yet.

On the other hand, the Buddhism theory, as many see it, is very coherent with scientific laws of the energy formula(energy cannot be destroyed but can be transformed, so rebirth) as well as the law of relativity(similar to karma). I strongly believe that in times to come, science will eventually prove them right. This deserves a different topic thread.

There seem to be some confusion about the Bible teaching about rebirth or no rebirth, reincarnation or no reincaranation. In the Gospel of John one can read the lines: The Jews send forth Priests and Levites (the important religious and cultural figures of the Jewish people (Moses and Aaron where Levites) ) from Jerusalem to him to ask him (John the Baptist): "Who are you?" They also asked , when he denied to be the Christ: "Are you Elijah?" Elijah however lived about 850 years BC , before John the Baptist! And he said: "I am not" .

Then they asked him " Are you the Prophet ?" At that time, and probably still now, This Prophet, was considered to be Jesaja. Jesaja however lived about 760 BC, so almost 750 years before John the Baptist!

So probably the most educated Jews at that time asked questions related to rebirth or reincarnation. This showed their knowledge related to this. And John the Baptist did not deny rebirth or reincarnation, he denied to be the persons they asked him to have been. With regard to rebirth and reincarnation (also Jezus was later on asked if he was Jesaja!!) reincarnation was only a topic in these two situations and as far as I know further on it was no topic at all in the Bible. The phenomenons of rebirth and or reincarnation were not explicit denied or confirmed in the Bible. It was just not the topic at that time.

The logic and the wisdom of the Bible is understood by those people who - without sympathy and antipathy - study the Bible in selfreflection as it is the same towards the teachings of the Buddha, the Enlightened, one of the greatest humans in earth history at his time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well how many people do you know that have the ability to stop sinning entirely, even for a week. Remember even gossip is a sin, I don't know any. Since God is pretty smart he recognized that man will frequently lose his battle with the flesh, and for this, a sincere (genuine) apology is sufficient to put you back on track. It becomes more about your relationship with God, than the actual details of your life

I'm not totally sure about this one C.

In Buddhism one doesn't need total faith for ones practice to progress.

The Buddha indicated, "don't believe everything l say, experience it for yourself".

As you indicated, ones belief and faith in God must be real and sincere.

If one truly believes, how could they ever sin?

Once one full heatedly accepts and believes in Jesus & God, from that point onwards, how could they ever sin?

My impression is that there must be considerable doubt.

There are simple core tenants in Christianity which sum up the faith, no reason to bring sects into it.

John 3:16-17 is simple enough

"For God so loved ithe world,that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him."

This on it's own conflicts with Buddhism in the sense that, in Buddhism the individual is responsible for their own salvation, despite the karma which is magnitudes easier to acquire than it is to shed.

In Christianity it is a known quantity that man cannot escape his sin and therefore redemption must come from God

But in daily practice there are some areas where there is common ground. Like James 1:27

"Pure and undefiled religion in the sight of our God and Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.

In Matthew 22:37-39 Jesus puts compassionate works one notch behind the primary and essential belief in God

"You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself."

In my estimation a Buddhist following Christian practice would be exemplary in Buddhist practice.

A great many Buddhist and Christian parables share the same moral teaching in different words.

But Christianity is firm on salvation through faith/belief

In Buddhism one doesn't have to revere the Buddha.

By learning and practicing his teachings one has a system or path by which they can improve their life and work towards the ending suffering.

On the other hand, one can be righteous, charitable, loving, loyal, upstanding, sinless and selfless in every way, but be damned to eternal hell simply by not accepting Jesus as the only path that leads to God and no one comes to God except through him.

Buddhism requires considerable effort ,but with Christianity, by simply surrendering to Jesus everything will be taken care of.

In my experience humans gravitate to options which require the least effort.

Christianity also includes a powerful fear factor as one only has one crack at it.

Edited by rockyysdt
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.





×
×
  • Create New...