Jump to content

Are Buddhism and Christianity compatible or mutually exclusive?


phetaroi

Recommended Posts

Arthur Schopenhauer is the most impressive philosopher I've read, regardless of his personal impulsiveness or crankiness or whatever.  When did being pessimistic become a detriment to one's philosophical credibility?  He wasn't seeking political endorsement or an academic post (which would require government approval at that time).  Having an independent income meant he could devote his life to thinking and writing and reading (though he warned against too much of the latter).  He was actually a very sociable man and people would arrive early to join him at the common table at the hotel where he lunched every day.<br /><br />His main eastern influence was not so much Buddhist but Vedantic.  It was said that he read the Upanishads every day.  However, he knew something of Buddhism and spoke admiringly of it.<br /><br />I don't believe that he was as pessimistic as people say he was.  I don't have the text here, but in the essays gathered as "Essays and Aphorisms" he spoke in the latter part of his life of the consolation he derived in knowing that we are not obliterated in death, that we simply return to the life-force that he named the "Will".  We become a part of the generative dynamism that energizes the world of matter (he was otherwise a materialist).  That seemed quite satisfactory for him.<br /><br />His negative views on things like academic obfuscation, obsequiousness, hypocrisy, snobbery, bourgeois insensitivity, etc. are expressed in ways that would make their targets regard him as a curmudgeon (admittedly he does go on a bit); however, he spoke up for the poor and mistreated - including animals.  He had little time for middle-class women, who he regarded as irretrievably self-absorbed and superficial, but he spoke out strongly in defence of poor women who were driven to sell their bodies to the husbands of those self-righteous bourgeois women who condemned their unfortunate and exploited sisters. <br /><br />Some Schopenhauer quotes: <a href='http://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/11682.Arthur_Schopenhauer' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='nofollow external'>http://www.goodreads...ur_Schopenhauer</a><br /><br /><br /><br />

I can understand he is the most impressive one to you, as you write: by what you have read.

Maybe this could cange when you read more?

I would not be surprised he is most impressive to you becos he is in line with what you were thinking before and.

Fact is that Schopenhauser was critisized for his philosphies by many later philosophers that is why I just named one.

So it is not important who did wrote what but if the philosophies themself are out of healthy consequent logical thinking.

It is about the philosophies being 'products' of thinking.

To me one of the most impressive Philosphers was Paul Asmus,to name one beside Georg Kuhlewind, not just because of the 'products' of his philosophie, but because of his healthy, very consequent logical thinking.

I dont know if he ever wrote about the existence of humans and everything related to this, what I read was what he wrote about philosophy and the way of thinking of philosophers themself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 230
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Very true, so this means referring to an opinion, a philosophy, a religion or a theorem doesnot proof anything. Only by thinking in a healthy, logical and consequent way one can discover the truth about all phenomena. I do not understand what you mean by "Finite heads imagining infinite" , I would say that is no good philosophy, Finit things or phenomena cannot imagine infinite. Finit things can only experience finit things. I would rather say the infinite can only see, experience, the infinit. The spiritual " I " ,being infinit, not depending on a physical existence to exist as awareness in awareness, spiritual can see the infinit because it is part of the ever transcending and dynamic spiritual world itself.

The thinking of the finit, impernament mind being the brain of the human can take people to experience the finit and by that uplift the veil of duality to experience enlightment.

This is done by the " I " of a human since the thinking is part of the soul, the interface where the physical existence and the spiritual " I " meet eachother and duality is uplifted in " I " activity.

Everything you just said, is a guess.

It might be guessing when not thinking, contemplating and meditating about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is also very possible for philosophers and experts to be completely wrong and still become the basis of proof for the next guy, simply on the basis that they published something crediting lots of sources. This is the circularity of academic agreement.

Myself when young did eagerly frequent

Doctor and Saint, and heard great argument

About it and about: but evermore

Came out by the same door where in I went.

With them the seed of Wisdom did I sow,

And with mine own hand wrought to make it grow;

And this was all the Harvest that I reap'd--

"I came like Water, and like Wind I go."

To me it is in some way very disturbing to always read the human talk about I and then reject its existence by telling it is something different as told.

Why not tell what it exactly is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Christian meditation was dangerous for the meditators. In the The Criminal History of Christianity

http://en.wikipedia....lheinz_Deschner many examples.

Many meditators has been punished or oppressed by the Inquisition , the most famous is http://en.wikipedia....eister_Eckhart.

God as the Creator is the "Love Supreme" (Dhamma is the "Love Supreme" in Buddhist terms. (metta, karuna, mudita, upekha.)

(Wiki)

The central theme of Eckhart's German sermons is the presence of God in the individual soul, and the dignity of the soul of the just man. Although he elaborated on this theme, he rarely departed from it. In one sermon, Eckhart gives the following summary of his message:

When I preach, I usually speak of detachment and say that a man should be empty of self and all things; and secondly, that he should be reconstructed in the simple good that God is; and thirdly, that he should consider the great aristocracy which God has set up in the soul, such that by means of it man may wonderfully attain to God; and fourthly, of the purity of the divine nature.

-------------------------

:

When I preach, I usually speak of detachment and say that a man should be empty of self and all things; and secondly, that he should be reconstructed in the simple good that Dhamma, (Tao) is; and thirdly, that he should consider the great aristocracy which the Dhamma has set up in the soul, such that by means of it man may wonderfully attain to Dhamma (nibbana); and fourthly, of the purity of the Dhamma.

My translation hearing Tan Buddhadasa.

The Sufi masters have something to say, too.

"The brook, the river, the drop, the sea, the bubble, all in one voice say: Water, we are water"

-Shah Angha

"The oneness of diversity

Not oneness locked in singularity"

- Farid ad-Din Attar

Right.

Here you have the signers of the declaration of World Ethos in 1993. There are some representives from the Sufi-group, not specially named.

------------------------

Bahai

Juana Conrad, Jacqueline Delahunt, Dr. Wilma Ellis, Charles Nolley, R. Leilani Smith, Yael Wurmfeld.

Brahma Kumaris

B. K. Jagdish Chander Hassija, B. K. Dadi Prakashmani.

Buddhismus

Rev. Koshin Ogui, Sensei. Mahayana: Rev. Chung Ok Lee. Theravada: Dr. A. T. Ariyaratne, Preah Maha Ghosananda, Ajahn Phra Maha Surasak Jivanando, Dr. Chatsumarn Kabilsingh, Luang Poh Panyananda, Ven. Achahn Dr. Chuen Phangcham, Ven. Dr. Havanpola Ratanasara, Ven. Dr. Mapalagama Wipulasara Maha Thero. Vajrayana: S. H. Der XIV. Dalai Lama. Zen: Prof. Masao Abe, Zen Master Seung Sahn, Rev. Samu Sunim.

Christentum

Blouke Carus, Dr. Yvonne Delk. Anglikanisch: Rev. Marcus Braybrooke, James Parks Morton. Orthodox: Maria Svolos Gebhard. Protestantisch: Dr. Thelma Adair, Martti Ahtisaari, Rev. Wesley Ariarajah, Dr. Gerald O. Barney, Dr. Nelvia M. Brady, Dr. David Breed, Rev. John Buchanan, Bischof R. Sheldon Duecker, Prof. Diana L. Eck, Dr. Leon D. Finney, Jr., Dr. James A. Forbes, Jr., Bischof Frederick C. James, Erzbischof Mikko Juva, Prof. James Nelson, Dr. David Ramage, Jr., Robert Reneker, Rev. Dr. Syngman Rhee, Rev. Margaret Orr Thomas, Prof. Carl Friedrich v. Weizsäcker, Prof. Henry Wilson, Rev. Addie Wyatt. Römisch-katholisch: Rev. Thomas A. Baima, Kardinal Joseph Bernardin, Pere Pierre- Francois de Bethune, Schwester Joan M. Chatfield MM, Rev. Theodore M. Hesburgh CSC, Abbot Timothy Kelly OSB, Jim Kenney, Prof. Hans Küng, Dolores Leakey, Schwester Joan Monica McGuire OP, Rev. Maximilian Mizzi, Dr. Robert Muller, Rev. Albert Nambiaparambil, Bischof Placido Rodriguez, Bischof Willy Romelus, Dorothy Savage, Bruder David Steindl-Rast OSB, Bruder Wayne Teasdale.

Eingeborenen-Religionen

H. I. G. Bambi Baaba. Akuapim: Nana Apeadu. Yoruba: S. K. H. Oseijeman Adefunmi I, Baba Metahochi Kofi Zannu. Amerikanische Eingeborene: Archie Mosay, Burton Pretty On Top, Peter V. Catches.

Hinduismus

Dr. M. Aram, Jayashree Athavale-Talwarkar, S. H. Swami Chidananda Saraswati, Swami Chidananda Saraswati Muniji, Swami Dayananda Saraswati, Sadguru Sant Keshavadas, P. V. Krishnayya, Dr. Lakshmi Kumari, Amrish Mahajan, Dr. Krishna Reddy, Prof. V. Madhusudan Reddy, Swami Satchidananda, S. H. Satguru Sivaya Subramuniyaswami, S. H. Dr. Bala Siva Yogindra Maharaj. Vedanta: Pravrajika Amalaprana, Pravrajika Prabuddhaprana, Pravrajika Vivekaprana.

Jainismus

Dr. Rashmikant Gardi. Digambar: Narendra P. Jain. Shwetambar: S. H. Shri Atmanandji, Dipchand S. Gardi, S. E. Dr. L. M. Singhvi, S. H. Acharya Sushil Kumarji Maharaj.

Judentum

Helen Spector. Konservativ: Prof. Susannah Heschel. Reformerisch: Rabbi Herbert Bronstein, Norma U. Levitt, Rabbi Herman Schaalman, Dr. Howard A. Sulkin. Orthodox: Prof. Ephraim Isaac.

Islam

Tan Sri Dato Seri Ahmad Sarji bin Abdul-Hamid, Dr. Qazi Ashfaq Ahmed, Hamid Ahmed, Mazhar Ahmed, Hon. Louis Farrakhan, Dr. Hamid Abdul Hai, Mohammed A. Hai, Dr. Mohammad Hamidullah, Dr. Aziza al-Hibri, Dr. Asad Husain, Dato Dr. Haji Ismail bin Ibrahim, Dr. Irfan Ahmat Khan, Qadir H. Khan, Dr. Abdel Rahman Osman. Schiitisch: Prof. Seyyed Hossein Nasr. Sunnitisch: Imam Dawud Assad, Imam Warith Deen Mohammed, Hon. Syed Shahabuddin.

Neu-Heiden

Rev. Baroness Cara-Marguerite-Drusilla, Rev. Deborah Ann Light, Lady Olivia Robertson.

Sikhs

Siri Singh Sahib Bhai Sahib Harbhajan Singh Khalsa Yogiji, Bhai Mohinder Singh, Dr. Mehervan Singh, Hardial Singh, Indarjit Singh, Singh Sahib Jathedar Manjit Singh, Dr. Balwant Singh Hansra.

Taoisten

Chungliang Al Huang.

Theosophen

Radha Burnier.

Zoroastrier

Dastoor Dr. Kersey Antia, Dr. Homi Dhalla, Dastoor Dr. Kaikhusroo Minocher JamaspAsa, Dastoor Jehangir Oshidari, Rohinton Rivetna, Homi Taleyarkhan, Dastoor Kobad Zarolia, Dastoor Mehraban Zarthosty.

Interreligiöse Organisationen

Karl Berolzheimer, Dr. Daniel Gomez-Ibanez, Ma Jaya Bhagavati, Peter Laurence, Dr. Karan Singh, John B. Taylor, Rev. Robert Traer, Dr. William F. Vendley.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

You see, what is the meaning of compatibility?

If you do not know the meaning of compatibility you can look for it in a good dictionary,

I wrote before how compatibility is defined:

Buddhisme and Christianity are not compatible, and can not sometimes be or have been compatible, becos when accepting or believing both are in their way the truth, one would be logically inconsistent. (This in relation to the existence of the soul and the I )

Overhere you in fact try some democratic way to define compatibility or incompatibility, The most votes define the compatibility.

There will be a time we will vote for 1 + 1 = 3 or preferably something else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you do not know the meaning of compatibility you can look for it in a good dictionary,

I wrote before how compatibility is defined:

Buddhisme and Christianity are not compatible, and can not sometimes be or have been compatible, becos when accepting or believing both are in their way the truth, one would be logically inconsistent. (This in relation to the existence of the soul and the I )

Overhere you in fact try some democratic way to define compatibility or incompatibility, The most votes define the compatibility.

There will be a time we will vote for 1 + 1 = 3 or preferably something else.

First, you want a definitive answer to whether or not Buddhism and Christianity are compatible or incompatible. You're not going to get it, because the answer is subjective. Naturally, they are not 100% compatible; if they were it would be Buddhianity or Christibuddism. There are differences. But there are pretty distinct differences between a man and a woman, yet I would say men and women are compatible.

Second, each individual is going to see the extent of the compatibility or incompatibility differently. Years ago I remember watching an extending interview with Anwar Sadat (probably on 60 Minutes), where he discussed whether or not he felt Christianity and Islam were compatible or incompatible. As he said, man has a tendency to highlight the differences, while usually overlooking the similarities.

Neither Buddhism or Christianity has all the answers to the "great questions" man has posed over the centuries.

Oh, and by the way, linguistics is rather democratic. Definitions of words change over time. So, the definition of compatibility is what humans make of it. Otherwise, we'd still be using dictionaries from the 1700s or some earlier time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you do not know the meaning of compatibility you can look for it in a good dictionary,

I wrote before how compatibility is defined:

Buddhisme and Christianity are not compatible, and can not sometimes be or have been compatible, becos when accepting or believing both are in their way the truth, one would be logically inconsistent. (This in relation to the existence of the soul and the I )

Overhere you in fact try some democratic way to define compatibility or incompatibility, The most votes define the compatibility.

There will be a time we will vote for 1 + 1 = 3 or preferably something else.

First, you want a definitive answer to whether or not Buddhism and Christianity are compatible or incompatible. You're not going to get it, because the answer is subjective. Naturally, they are not 100% compatible; if they were it would be Buddhianity or Christibuddism. There are differences. But there are pretty distinct differences between a man and a woman, yet I would say men and women are compatible.

Second, each individual is going to see the extent of the compatibility or incompatibility differently. Years ago I remember watching an extending interview with Anwar Sadat (probably on 60 Minutes), where he discussed whether or not he felt Christianity and Islam were compatible or incompatible. As he said, man has a tendency to highlight the differences, while usually overlooking the similarities.

Neither Buddhism or Christianity has all the answers to the "great questions" man has posed over the centuries.

Oh, and by the way, linguistics is rather democratic. Definitions of words change over time. So, the definition of compatibility is what humans make of it. Otherwise, we'd still be using dictionaries from the 1700s or some earlier time.

I would say we are trying to discover overhere if the answer is, or is not , could be or could not be subjective.

Becos I realised the definition of compatibillity or incompatibillity can be seen different I explained what definition I used.

We could have gone furthter on by looking at what the compatibillity or incompatibillity would be by that defintion and try some other definition, did it happen?

No problem when people would aproach this with another definition of compatibillity or incompatibillity.

Defintions change over time so that is why I used a deifinitan as to be found today in 2011.

I understand you are using another definition of compatibillty when you write about the compatibillity of man and woman?

A definition that tells they can combine, be a combination?

Then I would ask: what is the used definition for 'combination'?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, you want a definitive answer to whether or not Buddhism and Christianity are compatible or incompatible. You're not going to get it, because the answer is subjective. Naturally, they are not 100% compatible; if they were it would be Buddhianity or Christibuddism. There are differences. But there are pretty distinct differences between a man and a woman, yet I would say men and women are compatible.

Second, each individual is going to see the extent of the compatibility or incompatibility differently. Years ago I remember watching an extending interview with Anwar Sadat (probably on 60 Minutes), where he discussed whether or not he felt Christianity and Islam were compatible or incompatible. As he said, man has a tendency to highlight the differences, while usually overlooking the similarities.

Neither Buddhism or Christianity has all the answers to the "great questions" man has posed over the centuries.

Oh, and by the way, linguistics is rather democratic. Definitions of words change over time. So, the definition of compatibility is what humans make of it. Otherwise, we'd still be using dictionaries from the 1700s or some earlier time.

I would say we are trying to discover overhere if the answer is, or is not , could be or could not be subjective.

Becos I realised the definition of compatibillity or incompatibillity can be seen different I explained what definition I use.

We could have gone further on by looking at what the compatibillity or incompatibillity would be by that defintion and try some other definition, did it happen?

No problem when people would aproach this with another definition of compatibillity or incompatibillity.

Defintions change over time so that is why I used a deifinition as to be found today in 2011on the internet.

I understand you are using another definition of compatibillty when you write about the compatibillity of man and woman?

A definition that tells they can combine, be a combination?

Then one should know: what is the used definition for 'combination'?

I would say man and woman can combine becos they are different.

So by that definition of compatibillity man and woman are compatible becos they are essentially different phenomena in physical existence and personalities, as two woman could combine cos they are essentially different personallities. A bottle of milk and another bottle of milk, two of the same qualitie you cannot combine cos they are essentially the same, but the two bottles are compatible.

So maybe Buddhism and Christianity they could be 'compatible' in another definiton of it, but probably still because they are essentially different.

In my opinion it would mean one could be Buddhist and Christian at the same time without being logically inconsistent, I donot think that is possible.

But it is true Buddhists and Christians togehter can both meditate, contemplate, believe and think and eat, concentrate and sleep at the same time, that however to my opinion does not make them compatible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see this is where it will go off the rails. Obviously compatibility is one the most subjective terms there is.

If you put a Buddhist and and a Christian in a room together they will not explode or even catch fire (not necessarily true with Islam). Does this mean compatibility? They can mate and reproduce, is this compatible?

Is the question trying to decide whether it is an 'either or' situation between the two religions? Or are we trying to decide whether the two sides can get along, side by side? Or perhaps we are searching for a way to blend the two. The answers to these questions become easier as we define the search.

Edited by canuckamuck
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see this is where it will go off the rails. Obviously compatibility is one the most subjective terms there is.

If you put a Buddhist and and a Christian in a room together they will not explode or even catch fire (not necessarily true with Islam). Does this mean compatibility? They can mate and reproduce, is this compatible?

Is the question trying to decide whether it is an 'either or' situation between the two religions? Or are we trying to decide whether the two sides can get along, side by side? Or perhaps we are searching for a way to blend the two. The answers to these questions become easier as we define the search.

I think the answer is that fundamentalism, whether Buddhist, Christian, Islamic, or any other is by definition not compatible with anything else.

Pragmatism is.

It's not the brand name you choose it's the attitude with which you choose it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the answer is that fundamentalism, whether Buddhist, Christian, Islamic, or any other is by definition not compatible with anything else.

Pragmatism is.

It's not the brand name you choose it's the attitude with which you choose it.

Very good point, Bruce.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see this is where it will go off the rails. Obviously compatibility is one the most subjective terms there is.

If you put a Buddhist and and a Christian in a room together they will not explode or even catch fire (not necessarily true with Islam). Does this mean compatibility? They can mate and reproduce, is this compatible?

Is the question trying to decide whether it is an 'either or' situation between the two religions? Or are we trying to decide whether the two sides can get along, side by side? Or perhaps we are searching for a way to blend the two. The answers to these questions become easier as we define the search.

I think the answer is that fundamentalism, whether Buddhist, Christian, Islamic, or any other is by definition not compatible with anything else.

Pragmatism is.

It's not the brand name you choose it's the attitude with which you choose it.

It's pragmatism and a little bit more. I posted the Declaration for World Ethos already, it"s a Declaration against "fundamentalism', this is the point where all signers agreed, this is the ethic compatibility of mankind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Distilling religions into friendlier chapters of the same club will do two things.

1. It will remove all credibility from any particular faith; religious affiliation will be as seriously considered as fashion choices.

2. It will set the stage for a world religion which will inevitably be used to manipulate world power.

I expect it won't be long before we see this unfold. We already have part 1 in action.

Universalism can never really work, because there will always be antiuniversalists. And the mainstream will become as farcical as anything mainstream eventually becomes, nothing but bureaucracy and politics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the answer is that fundamentalism, whether Buddhist, Christian, Islamic, or any other is by definition not compatible with anything else.

Pragmatism is.

It's not the brand name you choose it's the attitude with which you choose it.

Very good point, Bruce.

I think I could agree when we direct our attention to the aspect of fundamentalism.

But to be able to agree completely I would say it is important first to see if we agree about the definition of fundamentalism.

I wonder if we could achieve that.

But that would be another topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Distilling religions into friendlier chapters of the same club will do two things.

1. It will remove all credibility from any particular faith; religious affiliation will be as seriously considered as fashion choices.

2. It will set the stage for a world religion which will inevitably be used to manipulate world power.

I expect it won't be long before we see this unfold. We already have part 1 in action.

Universalism can never really work, because there will always be antiuniversalists. And the mainstream will become as farcical as anything mainstream eventually becomes, nothing but bureaucracy and politics.

good observation, in my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the answer is that fundamentalism, whether Buddhist, Christian, Islamic, or any other is by definition not compatible with anything else.

Pragmatism is.

It's not the brand name you choose it's the attitude with which you choose it.

Very good point, Bruce.

This brings me to another aproach of compatibillity.

As I understand out of Buddhism, existence is a matter of interdependent conditions.

So I look at the interdependent conditions as I see in my country, in fact still a very Christan country, and the interdependent conditions as I see them in Thailand.

And you will not be surprised to learn they are very different.

I before wrote one could 'see' a culture, especially when it is not a very diverse culture, as the 'personality' of the country where this culture is the dominating factor.

So the culture in my country is the 'personality' of my country, and the culture of Thailand is the 'personality' of Thailand.

They differ as individualities can differ, and they differ in fact remarkably.

Where I see the country, the environment, the physically of Thailand, is the body of Thailand, the culture is the soul, and, forgive me for thinking so, but then we also have the spirit of Thailand.

As I learned out of Buddhism, and please correct me when I am wrong, all the aspects are interrelated, interdependent.

So, excluding the spirit out of the attention and focussing on the culture, one can see all aspects are interdependent, politics, economy, science, social system, education, religion, juridical system, police, army, and so on, they are all interdependent.

That they are interdependent is the same for Thailand and my country. Buddhist wisdom.

But there is still this big difference between the character of interdependency in my country and Thailand.

So how to explain this?

When we look at the law of interdepency I see that when one of the main aspects within this system of interdependency changes the complete interdepend system changes, the 'personallity' of the country will change.

At the moment this is dramatically happening in some countries in the world.

So when we look at the situation in Thailand I think there is that specific Thai situation of interdependent conditions, differing from the one in my country.

Everything contributes to that specific existence of Thai culture/personality because they are interdependent.

What would happen when the police suddenly would stop at all to be corrupt where it might be corrupt at the moment?

What would happen when the politicians would stop to be corrupt at all where they might be corrupt at the moment?

What would happen when the military would stop to interfer with politics and just do the job they are supposed to do?

What would happen when poverty, unemployment, would disappear and there would be a social system taking care the weak and unfortunate person to have a good standard life?

What would happen when Buddhism would disappear?

What would happen when the education/schooleducation would improve?

What would happen when labour unions would come to existence?

The facts show that when poverty is disapearing, religion is disappearing as a main aspect in the culture/society.

I asked myself the following questions

Would the majority of the people living in my country like to live as a Thai in the Thai social, political, juridical and economic situation in their country?

Would the majority of the Thai people like to live as a fellow countryman of me in my countries social, political, juridical and economic situation in Thailand?

I do not think the majority of the people of my country would answer this question positive.

Why not?

Cos I think the difference is that they would not like to live in a system where subjectivism is the dominant factor of society since they, out of their thinking prefer objectivism.

We have to realise that when you are going to the police in case of a serious problem, in my country you have to take your facts with you, even when they are subjective, the police on their side is obliged to look at all facts in the most objective way, that why they have 'nvestigators' and they are controlled to do so in the most objective way by their superiors and at the end they are controled by the government in doing the same, the most objective way.

That is all part of the interdependent condtions of my society in my country.

When you are going to the police in Thailand for a serious case, you have, beside taking the facts, also to take with you your wallet, and preferably the most powerfull and influent Thai friend you have, do not forget your wallet here too you maybe need it . When you will continue to meet subjective handling of your case by the Thai officials and you like to go up, your wallet becomes more important so needs to have more content and your friend need to have more power, or you need to have a more powerfull friend.

That is part of interdependent conditions as they are specifically interdependent in Thailand.

So from the pragmatic level of interdependent conditions I would also suggest Christianity and Buddhism are not compatible since there is a remarkable difference in the interdependent conditions, not only yesterday, probably not only and also tomorrow but at this actual moment in time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Men and women are complementary. Sometimes they're compatible; sometimes not. They see the world from different perspectives, but manage to get along together and sometimes fulfill each other when they agree to accept the differences. Marriage is a trucial state. It only works when the parties negotiate for mutual benefit and stick to their promises.

Religious representatives looking for common ground and being gracious when meeting at the Parliament of World religions and other forums are demonstrating that it's OK to see the world differently. This is simple anthropology. HH the Dalai Lama, Pope Benedict XVI, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and the Sangharaja of Thailand are who and what they are largely because of where they were born and how they were raised. They all committed to their faiths at an early age. For each of them to insist that only one faith - there's - can possibly be true is a rather large presumption. However, for them to deny what they see as the core truths and benefits of their faith would be a compromise too far.

So what kind of common ground can be found? They don't all believe in a "higher power" in any coherent way. They don't all believe in a common "ground of being". They don't all believe in the essential dignity of the individual. They don't all believe in equality of the sexes. They don't all believe in non-violent means of settling differences. They don't even all really believe in the "Golden Rule" except as a simple, non-religious form of neighbourliness.

All they have in common – all that makes them compatible – is a general belief in the same universal moral values that are shared by any community and most individuals. It would be hard to find a community where murder, rape, theft, lying, perjury, promise-breaking, child abuse, etc are regarded as good things, to be cherished and passed on through the school system, but these values are not religious. Philosophical atheism would be compatible with religion on these grounds. "New", or militant Atheism would not, however, as its agenda is as much about hostility to religions as about philosophical objection to theism. In fact its objections to theism consist of nothing new.

If Christianity and Buddhism, for example, are compatible it is because they are both populated by mainly normal human beings who acknowledge the need for decent behaviour and wish to give others the benefit of the doubt. This benign state of affairs can be easily disrupted though by bigots and the media and unscrupulous politicians, as we know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Men and women are complementary. Sometimes they're compatible; sometimes not. They see the world from different perspectives, but manage to get along together and sometimes fulfill each other when they agree to accept the differences. Marriage is a trucial state. It only works when the parties negotiate for mutual benefit and stick to their promises.

Religious representatives looking for common ground and being gracious when meeting at the Parliament of World religions and other forums are demonstrating that it's OK to see the world differently. This is simple anthropology. HH the Dalai Lama, Pope Benedict XVI, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and the Sangharaja of Thailand are who and what they are largely because of where they were born and how they were raised. They all committed to their faiths at an early age. For each of them to insist that only one faith - there's - can possibly be true is a rather large presumption. However, for them to deny what they see as the core truths and benefits of their faith would be a compromise too far.

So what kind of common ground can be found? They don't all believe in a "higher power" in any coherent way. They don't all believe in a common "ground of being". They don't all believe in the essential dignity of the individual. They don't all believe in equality of the sexes. They don't all believe in non-violent means of settling differences. They don't even all really believe in the "Golden Rule" except as a simple, non-religious form of neighbourliness.

All they have in common – all that makes them compatible – is a general belief in the same universal moral values that are shared by any community and most individuals. It would be hard to find a community where murder, rape, theft, lying, perjury, promise-breaking, child abuse, etc are regarded as good things, to be cherished and passed on through the school system, but these values are not religious. Philosophical atheism would be compatible with religion on these grounds. "New", or militant Atheism would not, however, as its agenda is as much about hostility to religions as about philosophical objection to theism. In fact its objections to theism consist of nothing new.

If Christianity and Buddhism, for example, are compatible it is because they are both populated by mainly normal human beings who acknowledge the need for decent behaviour and wish to give others the benefit of the doubt. This benign state of affairs can be easily disrupted though by bigots and the media and unscrupulous politicians, as we know.

seconded

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Men and women are complementary. Sometimes they're compatible; sometimes not. They see the world from different perspectives, but manage to get along together and sometimes fulfill each other when they agree to accept the differences. Marriage is a trucial state. It only works when the parties negotiate for mutual benefit and stick to their promises.

Religious representatives looking for common ground and being gracious when meeting at the Parliament of World religions and other forums are demonstrating that it's OK to see the world differently. This is simple anthropology. HH the Dalai Lama, Pope Benedict XVI, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and the Sangharaja of Thailand are who and what they are largely because of where they were born and how they were raised. They all committed to their faiths at an early age. For each of them to insist that only one faith - there's - can possibly be true is a rather large presumption. However, for them to deny what they see as the core truths and benefits of their faith would be a compromise too far.

So what kind of common ground can be found? They don't all believe in a "higher power" in any coherent way. They don't all believe in a common "ground of being". They don't all believe in the essential dignity of the individual. They don't all believe in equality of the sexes. They don't all believe in non-violent means of settling differences. They don't even all really believe in the "Golden Rule" except as a simple, non-religious form of neighbourliness.

All they have in common – all that makes them compatible – is a general belief in the same universal moral values that are shared by any community and most individuals. It would be hard to find a community where murder, rape, theft, lying, perjury, promise-breaking, child abuse, etc are regarded as good things, to be cherished and passed on through the school system, but these values are not religious. Philosophical atheism would be compatible with religion on these grounds. "New", or militant Atheism would not, however, as its agenda is as much about hostility to religions as about philosophical objection to theism. In fact its objections to theism consist of nothing new.

If Christianity and Buddhism, for example, are compatible it is because they are both populated by mainly normal human beings who acknowledge the need for decent behaviour and wish to give others the benefit of the doubt. This benign state of affairs can be easily disrupted though by bigots and the media and unscrupulous politicians, as we know.

well said

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Distilling religions into friendlier chapters of the same club will do two things.

1. It will remove all credibility from any particular faith; religious affiliation will be as seriously considered as fashion choices.

2. It will set the stage for a world religion which will inevitably be used to manipulate world power.

I expect it won't be long before we see this unfold. We already have part 1 in action.

Universalism can never really work, because there will always be antiuniversalists. And the mainstream will become as farcical as anything mainstream eventually becomes, nothing but bureaucracy and politics.

I'm not sure I agree with this.

You are basing your premise on that fundamentalism is the "right" interpretation of each religion. This is particularly inappropriate with the monotheistic religions who pretty much agree that we were all put here by the one and same God. Now, if you compare fundamentalist monotheists with religions that are not monotheistic, that may be a different story.

Your second premise that it will ultimately lead to manipulation of world power...again, I don't agree, and that sounds a lot to me like conspiracy thinking. After all, I would say that what you envision happened in the past with the Catholic Church and may be happening with Islam at the present time, and it is not because of moving toward a world religion...in fact those were based on fundamentalism.

And finally, I think we have to remember in this discussion that we are not talking about Buddhism being CONGRUENT with Christianity. One definition of being compatible is, "Able to exist or occur together without conflict."

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...