Are Buddhism and Christianity compatible or mutually exclusive?

[canuckamuck]

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.

It is academic subterfuge to say that Christianity originated from Paul rather than Christ. There was already quite a large following of believers before Paul met Jesus on the road to Damascus. Paul was busy hunting and killing them at the time.

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.

As Christiaan has just pointed out, John was disciple closest to Jesus, so his account is the best first hand account available. The fact that four men at different times with different experiences (Luke was not even a disciple) and gave accounts with different emphasis and details, only leads credibility to the accounts. Witnesses frequently see different things at the same event. If all four Gospels were uniform, one would expect collaboration rather than honesty.

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.

Academic hypothesis only

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".

How the Christian church (the man added religious elements) has evolved since its inception is indeed many faceted and problematic. There is a lot done in the name of Christianity which would be very foreign to the first century church. I think if one is comparing Christian developments with Buddhism than you have quite a wide field to play with. You will also prove nothing.

If however you compare only the words attributed to Christ, with the words attributed to Buddha, You will find some fascinating agreement, as well as important disagreement.

[canuckamuck]

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.

I think it is clear from studying the bible that Jesus did indeed consider himself the son of God, so in the words of CS Lewis, "He was either a madman, a liar, or he was telling the truth"

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.

I was a bit harsh with that statement, People change when they desire to change, my point was that Christianity creates the environment for change but as you have pointed it does not necessarily occur. I was arguing the point that Buddhism can appear illogical and insensible depending on your point of view. The same can be said for Christianity

[canuckamuck]

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.

In my experience, real Christians still sin. They fall and God helps them get back up. The key is in whether one is striving for change, or just pretending. Much meditation, prayer, and revelation is required to topple personal strongholds. Everyone has unique circumstances.

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.

Do you know any Buddhists who don't revere Buddha?

If one takes the view for a moment that God is indeed God, then you have to expect that He has created a way to Him that is accessible.

One would also have to expect that the denial of Him as God would put you off of the path, because the creation can not say to the creator, You have not made me. That is simply logical. Continuing this line of thought, it would also be problematic for the creator to accept many paths especially when they contradict each other.

You claim that Christianity is the easy way, but in actual practice our pride/self has quite a big issue with it. And humans prefer to be their own god and not accept submission.

I find that true Christianity is about putting things in their proper place, and this puts God at the top and each individual as a servant of all the others. This is humility, a very difficult path indeed.

However, humility should be a natural point of convergence for Buddhists and Christians, because Buddhists are concerned with denying the self and reducing attachment. The difference being that in Christianity we are trying to focus on a single essential attachment.

[phetaroi]

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.

I wouldn't agree with that. People are weak. Devout Buddhists certainly fail to be 100% in line with "right speech", etc.

[whybother]

Didn't Jesus go missing between the ages of 12 to 30. There are suggestions that he went East and studied Buddhism.

thats not the topic.

But if it's true, it would suggest that Christ's teachings would have been related to what he learned about Buddhism.

[rockyysdt]

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.

I wouldn't agree with that. People are weak. Devout Buddhists certainly fail to be 100% in line with "right speech", etc.

I agree that people tend to be weak.

Buddhism acknowledges that we have weaknesses and gives us practices with which to detach ourselves from these.

Buddhism also only requires an open mind and a small amount of faith with which to investigate.

On the other hand God demands faith.

As canuckamuck indicated all Christians sin.

To me that is telling me and God that one has doubt.

If you doubt God retribution will be swift and final.

[rockyysdt]

If however you compare only the words attributed to Christ, with the words attributed to Buddha, You will find some fascinating agreement, as well as important disagreement.

I refer to these words which were attributed to Jesus:

Matthew 5:17

"Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill.

Jesus was sacrificed to absolve our sins thus removing the rituals of sacrifice and burnt offerings, but apart from this, Jesus supported the law (old testament).

The Old Testament is a collection of very frightening and rigid accounts that don't seem to dovetail with forgiveness, charity & love.

On the other hand the Buddha taught practices enabling one to naturally become charitable, selfless and loving, and not for personal gain, or out of fear.

Edited February 20, 2011 by rockyysdt

[Brucenkhamen]

I think it is clear from studying the bible that Jesus did indeed consider himself the son of God, so in the words of CS Lewis, "He was either a madman, a liar, or he was telling the truth"

I was going to mention that. That's a very fundamentalist point of view though the idea that you must either accept or reject the Bible in it's entirety, life doesn't really work that way. There are a lot of moderate or liberal Christians that don't appear to take all of the Bible literally so I think it's obvious there are more than 2 options here.

In Buddhism I've never got the sense one must accept or reject scripture in it's entirety, there is a lot of stuff in there which seems to have more in common with the hinduish culture of the day than with what makes Buddhism special, so I don't have a problem with the notion that some of it may be the embellishments of over enthusiastic disciples.

Similarly with Christianity there must have been an overwhelming desire among his disciples for their teacher to go down in history as the long awaited messiah.

If you strip those things from Buddhism and Christianity you are left with teachings from both that are both profound and complement each other.

The point is none of us really know what happened 2000-2500 years ago so if we base our faith entirely on an accept or reject proposition that strikes me as a bit naive.

[Brucenkhamen]

Do you know any Buddhists who don't revere Buddha?

Yes.

[canuckamuck]

I agree that people tend to be weak.

Buddhism acknowledges that we have weaknesses and gives us practices with which to detach ourselves from these.

Buddhism also only requires an open mind and a small amount of faith with which to investigate.

On the other hand God demands faith.

As canuckamuck indicated all Christians sin.

To me that is telling me and God that one has doubt.

If you doubt God retribution will be swift and final.

I don't agree that sin equates to disbelief, I think sin represents a failure to uphold a standard. It is easy to lose focus and make an error. Even repetitive sin does not necessarily signify disbelief but more likely it is an area of someone's life where they have not yet been successful.

[canuckamuck]

If however you compare only the words attributed to Christ, with the words attributed to Buddha, You will find some fascinating agreement, as well as important disagreement.

I refer to these words which were attributed to Jesus:

Matthew 5:17

"Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill.

Jesus was sacrificed to absolve our sins thus removing the rituals of sacrifice and burnt offerings, but apart from this, Jesus supported the law (old testament).

The Old Testament is a collection of very frightening and rigid accounts that don't seem to dovetail with forgiveness, charity & love.

On the other hand the Buddha taught practices enabling one to naturally become charitable, selfless and loving, and not for personal gain, or out of fear.

By fulfilling the Law Jesus became the ultimate, one time for all time, sacrifice to pay for all man's sin. Meaning he paid the penalty for man's breaking of the law. At this point the law was finished. The Law existed for about 1500 years and was a demonstration that man cannot attain righteousness by himself, despite haven a clear and perfect set of rules to follow.

The law is contained in the Old Testament, but the Old Testament is not the law and it contains about 4000 years of historical accounts. Under the new covenant the law was no longer a book of rules to be enforced, but a moral code built into the consciences of believers. ie. Love God, and love your neighbor.

Which is the same as being selfless, charitable and loving.

[canuckamuck]

I think it is clear from studying the bible that Jesus did indeed consider himself the son of God, so in the words of CS Lewis, "He was either a madman, a liar, or he was telling the truth"

I was going to mention that. That's a very fundamentalist point of view though the idea that you must either accept or reject the Bible in it's entirety, life doesn't really work that way. There are a lot of moderate or liberal Christians that don't appear to take all of the Bible literally so I think it's obvious there are more than 2 options here.

In Buddhism I've never got the sense one must accept or reject scripture in it's entirety, there is a lot of stuff in there which seems to have more in common with the hinduish culture of the day than with what makes Buddhism special, so I don't have a problem with the notion that some of it may be the embellishments of over enthusiastic disciples.

Similarly with Christianity there must have been an overwhelming desire among his disciples for their teacher to go down in history as the long awaited messiah.

If you strip those things from Buddhism and Christianity you are left with teachings from both that are both profound and complement each other.

The point is none of us really know what happened 2000-2500 years ago so if we base our faith entirely on an accept or reject proposition that strikes me as a bit naive.

Many Christian organizations are working hard to make the Bible conform to the world, to make it more palatable, more PC.

The Bible predicted this would happen. Fortunately the Bible is one of the most well documented pieces of ancient literature in existence, and it is not difficult to keep referring to the text in its original languages. It functions remarkably well as an effective moral code for society. Society on the other hand has some serious issues.

Buddhism is not confined to rigid rules or doctrine, which makes it very attractive; it is a smorgasbord DIY philosophy. Which makes it strangely humanistic despite it's goal to eradicate the self.

[Xangsamhua]

With reference to Canuckamuck's posting at #31 above ...

Canuckamuck and I could have an interesting and, hopefully, mutually beneficial discussion on where we either agree to disagree or need to go off and research more. However, I am mindful that the topic is about comparing Buddhism and Christianity (and I assume the OP means more or less orthodox Christianity rather than the revisionist forms I've been referring to), so I won't go into all the points for discussion C. has raised. It would really be something we could do on another forum - to do with Christianity - but that seems impossible on Thaivisa, as it attracts too much vandalism. Canuckamuck and I both welcomed the chance for mature and respectful discussion of these matters in a dedicated forum, when it was raised in a poll and thread a few months ago, but the opposition (and abuse, apparently) was too strong.

For those who are interested in the historical Jesus and his context, the construction of the New Testament, the emergence and development of the early church, the role of Paul (and his relationship to Jerusalem and the Syrian cities, as well as those of the diaspora), the influence of Hellenic philosophical and literary tropes (e.g. use of the term "Word"), the historical background to the Nicene Creed and the closing of the scriptural canon, there is a vast amount of material available reflecting both orthodox and revisionist perspectives.

A fairly recent book by David Boulton, Who on Earth was Jesus?: The Modern Quest for the Jesus of History, O Books, 2008, is a coverage of all the major contributions to historical Jesus studies since Albert Schweitzer published The Quest of the Historical Jesus in 1906, and there have been a lot. Revisionists like Schweitzer himself, Dominic Crossan, Marcus Borg, Robert Funk, Burton Mack and Geza Vermes are in there, as is Ed Sanders - a moderate revisionist - and conservatives such as N.T. (Tom) Wright (Bishop of Durham), James Dunn and HH Benedict XVI (who wrote a book about Jesus based largely on John's gospel, which he believes was written by the literary executor of John the Beloved). Incidentally,the pope insisted that he wrote Jesus of Nazareth entirely on his own behalf and there is no obligation on any Catholic to agree with his thesis.

I would recommend Boulton's book to those interested.

And now, back to Christianity and Buddhism.

I go along with Huston Smith, the great scholar of religions, who said that each of the major religions has a special gift for the world. If I remember rightly, in Islam it's about community, identity and loyalty; Confucianism is about loyalty and filial and social responsibility; Hinduism and Buddhism are treasure troves of psychological insight, and Christianity is about ethical behaviour and social responsibility.

I don't think, after 23 years working for the Church and knowing some fine people there, that Christianity has anything to offer Buddhism in terms of psychological insight. A Christian who feels that things aren't quite right with life is invited to pray and work, preferably on behalf of those most needy - but sometimes these things don't relieve the angst. Buddhism provides a much more realistic and methodical pathway. But perhaps Buddhists could be a bit less passive and stand-offish in the face of manifest individual or social need or distress. Not that all are, but generally Buddhism is not big on reaching out. Of course it can be hazardous; one might back the wrong cause or one's help may be misdirected or even useless. But, overall, a bit of empathy and sensible outreach is probably more likely to benefit both giver and recipient than not.

Edited February 20, 2011 by Xangsamhua

[christiaan]

I don't think, after 23 years working for the Church and knowing some fine people there, that Christianity has anything to offer Buddhism in terms of psychological insight.

I think in some way it has. It probably depends on the experiences and the knowledge one has related to the religions and science in the world. I am trying to discover what it means Buddhism is telling a human has no soul and no I and Christianity tells a human does have a soul and an I.

It is quite confucing for a lay person. In the Bible is written God send Mozes to the Israelites, then Mozes said “Suppose I am now come to the sons of Israel and I do say to them, ‘The God of your forefathers has sent me to you,’ and they do say to me, ‘What is his name?’ What shall I say to them?” At this God said to Moses: YHWH, YHWH (the jews at that time had a written language without vowels) YHWH means: I AM

So God answers when asked fore his name: I AM, I AM.

Jezus used the same name for him as written in the Gospel of John where he answered to a question: I am. But he also told;" I am the light of the world"

So the " I am " is the light of the world ????

Overhere I have read Buddhism tells there is no I AM. So the I am is not the light of the world ????

Refering to the logic as I became aware of at this forum, Buddhists however, certainly all the people overhere, continue to use the name I when refering to their self.

As stated before I am looking at statements in contradiction with them self.

As there a bigger contradiction than to state I know by my self, there is no I ??

Out of the Buddhist context it is not honest to - continue to - use a name to point at something that is not actualy there at all.

And every excuse to pass this illogical, in fact not honest way of expressing oneSELF, is just camouflage, a continuation of the situation before.

As written before Buddhism as interpreted nowadays is excluding Christianity.

But please go on with the discussion.

[Xangsamhua]

I don't think, after 23 years working for the Church and knowing some fine people there, that Christianity has anything to offer Buddhism in terms of psychological insight.

Overhere I have read Buddhism tells there is no I AM. So the I am is not the light of the world ????

Refering to the logic as I became aware of at this forum, Buddhists however, certainly all the people overhere, continue to use the name I when refering to their self.

As stated before I am looking at statements in contradiction with them self.

As there a bigger contradiction than to state I know by my self, there is no I ??

Out of the Buddhist context it is not honest to - continue to - use a name to point at something that is not actualy there at all.

And every excuse to pass this illogical, in fact not honest way of expressing oneSELF, is just camouflage, a continuation of the situation before.

As written before Buddhism as interpreted nowadays is excluding Christianity.

But please go on with the discussion.

Good points. Although Christianity may not have much of a psychological system to offer Buddhism, apart from the counter-proposition (to anatta) that there is indeed a "self", that the whole is greater than the parts, this counter-proposition could be important. Certainly, to suggest that there is no "self" is not a particularly helpful one to many people who are trying to attain a reasonable relationship between themselves,or the mutually impacting network of cause-effect that constitutes them, and the ideational and physical world around them.

Obviously this counter-proposition is opposed by those further along the Buddhist path who accept non-duality based on dependent co-arising, or origination, but in another thread I have questioned the possibility of actually seeing oneself as a non-self, a mere collection of cause and effect with karmic consequence. It's not, however, for me to say, and I suspect there's something I've really failed to grasp.

[rockyysdt]

By fulfilling the Law Jesus became the ultimate, one time for all time, sacrifice to pay for all man's sin. Meaning he paid the penalty for man's breaking of the law. At this point the law was finished. The Law existed for about 1500 years and was a demonstration that man cannot attain righteousness by himself, despite haven a clear and perfect set of rules to follow.

Perhaps I am wrong.

The Law (Old Testament) included sacrifice to pay for ones sins.

There were various animal sacrifices including burnt offerings one could offer to God which would then pay for various sins including rape and other acts.

Jesus sacrifice made the practice of animal sacrifice obsolete, but did not replace the Law (Old Testament).

Isn't it an interpretation to say that the Old Testament is not the Law?

The Old Testament gives hundreds of accounts of what God demanded in specific and given circumstances which Jesus did not oppose.

In fact Jesus even supported slavery.

"Servants, be obedient to those who according to the flesh are your masters, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as to Christ; not in the way of service only when eyes are on you, as men pleasers; but as servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart; with good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men; knowing that whatever good thing each one does, he will receive the same again from the Lord, whether he is bound or free. You masters, do the same things to them, and give up threatening, knowing that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no partiality with him." (Ephesians 6:5-9, )

The law is contained in the Old Testament, but the Old Testament is not the law and it contains about 4000 years of historical accounts. Under the new covenant the law was no longer a book of rules to be enforced, but a moral code built into the consciences of believers. ie. Love God, and love your neighbor.

Which is the same as being selfless, charitable and loving.

I thought the Old Testament is an account of how God thinks, and is very much about anger, punishment, & retribution.

If believers use their conscience rather than Gods word, then aren't they are creating their own religion?

Where I see Christianity and Buddhism mutually exclusive is that in the former, God, is a super being with great power who demands loyalty and obedience.

Should you disobey his rules or don't accept him through his son Jesus Christ, you will be punished in the most horrible way for eternity even though you are his lost child,

We read of a God who is vengeful, intolerant, and unforgiving.

God appears to be a slave to his emotions whilst Buddhism teaches to view emotions without attachment.

Edited February 20, 2011 by rockyysdt

[canuckamuck]

This has been an interesting discussion, I think we have basically flushed out the sticking points between Christianity and Buddhism. Namely self salvation versus salvation through Christ, and the issue of self.

It is interesting that self in Christianity is embattled between flesh and spirit, and in Buddhism it is a part of the negative cargo which must be annihilated. The difference in the treatment of self is: in Christianity's case, eternity in harmony or torment, and in Buddhism, eternity in nothingness, or perhaps non eternity (is this possible?)

This is something that I am fascinated with and I am sure others can fill me in, but I find it extraordinarily counter intuitive that the goal of existence is to reach a cosmic sum of zero. It is like the greatest failure is to be born at all. Or that existence is an error. As if life itself is a curse. But then the actions one must do to reduce the chance of rebirth are based in right living, which to me is creating the atmosphere most conducive to life (formerly known as the curse). For wherever there are humans in harmony and agreement, we see life flourish and an expansion in creativity and above all we see extended attachment and love abounds.

In my thinking harmony, love, humility, compassion, joy, and patience are themselves a force of life. Truth harmonizes with truth, harmony is balance, and balance sustains life, this is the way of the universe. Existence must therefore be evidence of good and not of error.

[canuckamuck]

By fulfilling the Law Jesus became the ultimate, one time for all time, sacrifice to pay for all man's sin. Meaning he paid the penalty for man's breaking of the law. At this point the law was finished. The Law existed for about 1500 years and was a demonstration that man cannot attain righteousness by himself, despite haven a clear and perfect set of rules to follow.

Perhaps I am wrong.

The Law (Old Testament) included sacrifice to pay for ones sins.

There were various animal sacrifices including burnt offerings one could offer to God which would then pay for various sins including rape and other acts.

Jesus sacrifice made the practice of animal sacrifice obsolete, but did not replace the Law (Old Testament).

Isn't it an interpretation to say that the Old Testament is not the Law?

The Old Testament gives hundreds of accounts of what God demanded in specific and given circumstances which Jesus did not oppose.

In fact Jesus even supported slavery.

"Servants, be obedient to those who according to the flesh are your masters, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as to Christ; not in the way of service only when eyes are on you, as men pleasers; but as servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart; with good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men; knowing that whatever good thing each one does, he will receive the same again from the Lord, whether he is bound or free. You masters, do the same things to them, and give up threatening, knowing that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no partiality with him." (Ephesians 6:5-9, )

The law is contained in the Old Testament, but the Old Testament is not the law and it contains about 4000 years of historical accounts. Under the new covenant the law was no longer a book of rules to be enforced, but a moral code built into the consciences of believers. ie. Love God, and love your neighbor.

Which is the same as being selfless, charitable and loving.

I thought the Old Testament is an account of how God thinks, and is very much about anger, punishment, & retribution.

If believers use their conscience rather than Gods word, then aren't they are creating their own religion?

Where I see Christianity and Buddhism mutually exclusive is that in the former, God, is a super being with great power who demands loyalty and obedience.

Should you disobey his rules or don't accept him through his son Jesus Christ, you will be punished in the most horrible way for eternity even though you are his lost child,

We read of a God who is vengeful, intolerant, and unforgiving.

God appears to be a slave to his emotions whilst Buddhism teaches to view emotions without attachment.

The Old Testament is collection of books documenting for the most part the development and ancient history of Judaism. In the 4000 or so years covered in the Old Testament the last 1500 years the Jews were under the laws handed down to Moses. These are most simply referred to as the law. A major tenant of the law was there was no atonement for sin except by the blood of sacrifice. Jesus did say that He did not come to replace the law but to complete it (or in some translations to fulfill it) Which means he came to satisfy the law by being the final sacrifice.

It was common practice in those days for people to sell themselves into slavery to either pay off a debt they could not afford, or in cases of famine, to be assured they and their families could have a home and something to eat. Jesus gave an outline of good of conduct for slaves, just as he gave an outline of good conduct for slave owners. In those days slavery was not necessarily for life and the Jews had a system for slaves to receive amnesty. I see no evidence of Jesus approving of people being captured and sold into slavery by force as was the case in Europe and America not so long ago. Jesus was pro-justice. The culture of the day did not forbid men to enter into a slavery contract.

God, being the creator has a vested interest in His creation and has given all men free will to reject him if they choose to.

Rejection of God eventually results in separation from God for eternity, which apparently really sucks.

Edited February 20, 2011 by canuckamuck

[wileycoyote]

Yes Compatible

[camerata]

The difference in the treatment of self is: in Christianity's case, eternity in harmony or torment, and in Buddhism, eternity in nothingness, or perhaps non eternity (is this possible?)

It certainly isn't eternity in nothingness. "Eternity as everythingness" or "eternity in non-aloneness" would be closer (although I personally don't believe that the Deathless equates to "eternity" in the sense we normally understand it), but it's impossible to know the precise nature of nibbana after death of the body and apparently very difficult to describe while living. Then again, serious Buddhists are quite content with "the knowing of not knowing," whereas Christianity seems to have all of the answers but none of the proof.

[Brucenkhamen]

Buddhism is not confined to rigid rules or doctrine, which makes it very attractive; it is a smorgasbord DIY philosophy. Which makes it strangely humanistic despite it's goal to eradicate the self.

No I don't think it's fair to say that Buddhism is a smorgasbord DIY philosophy.

Yes some people approach it that way, many of them take as much from outside of Buddhism as part of their smorgasbord as they do from within. Of course nobody is going to stand over them and tell them they are wrong or accuse them as heresy because we each have to find our own way on the path and who knows where people are at.

I find the core Buddhist teachings very simple and very elegant.

The trouble is you are comparing a fundamentalist/evangelical view of Christianity (a view that sees itself as the only really legitimate form of Christianity) with Buddhism. Of course if that were the only form of Christianity we were comparing I think we all know the question of the OP is pointless, we all know there is zero compatibility.

It's regarding other forms of Christianity that this topic is pertinant, for example one form of Christianity that is often considered close to Buddhism is the Quakers. In our city the Quakers have some nice meeting rooms that at one time or another most Buddhist groups have rented for their meetings, at one stage there were 3 Buddhist groups a week one each night renting these premises. The Quakers presumably feel they have something in common with Buddhism, I never heard of them renting their rooms the the Assemblies of God.

[christiaan]

Buddhism is giving answers, Buddhist answers to human questions as Christianity also does. They both do in their own way.

I do not think it is fruitfull within this topic to write when people can or cannot be quite content.

[ To just name some of my not being quite content, I see my partner is suffering becos she lifes in Thailand, named to be one of the most Buddhist countries in the world. Would she live exactly the same life in my country overhere, being a very hardworking, university trained, specialised nurse, her life would substantially change. Not becos she would change but becos her environment would change.

And then we are not even talking about her being content or not being content ]

I do not think Jezus supported slavery. That could be a subjective prejudgement.

In my view this tells that Karma, allthough at those times not specifically named, is also in Christianity a fact of life, and ofcourse it is, since having different lifes, one as master and one as slave, one as man and one as woman, one as artist and one as scientist, one as Buddhist, one as Muslim, a human can develop to higher transforming states of humanity.

The Old Testament and the new Testament, but in fact all ancient texts/books of wisdom, like the I Tjing, the Mahabharata (in wich the Bhagavad Gita), The Edda, and more, are texts telling about the information and awareness related to the spiritual and material world at the time, in fact before the time (since most were before orally passed), when the books were written.

To understand the texts one has to understand the awareness by wich they were received at those time, becos at that time the awareness, the complete constitution of humans was very very different.

Just look, for example, at the life and wisom of North American Indians, and at the life and way of 'thinking' (wisdom of the dreams) of the aboriginals in Australia.

The problem is that we lost spiritual awareness and entered into material awareness.

With this material awareness we think we can explain all old texts of wisdom but in fact we make them to become dead letters, dead sentences, like we killed the Indian and Aboriginal and many other old and wise cultures with our 'modern civilization'.

When we discuss a possible compatibility between Buddhism and Christianity, the problem is not within these two important aspects of human life but within the way we handle them and make them both part of our ego.

Just ' playing dead' or reasoning away doesnot solve this problem.

It is important to have pure Buddhism talk to us, like we need to have pure Christianity talk to us in moments we can, by our inner action, park our ego, for some time, in some silent place.

Therefore we can, by our personal choice and action, use human (human cos animals cannot do it, human, cos it is a human abillity and not possesed by some specific religious or scientific system) methods of study, contemplation, meditation.

By doing so we can uplift duality out of our efforts and possibly touch the absolute truth.

[canuckamuck]

The difference in the treatment of self is: in Christianity's case, eternity in harmony or torment, and in Buddhism, eternity in nothingness, or perhaps non eternity (is this possible?)

It certainly isn't eternity in nothingness. "Eternity as everythingness" or "eternity in non-aloneness" would be closer (although I personally don't believe that the Deathless equates to "eternity" in the sense we normally understand it), but it's impossible to know the precise nature of nibbana after death of the body and apparently very difficult to describe while living. Then again, serious Buddhists are quite content with "the knowing of not knowing," whereas Christianity seems to have all of the answers but none of the proof.

Ok eternity in everythingness sounds better and thank you for the correction. That is of course everythingness except for all those that don't make it to Nibbana.

Also I would add that both Christians and Buddhists find some proof through right loving. But proof of which side is the intriguing question.

[canuckamuck]

Buddhism is not confined to rigid rules or doctrine, which makes it very attractive; it is a smorgasbord DIY philosophy. Which makes it strangely humanistic despite it's goal to eradicate the self.

No I don't think it's fair to say that Buddhism is a smorgasbord DIY philosophy.

Yes some people approach it that way, many of them take as much from outside of Buddhism as part of their smorgasbord as they do from within. Of course nobody is going to stand over them and tell them they are wrong or accuse them as heresy because we each have to find our own way on the path and who knows where people are at.

I find the core Buddhist teachings very simple and very elegant.

The trouble is you are comparing a fundamentalist/evangelical view of Christianity (a view that sees itself as the only really legitimate form of Christianity) with Buddhism. Of course if that were the only form of Christianity we were comparing I think we all know the question of the OP is pointless, we all know there is zero compatibility.

It's regarding other forms of Christianity that this topic is pertinant, for example one form of Christianity that is often considered close to Buddhism is the Quakers. In our city the Quakers have some nice meeting rooms that at one time or another most Buddhist groups have rented for their meetings, at one stage there were 3 Buddhist groups a week one each night renting these premises. The Quakers presumably feel they have something in common with Buddhism, I never heard of them renting their rooms the the Assemblies of God.

Ok, I agree that if you eliminate some of the core beliefs from Christianity, it is possible to have something compatible with Buddhism. But the removal of those beliefs would unravel the entire fabric of the faith. It would be like asking to Buddhists to eliminate teachings on attachment.

Christianity has many psuedo Christian movements, the longer they exist the flakier they become.

[Xangsamhua]

Christianity has many psuedo Christian movements, the longer they exist the flakier they become.

A curious comment, Canuckamuck - probably just an afterthought.

Which "pseudo Christian movements" do you have in mind? Are they the ones that have more compatibility with Buddhism? What constitutes "flakiness"?

Are critical and historical understandings, based on solid research and a wide consensus in the academic and much of the theological community, regarding the construction of the biblical texts, the canon itself, and the development of doctrine "flaky" or simply threatening to conservative understandings of orthodoxy?

One difference between orthodox Christianity and Buddhism is that the former is locked in to a view of history which, if challenged, threatens "the entire fabric of the faith". So it's all or nothing. But is life really like that? Would you paint yourself into a corner like that in other areas of your life? It seems that, for the conservative-othodox faithful Christian, his religion is a "faith" to be clung to. "Loss of faith" is a major trauma. The Buddhist, however, goes to a teaching and a method that can be validated by experience or varied where necessary.

[canuckamuck]

A curious comment, Canuckamuck - probably just an afterthought.

Which "pseudo Christian movements" do you have in mind? Are they the ones that have more compatibility with Buddhism? What constitutes "flakiness"?

Are critical and historical understandings, based on solid research and a wide consensus in the academic and much of the theological community, regarding the construction of the biblical texts, the canon itself, and the development of doctrine "flaky" or simply threatening to conservative understandings of orthodoxy?

One difference between orthodox Christianity and Buddhism is that the former is locked in to a view of history which, if challenged, threatens "the entire fabric of the faith". So it's all or nothing. But is life really like that? Would you paint yourself into a corner like that in other areas of your life? It seems that, for the conservative-othodox faithful Christian, his religion is a "faith" to be clung to. "Loss of faith" is a major trauma. The Buddhist, however, goes to a teaching and a method that can be validated by experience or varied where necessary.

You can just call me Canuck or C. I find typing my screen name to be tedious as I am sure most others do to.

All of the Christian movements that move away from the literal translation of the Bible, or eliminate key doctrines begin a drift towards an all inclusive type, what I would call pseudo Christian. A good example would be the United Church in Canada which can hardly anymore stomach to say the name of Jesus out loud any more (for fear of offending anyone) and generally resort to saying the Lord. There are many others, some are simply cults. Most of them seem focused on becoming neutral and hypertolerant.

I admit I haven't got a good number of names memorized as I am not involved with any of them.

I actually have more respect for churches of no denomination, and I refer to myself as post denominational. Although there are good churches inside of the main stream denominations. I find that denominations begin powerfully and then become bogged down in their own identity and administration. Real life is in a community of believers, not an impersonal organization.

What you refer to as Orthodox Christianity, probably means those who regard the Bible as the key text and authority for Christian living with no exemptions. I would call this Fundamental Christianity, because the term Orthodox Christian has been claimed by a very large Eastern European group which has existed since the dark ages.

For me only fundamental Christianity makes sense in a systematic theology. It is an all or nothing arrangement, which makes sense. Why would God create duality or multiplicity, truth is best represented in a singularity, not ambiguity.

[Xangsamhua]

A curious comment, Canuckamuck - probably just an afterthought.

Which "pseudo Christian movements" do you have in mind? Are they the ones that have more compatibility with Buddhism? What constitutes "flakiness"?

Are critical and historical understandings, based on solid research and a wide consensus in the academic and much of the theological community, regarding the construction of the biblical texts, the canon itself, and the development of doctrine "flaky" or simply threatening to conservative understandings of orthodoxy?

One difference between orthodox Christianity and Buddhism is that the former is locked in to a view of history which, if challenged, threatens "the entire fabric of the faith". So it's all or nothing. But is life really like that? Would you paint yourself into a corner like that in other areas of your life? It seems that, for the conservative-othodox faithful Christian, his religion is a "faith" to be clung to. "Loss of faith" is a major trauma. The Buddhist, however, goes to a teaching and a method that can be validated by experience or varied where necessary.

You can just call me Canuck or C. I find typing my screen name to be tedious as I am sure most others do to.

All of the Christian movements that move away from the literal translation of the Bible, or eliminate key doctrines begin a drift towards an all inclusive type, what I would call pseudo Christian. A good example would be the United Church in Canada which can hardly anymore stomach to say the name of Jesus out loud any more (for fear of offending anyone) and generally resort to saying the Lord. There are many others, some are simply cults. Most of them seem focused on becoming neutral and hypertolerant.

I admit I haven't got a good number of names memorized as I am not involved with any of them.

I actually have more respect for churches of no denomination, and I refer to myself as post denominational. Although there are good churches inside of the main stream denominations. I find that denominations begin powerfully and then become bogged down in their own identity and administration. Real life is in a community of believers, not an impersonal organization.

What you refer to as Orthodox Christianity, probably means those who regard the Bible as the key text and authority for Christian living with no exemptions. I would call this Fundamental Christianity, because the term Orthodox Christian has been claimed by a very large Eastern European group which has existed since the dark ages.

For me only fundamental Christianity makes sense in a systematic theology. It is an all or nothing arrangement, which makes sense. Why would God create duality or multiplicity, truth is best represented in a singularity, not ambiguity.

Thanks for the clarification, C.

Yes, by "orthodox", I'm referring to the official ("magisterial") teachings of the major churches, including the Eastern Orthodox, pretty much those that still subscribe to the definitions of Nicaea and Chalcedon.

Perhaps Theravada is "orthodox" Buddhism. Some of the Mahayana schools could fall into the "flaky" category.

[Brucenkhamen]

Ok, I agree that if you eliminate some of the core beliefs from Christianity, it is possible to have something compatible with Buddhism. But the removal of those beliefs would unravel the entire fabric of the faith. It would be like asking to Buddhists to eliminate teachings on attachment.

Christianity has many psuedo Christian movements, the longer they exist the flakier they become.

For me only fundamental Christianity makes sense in a systematic theology.

I can understand where you are coming from as I've been there myself, on the surface of it Christanity without it's fundamentals seems quite pointless.

However that is based on the assumption that the bible is the complete and infallible word of God which I think is a stretch considering how many gospels etc where excluded and the process by which items were included or excluded over several councils over a period of time see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_Christian_Biblical_canon (Note this is much the same process by which Buddhist scripture was canonised).

I think you underestimate Jesus as a teacher if you think his moral and social teachings are pointless without faith in the whole son of god and salvation shebang. Realistically I think Christians who focus on these are the only ones we are likely to find common ground with.

So think we can safely take the fundamentalist/evangelical brand of Christianity out of scope for this discussion, I'm sorry you find other kinds flakey but I respect your right to make that choice.

Why would God create duality or multiplicity, truth is best represented in a singularity, not ambiguity.

One need only look at nature, if he created nature then he did just that.

[canuckamuck]

Ok, I agree that if you eliminate some of the core beliefs from Christianity, it is possible to have something compatible with Buddhism. But the removal of those beliefs would unravel the entire fabric of the faith. It would be like asking to Buddhists to eliminate teachings on attachment.

Christianity has many psuedo Christian movements, the longer they exist the flakier they become.

For me only fundamental Christianity makes sense in a systematic theology.

I can understand where you are coming from as I've been there myself, on the surface of it Christanity without it's fundamentals seems quite pointless.

However that is based on the assumption that the bible is the complete and infallible word of God which I think is a stretch considering how many gospels etc where excluded and the process by which items were included or excluded over several councils over a period of time see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_Christian_Biblical_canon (Note this is much the same process by which Buddhist scripture was canonised).

I think you underestimate Jesus as a teacher if you think his moral and social teachings are pointless without faith in the whole son of god and salvation shebang. Realistically I think Christians who focus on these are the only ones we are likely to find common ground with.

So think we can safely take the fundamentalist/evangelical brand of Christianity out of scope for this discussion, I'm sorry you find other kinds flakey but I respect your right to make that choice.

Why would God create duality or multiplicity, truth is best represented in a singularity, not ambiguity.

One need only look at nature, if he created nature then he did just that.

From creator out you have multiplicity and massive diversity. From the creation inward to the creator you arrive at a singularity. Science has discovered the same thing.

I did not mean to imply that the lifestyle of a Christian and Christian ethics are useless without faith. I was saying that the faith part is pointless without the foundation. If everyone acted in love toward their neighbors this world would be much more advanced regardless of faith. But the world is not a permanent home for anyone. And humans are a selfish prideful mess in their raw state.

Edited February 21, 2011 by canuckamuck

[rockyysdt]

The Old Testament is collection of books documenting for the most part the development and ancient history of Judaism. In the 4000 or so years covered in the Old Testament the last 1500 years the Jews were under the laws handed down to Moses. These are most simply referred to as the law. A major tenant of the law was there was no atonement for sin except by the blood of sacrifice. Jesus did say that He did not come to replace the law but to complete it (or in some translations to fulfill it) Which means he came to satisfy the law by being the final sacrifice.

Agreed C, But the blood sacrifice, a barbaric act involving unnecessary killing, is only one part of the law.

Reading through the detail of the first testament can be quite frightening.

Buddhism vs Christianity appear mutually exclusive on the point of killing.

In Buddhism killing is forbidden, whilst in Christianity, either through the former animal sacrifice, or the sacrifice of Jesus himself, blood sacrifice pleases God.

It was common practice in those days for people to sell themselves into slavery to either pay off a debt they could not afford, or in cases of famine, to be assured they and their families could have a home and something to eat. Jesus gave an outline of good of conduct for slaves, just as he gave an outline of good conduct for slave owners. In those days slavery was not necessarily for life and the Jews had a system for slaves to receive amnesty. I see no evidence of Jesus approving of people being captured and sold into slavery by force as was the case in Europe and America not so long ago.Jesus was pro-justice. The culture of the day did not forbid men to enter into a slavery contract.

God stipulated many detailed rules when it came to slavery. Although some slaves could receive amnesty, there were many rules which are unacceptable by any measure.

When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21)

However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 )

When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11)

"If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself. (Exodus 21:1-4)

"And whosoever lieth carnally with a woman, that is a bondmaid, betrothed to an husband, and not at all redeemed, nor freedom given her; she shall be scourged; they shall not be put to death, because she was not free. And he shall bring his trespass offering unto the LORD, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, even a ram for a trespass offering. And the priest shall make an atonement for him with the ram of the trespass offering before the LORD for his sin which he hath done: and the sin which he hath done shall be forgiven him." (Leviticus 19:20-22)

These and other rules make it clear that slavery wasn't an innocent and practical relationship as suggested.

Jesus had ample opportunity to speak against slavery but he chose not to.

When he did speak of slavery, it was framed as an acceptable part of life.

Buddhism on the other hand doesn't condone slavery.

God, being the creator has a vested interest in His creation and has given all men free will to reject him if they choose to.

Rejection of God eventually results in separation from God for eternity, which apparently really sucks.

The result is that God rules by fear.

Humans can make mistakes but God chooses to punish them for an eternity simply for not accepting or recognizing him.

God appears to possess human attributes, desires and emotions, and without foresight has altered rules over time.

This suggests a being who is finite and/or conditioned, a state well short of the infinite.

This finite Christian characteristic is at odds with the Buddhist teaching of an "unconditioned and infinite" state.

Edited February 21, 2011 by rockyysdt