Jump to content

Are Buddhism and Christianity compatible or mutually exclusive?


phetaroi

Recommended Posts

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

All in all pretty barbaric, no better than pagan religion in this respect really, I must admit I wouldn't be exited by the prospect of spending eternity with such a god.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 230
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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.

The wages of sin are death, it is a spiritual law, the sacrifice system offered a proxy solution where an animal was substituted for a human. This was good news for the humans. God cannot abide sin therefore sinners must be separated from God. Separation from God is spiritual death. Jesus became the ultimate substitution as the completion of the law. Death and sin came into the world by Adam.

Most ancient societies were involved with animal and human sacrifice as well as with slavery, The Jews at least had standards, and laws to protect the slaves who were slaves by legal contract, perhaps the Romans did as well. I do not pretend to understand why it was that way, Perhaps a scholar on Judaism would have more to say.

It was not necessary to be a slave, but once you sold your rights you were one. It was a contract and breaking a contract is also a sin.

Thailand, perhaps the most thoroughly Buddhist country in the world, was one of the last to end the practice of slavery.

God does not punish those who reject Him, he honors their decision to reject Him by separating them from Him. This condition of separation is Hell and many choose it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

God does not punish those who reject Him, he honors their decision to reject Him by separating them from Him. This condition of separation is Hell and many choose it.

God doesn't punish those who reject him, he just makes sure they spend eternity in hell. I think even you can see the contradiction here. But at least it settles the compatibility issue.

For all Buddhists, the Dhamma applies to everyone regardless of religion. So, a Christian who believes in God and coincidentally keeps the 5 Buddhist precepts and is generous will likely have a fortunate rebirth (one assumes it would probably be as a Buddhist if it's in the human realm), whereas for (most?) Christians a Buddhist is doomed by rejecting the Christian God. And for many Evangelists, all of humanity before Christ was born and those afterwards who didn't hear "The Word" will spend eternity in hell without actually having rejected God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

God does not punish those who reject Him, he honors their decision to reject Him by separating them from Him. This condition of separation is Hell and many choose it.

God doesn't punish those who reject him, he just makes sure they spend eternity in hell. I think even you can see the contradiction here. But at least it settles the compatibility issue.

For all Buddhists, the Dhamma applies to everyone regardless of religion. So, a Christian who believes in God and coincidentally keeps the 5 Buddhist precepts and is generous will likely have a fortunate rebirth (one assumes it would probably be as a Buddhist if it's in the human realm), whereas for (most?) Christians a Buddhist is doomed by rejecting the Christian God. And for many Evangelists, all of humanity before Christ was born and those afterwards who didn't hear "The Word" will spend eternity in hell without actually having rejected God.

Would it make sense to save those that chose not to be saved? What would that say about free will.

For those who have indeed not heard the Gospel, they will be fairly judged by the amount of truth they have been exposed to and how the responded to it in their life experience. The Old Testament has examples of men who satisfied God's requirements but existed before Christ. You will have to ask God about the guidelines He follows for such cases.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would it make sense to save those that chose not to be saved? What would that say about free will.

This is splitting hairs. The point is that in reality one does get punished for not accepting God (choosing not to be "saved" is not a request for an eternity in hell), whereas no one gets punished for not accepting Buddhism. Ultimately, Christianity offers a binary choice, heaven or hell, which is not the case in Buddhism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would it make sense to save those that chose not to be saved? What would that say about free will.

This is splitting hairs. The point is that in reality one does get punished for not accepting God (choosing not to be "saved" is not a request for an eternity in hell), whereas no one gets punished for not accepting Buddhism. Ultimately, Christianity offers a binary choice, heaven or hell, which is not the case in Buddhism.

correct

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

...

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.

When it comes to the smorgasbord concept, I think it matters how you look at Buddhism to determine how acceptable it is to believe or not believe in certain aspects of it. For example, if you truly believe it is a PHILOSOPHY, then there is no reason not to accept or not accept specific tenets of it. For example, in terms of American politics, I'm a moderate Democrat. I can still believe in the death penalty or be against wasteful spending or have been in favor of the Irag war (just examples). No one can say, "You are breaking the tenets of the philosophy", although they might disagree with me on one topic or another. But, if you see Buddhism as a packaged RELIGION, it gets a little more difficult (though not impossible) to accept some tenets and reject others.

And this concept of whether or not Buddhism should be a "packaged" religion is, I think, very important. What I mean by "packaged" is...well, let me give an analogy. With my blood pressure problem I'm having to reduce my sodium intake. That's a problem when it comes to packaged foods. A half cup of that pasta sauce has almost 20% of the daily recommended amount of salt. I can't get the salt out of it. I take all of its ingredients, or none. On the other hand, as opposed to the jar of packaged pasta sauce, I can make my own sauce and add in or leave out almost every ingredient except the most basic -- tomatoes. And, to me, people who accept a "packaged religion" hook' line, and sinker...well, they aren't even thinking. And that is why, in my view, Buddha said to test out the tenets of Buddhism.

And even in terms of a religion, the idea that you must accept every tenet of the religion or be excommunicated (for example), is a sort of medieval way of looking at things (literally) (except of course for one world religion today). But even in a stricter religion such as Christianity, if you don't believe in confession (for example), you can leave the Catholic Church freely and become an Episcopal, where that branch makes the rite totally optional.

Frankly, a few of the people in this forum don't have their own philosophy of life thought out very well. They will say if you don't believe in x, y, z, then you're not a Buddhist. Yet they would also say they believe in freedom of thought and freedom of action.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

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.

...

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.

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.

I think you misinterpreting how Christians use the Bible, and there is actually a fundamental split among Christians about whether or not the Bible is, literally, the word of God, as opposed to the belief that the Bible is a document written by men who sometimes interpreted correctly and sometimes incorrectly the word of God.

This is not different than, in Buddhism, the difference of opinion about whether the Dhamma is the exact teachings of Buddha. And there are those who choose to believe that despite the fact that the Dhamma was not written down in Buddha's lifetime and was passed on by word of mouth for hundreds of years, that it is composed of the exact words of Buddha.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Frankly, a few of the people in this forum don't have their own philosophy of life thought out very well. They will say if you don't believe in x, y, z, then you're not a Buddhist. Yet they would also say they believe in freedom of thought and freedom of action.

I'm not sure who those people are, for myself I think I have a pretty narrow definition of a Buddhist but it's based on whether one practises a, b, c rather than whether one believes in x, y, z.

However the big difference is if one is not a Buddhist that isn't a recipe for eternal hell fire and brimstone. There is no notion of people being inside a club having exclusive rights wheras those outside the club being hoodwinked by the devil that you get with fundamentalist religion, having been there done that and knowing how that notion creates barriers between you and others I find this very liberating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you misinterpreting how Christians use the Bible, and there is actually a fundamental split among Christians about whether or not the Bible is, literally, the word of God, as opposed to the belief that the Bible is a document written by men who sometimes interpreted correctly and sometimes incorrectly the word of God.

This is not different than, in Buddhism, the difference of opinion about whether the Dhamma is the exact teachings of Buddha. And there are those who choose to believe that despite the fact that the Dhamma was not written down in Buddha's lifetime and was passed on by word of mouth for hundreds of years, that it is composed of the exact words of Buddha.

This is true, and while I understand Canuck's desire to defend his faith no disresect to him I don't think comparison with his brand of Christianity should be the topic of this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When understand well, Christianity is based on the life of Jezus Christ. The old Testament mainly is the history of the Jews and within this the predicted coming of the Messias.

The New Testament is about Jezus Christ and therefore Christians are Christians because they are 'connected' to Jezus Christ or as told " Christ".

The 'tone' in the New Testament is quite different from the Old Testament .

Some Christians say the Old Testament is the Father World, and the New Testament is the world of the Son, where Jezus Christ, being the Son, is telling he is like a brother.

As far as I know there was no Christianity at the time of Buddha and also before Buddha there was killing in India, Asia. Further on it is confusing to learn to know some Buddhists killed themself.

They did at the time of Buddha but also later on at the time of he Vietnamese war.

Then I see, at least I see now In Thailand, Buddhists are not actively involved in helping other people.

But the people take care the monks.

When I was in Bangkok just a few days before they ended the demonstration of the Red shirts last year, I was on the walk way near Victoria monument. In front of me just 200 mtr away, Deen Dang, the burning barricades of the Red shirts. (Buddhists? at war?) and at my back Victoria monument were busses were unloading many monks. I was thinking for a moment maybe some involvement of Monks was going to take place.

But observing the Monks it looked more like they were having a day of sight seeing. They did not pay any attention at all to the fact there were soldiers with loaded guns blocking a road at one side and demonstrators blocking a road at the other side with burning tires.

We discussed this before somewhere else, but reading the news in Thailand I learn to know in this 'Buddhist' country there is a lot more killing, criminallity and so on as in the country where I came from . And now and then, they are even are at war with Cambodia about ..................a Temple!

When people point out to these facts, the answer given is : "In fact many Thai are not realy Buddhists"

So the reality shows in the originally Christian country where I came from there is about almost no killing, no corruption, no criminallity, in the Buddhist Thailand there is, compared to my country, a lot of killing, criminallity and widespread corruption.

And here, at this tyopic, we 'talk' about Buddhism being a science and/or religion of peace, respect for life, love and search for ultimate truth.

So I could say, today, at least related to - originally Christian - Europe, here we have practice of love and understanding, equivalence, responsibillity towards and respect for fellow humans, quite good social care systems and so on.

In many countries in Asia, surely in - Buddhist - Thailand, there is not so much practice of love and understanding, equivalence and son on.

So to my opinion the discussion is quite academic and abstract and does not deal with the actual situations.

Hardly the aproach to see Buddhism and Christianity are or are not compatible.

And as I wrote, to my opinion, acadamically spoken, they are not compatible.

But they can dine and talk together and make general statements that do not change the world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

God does not punish those who reject Him, he honors their decision to reject Him by separating them from Him. This condition of separation is Hell and many choose it.

God doesn't punish those who reject him, he just makes sure they spend eternity in hell. I think even you can see the contradiction here. But at least it settles the compatibility issue.

For all Buddhists, the Dhamma applies to everyone regardless of religion. So, a Christian who believes in God and coincidentally keeps the 5 Buddhist precepts and is generous will likely have a fortunate rebirth (one assumes it would probably be as a Buddhist if it's in the human realm), whereas for (most?) Christians a Buddhist is doomed by rejecting the Christian God. And for many Evangelists, all of humanity before Christ was born and those afterwards who didn't hear "The Word" will spend eternity in hell without actually having rejected God.

To me it is very helpfull to know more about situations after death.

That is why I am happy I found much more information about this as one can find in Buddhism.

The question also is: what is God?

Just imagine you could 'translate' God by : Ultimate Awareness

To me that is quite interesting and it is - to me - related to the fact that te Bible tells the name of God is YHWH, YHWH or I AM, I AM.

And just keep in mind the Bible tells: (Gen:) And God went on to say: “Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness.

So when a person believes in ultimate awareness (where the utimate truth is a part within) he will be 'saved' (for the next future)

When a person rejects ultimate awareness (where the ultimate truth is a part within) he cannot be saved and will not be saved and will dwell in eternity unaware, what is considered to be hell to a person/spirit. (Eternity is not unlimited - but that is another topic)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The present Pope seems to see Buddhism as something incompatible:

http://cathar-martyr.tripod.com/inquisition.html

Cardinal Joseph Alois Ratzinger presided over the "Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith" from 1981 until becoming Pope in 2005. He was known as God's Rottweiler for his defence and promulgation of traditional Catholic doctrine.

Perhaps one of his most worrying comments was regarding Buddhism, which he called an "autoerotic spirituality" that seeks "transcendence without imposing concrete religious obligations." He also made the point that, by the year 2000, Buddhism would replace Marxism as the church's biggest foe. (See National Catholic Reporter Vol. 35, No. 17, Feb. 27, 1999). Perhaps he was not aware that Marxism had all but disappeared by 1990. He has also made other blunders such as quoting a former Byzantine monarch's comment regarding Islam at a particularly insensitive time.

Graham

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even putting aside the aspect of different religions, the belief in rebirth or disbelief makes a huge change in one's attitude towards life.

If you are Christian or Atheist who believes that we get one life, one chance, one bite of the cake then one's life would take on quite different meaning to one who believes in rebirth for whom this life is just one of many.

I always say that Christians have good intentions...their religion tells them that to avoid hell one must accept god so they go out of their way to try and convert others and get them to accept this hoping to avoid them suffering in hell.

But....I believe they are working with insufficient data since their belief doesn't teach them about rebirth and karma, and their well meaning meddling in forcing others to convert also causes much suffering too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most ancient societies were involved with animal and human sacrifice as well as with slavery, The Jews at least had standards, and laws to protect the slaves who were slaves by legal contract, perhaps the Romans did as well. I do not pretend to understand why it was that way, Perhaps a scholar on Judaism would have more to say.

It was not necessary to be a slave, but once you sold your rights you were one. It was a contract and breaking a contract is also a sin.

Thailand, perhaps the most thoroughly Buddhist country in the world, was one of the last to end the practice of slavery.

God enshrined slavery in his law (Old Testament).

Slaves who sold their own rights away to an owner were a subset under Gods rules.

God allowed those from foreign lands to be taken.

Children of such slaves automatically became ones property and and could be passed on as inheritance.

One could rape a slave and be forgiven with the sacrifice of one ram.

Beating a disobedient slave to death was acceptable to God, as long as it took at least two days from the beating to die.

Slavery in the U.S.A. was legitimized by the bible.

Slaves in these categories had not entered into any contract as God took their rights away.

The wages of sin are death, it is a spiritual law, the sacrifice system offered a proxy solution where an animal was substituted for a human. This was good news for the humans. God cannot abide sin therefore sinners must be separated from God. Separation from God is spiritual death. Jesus became the ultimate substitution as the completion of the law. Death and sin came into the world by Adam.

decision to reject Him by separating them from Him. This condition of separation is Hell and many choose it.

If I was God, as I love them, l would spend the time with my children until they came to know me.

I would not hide behind a veil so I can't be recognized and send those of my children to eternal damnation should they err.

I would say God has been much maligned and misquoted via the Old Testament.

On the other hand, the Pali Canon is quite faithful to what the Buddha taught.

Edited by rockyysdt
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you misinterpreting how Christians use the Bible, and there is actually a fundamental split among Christians about whether or not the Bible is, literally, the word of God, as opposed to the belief that the Bible is a document written by men who sometimes interpreted correctly and sometimes incorrectly the word of God.

This is not different than, in Buddhism, the difference of opinion about whether the Dhamma is the exact teachings of Buddha. And there are those who choose to believe that despite the fact that the Dhamma was not written down in Buddha's lifetime and was passed on by word of mouth for hundreds of years, that it is composed of the exact words of Buddha.

This is the reason why many Buddhists follow Theravada and refer to the Pali Canon.

These are the earliest teachings and are as close as can be possible to what the Buddha taught.

I know that many Christians generally ignore the Old Testament and embrace the love taught by Jesus.

Unfortunately they fail to understand that the Old Testament is inspired by God and can't be ignored.

Matthew 4:4:

But he answered and said, it is written, Man shall not live by bread alone,
but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

Edited by rockyysdt
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When it comes to the smorgasbord concept, I think it matters how you look at Buddhism to determine how acceptable it is to believe or not believe in certain aspects of it. For example, if you truly believe it is a PHILOSOPHY, then there is no reason not to accept or not accept specific tenets of it. For example, in terms of American politics, I'm a moderate Democrat. I can still believe in the death penalty or be against wasteful spending or have been in favor of the Irag war (just examples). No one can say, "You are breaking the tenets of the philosophy", although they might disagree with me on one topic or another. But, if you see Buddhism as a packaged RELIGION, it gets a little more difficult (though not impossible) to accept some tenets and reject others.

And this concept of whether or not Buddhism should be a "packaged" religion is, I think, very important. What I mean by "packaged" is...well, let me give an analogy. With my blood pressure problem I'm having to reduce my sodium intake. That's a problem when it comes to packaged foods. A half cup of that pasta sauce has almost 20% of the daily recommended amount of salt. I can't get the salt out of it. I take all of its ingredients, or none. On the other hand, as opposed to the jar of packaged pasta sauce, I can make my own sauce and add in or leave out almost every ingredient except the most basic -- tomatoes. And, to me, people who accept a "packaged religion" hook' line, and sinker...well, they aren't even thinking. And that is why, in my view, Buddha said to test out the tenets of Buddhism.

And even in terms of a religion, the idea that you must accept every tenet of the religion or be excommunicated (for example), is a sort of medieval way of looking at things (literally) (except of course for one world religion today). But even in a stricter religion such as Christianity, if you don't believe in confession (for example), you can leave the Catholic Church freely and become an Episcopal, where that branch makes the rite totally optional.

Frankly, a few of the people in this forum don't have their own philosophy of life thought out very well. They will say if you don't believe in x, y, z, then you're not a Buddhist. Yet they would also say they believe in freedom of thought and freedom of action.

Hi Vince.

I think there's the view that each of us can cobble together what we'd like Buddhism to mean as it is up to us how we live our lives, unless we ask.

Buddhism is a solitary practice which occurs inside our minds.

If what the Buddha taught turns out to be true, then no matter what our beliefs, our actions will determine our fate.

Edited by rockyysdt
Link to comment
Share on other sites

buddhadassa did not place much importance on literal rebirth. he seems to say that the moment to moment rebirth is enough to promote morality. so christians are at no disadvantage from that point of view

Even putting aside the aspect of different religions, the belief in rebirth or disbelief makes a huge change in one's attitude towards life.

If you are Christian or Atheist who believes that we get one life, one chance, one bite of the cake then one's life would take on quite different meaning to one who believes in rebirth for whom this life is just one of many.

I always say that Christians have good intentions...their religion tells them that to avoid hell one must accept god so they go out of their way to try and convert others and get them to accept this hoping to avoid them suffering in hell.

But....I believe they are working with insufficient data since their belief doesn't teach them about rebirth and karma, and their well meaning meddling in forcing others to convert also causes much suffering too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even putting aside the aspect of different religions, the belief in rebirth or disbelief makes a huge change in one's attitude towards life.

If you are Christian or Atheist who believes that we get one life, one chance, one bite of the cake then one's life would take on quite different meaning to one who believes in rebirth for whom this life is just one of many.

I always say that Christians have good intentions...their religion tells them that to avoid hell one must accept god so they go out of their way to try and convert others and get them to accept this hoping to avoid them suffering in hell.

But....I believe they are working with insufficient data since their belief doesn't teach them about rebirth and karma, and their well meaning meddling in forcing others to convert also causes much suffering too.

This of course has been the sticking point.

The ego, or I we are conscious of (Rocky, Fred, & others) is conditioned and finite.

When we die, the entity we know as I or ego will extinguish.

Believing that Rocky, Fred or any other, will continue is egotistical.

Then what, or who is the constant when re birth occurs, as there is no soul?

In essence, even if there is something associated with our I or ego, and which is the constant between the cast of I's or ego's in a chain of re births, it is not known to us.

Therefore when Rocky, Fred, or others, dies it is an eternal death in practical terms as we were never introduced or are conscious of the common or constant, and the ego was the only entity we were ever aware of.

Edited by rockyysdt
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Christianity gives you the reward of heaven if you "believe" that Jesus died for our sins. No other action necessary. Even bad people that do bad things can go to heaven.

Buddhism believes in how you live your life. Actions over beliefs.

The two are diametrically opposed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Therefore when Rocky, Fred, or others, dies it is an eternal death in practical terms as we were never introduced or are conscious of the common or constant, and the ego was the only entity we were ever aware of.

How do you know that in a thousand years time you won't be sitting on Mars under a tree meditating, enter the 4th jhana and remember being rocky posting today on thaivisa? ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just imagine you could 'translate' God by : Ultimate Awareness

So when a person believes in ultimate awareness (where the utimate truth is a part within) he will be 'saved' (for the next future)

When a person rejects ultimate awareness (where the ultimate truth is a part within) he cannot be saved and will not be saved and will dwell in eternity unaware, what is considered to be hell to a person/spirit.

Sounds like a good summary of Christiaanism to me, but I think the topic is more concerned with "standard" or at least doctrinal Christianity and Buddhism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you misinterpreting how Christians use the Bible, and there is actually a fundamental split among Christians about whether or not the Bible is, literally, the word of God, as opposed to the belief that the Bible is a document written by men who sometimes interpreted correctly and sometimes incorrectly the word of God.

This is not different than, in Buddhism, the difference of opinion about whether the Dhamma is the exact teachings of Buddha. And there are those who choose to believe that despite the fact that the Dhamma was not written down in Buddha's lifetime and was passed on by word of mouth for hundreds of years, that it is composed of the exact words of Buddha.

This is the reason why many Buddhists follow Theravada and refer to the Pali Canon.

These are the earliest teachings and are as close as can be possible to what the Buddha taught.

I know that many Christians generally ignore the Old Testament and embrace the love taught by Jesus.

Unfortunately they fail to understand that the Old Testament is inspired by God and can't be ignored.

Matthew 4:4:

But he answered and said, it is written, Man shall not live by bread alone,
but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

In this quote from Matthew (also similar in Luke 4: 3 - 4) , Matthew is using material from the non-extant sayings source known as "Q" (also used by Luke) which reproduces in typical rabbinic dialogue form used by teachers of the Talmud and Midrash the temptation in the desert stories. In this case "scholars consider this passage, not as historical reality but pure Jewish midrash, intended to demonstrate that Jesus, the 'Son of God' resisted tempting offers and showed himself totally subservient to God." Geza Vermes. The Authentic Gospel of Jesus. Penguin 2004: 195.

There is no evidence whatever that Jesus actually spoke these words to a live audience. This was simply a story that did the rounds among pre - 70 AD Jewish followers of Jesus to show how exemplary he was.

Whatever the truth of the matter, the Bible cannot be used to validate itself. If that were so, then the Qur'an is demonstrably the word of God (because it says it is).

Edited by Xangsamhua
Link to comment
Share on other sites

buddhadassa did not place much importance on literal rebirth. he seems to say that the moment to moment rebirth is enough to promote morality. so christians are at no disadvantage from that point of view

Even putting aside the aspect of different religions, the belief in rebirth or disbelief makes a huge change in one's attitude towards life.

If you are Christian or Atheist who believes that we get one life, one chance, one bite of the cake then one's life would take on quite different meaning to one who believes in rebirth for whom this life is just one of many.

I always say that Christians have good intentions...their religion tells them that to avoid hell one must accept god so they go out of their way to try and convert others and get them to accept this hoping to avoid them suffering in hell.

But....I believe they are working with insufficient data since their belief doesn't teach them about rebirth and karma, and their well meaning meddling in forcing others to convert also causes much suffering too.

12. Juni 1971 Wat Suanmok , Buddhadāsa criticised the Three-Life-Theory with strong words: This explanation of the paṭiccasamuppāda is a „cancer, an untreatable tumor of buddhist erudition.[pariyatti]“

Bad kamma from a former physical life, tambun to have a start ticket for a good rebirth in the next physical live, the Paradise and the Hell for Christians, everyone is free to believe what he needs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bad kamma from a former physical life, tambun to have a start ticket for a good rebirth in the next physical live, the Paradise and the Hell for Christians,

everyone is free to believe what he needs
.

You're very tolerant, Lungmi, but with freedom comes responsibility. And each of us has a responsibility to do the research and find good evidence for whatever we believe. If the evidence isn't there, it's better if we at least put the belief on hold.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This of course has been the sticking point.

The ego, or I we are conscious of (Rocky, Fred, & others) is conditioned and finite.

an illusion

When we die, the entity we know as I or ego will extinguish.

never existed anyway

Believing that Rocky, Fred or any other, will continue is egotistical.

ignorance of the truth

Then what, or who is the constant when re birth occurs, as there is no soul?

a subtle connection....moment to moment....with karma being the cause

In essence, even if there is something associated with our I or ego, and which is the constant between the cast of I's or ego's in a chain of re births, it is not known to us.

Therefore when Rocky, Fred, or others, dies it is an eternal death in practical terms as we were never introduced or are conscious of the common or constant, and the ego was the only entity we were ever aware of.

fred cannot die...he never really existed....just ignorance and misunderstanding of the truth.... names being simple labels without substance

I am not the same person I was when i was a ten year old boy.....I have altered physically and mentally and gained experience, perhaps knowledge and wisdom, used up karma, created new karma....but there is a subtle connection between me and that boy....as there is between that boy and the new-born baby...and the existence in a previous life. It is not necessary to be able to remember past lives for them to have been real and subtly connected to this one.

The suffering I cause other beings in this existence should be paid for...that is only fair.... and a continuum of this present being will suffer in a future existence for it....not necessary to remember this life and how we caused it.

Those born into a shitty life now cannot remember their past when they created the cause....but if they realise they are simply paying the bill off then they can ease their suffering and accept that it is fair and just....and be determined not to create more future suffering.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not the same person I was when i was a ten year old boy.....I have altered physically and mentally and gained experience, perhaps knowledge and wisdom, used up karma, created new karma....but there is a subtle connection between me and that boy....as there is between that boy and the new-born baby...and the existence in a previous life. It is not necessary to be able to remember past lives for them to have been real and subtly connected to this one.

You are not the same person as the ten year-old boy, but you can remember being the ten year-old boy, so it would seem that the boy and you share/d a common consciousness.

If you died when you were ten years old in a previous life, but you can't remember being that ten year-old, which ten year-old are you most connected with?

It seems to me that having memories of one's life that others simply cannot share indicates a continuous stream of consciousness that constitutes "self". If one suffers a brain injury and can remember nothing of being a ten year-old, the "self" as narrative (one's life story) is disrupted, but the self as peculiar and private memory remains.

If the "self", or whatever organizing principle enables one's aggregates to cohere, constitutes a narrative written by karma, and the narrative passes through the death experience, as in bardo, but nothing is remembered - one learns nothing from one's karmic legacy - in what way is one reborn? It seems the plot of the narrative continues from life to life, but there are no characters, no actors. The past life and the present one may be "really and subtly connected to this one", but as pilotless aircraft, pre-programmed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whatever the truth of the matter, the Bible cannot be used to validate itself. If that were so, then the Qur'an is demonstrably the word of God (because it says it is).

Just to clarify, are you saying that the Dhamma can be used to validate itself?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This of course has been the sticking point.

The ego, or I we are conscious of (Rocky, Fred, & others) is conditioned and finite.

an illusion

When we die, the entity we know as I or ego will extinguish.

never existed anyway

Believing that Rocky, Fred or any other, will continue is egotistical.

ignorance of the truth

Then what, or who is the constant when re birth occurs, as there is no soul?

a subtle connection....moment to moment....with karma being the cause

In essence, even if there is something associated with our I or ego, and which is the constant between the cast of I's or ego's in a chain of re births, it is not known to us.

Therefore when Rocky, Fred, or others, dies it is an eternal death in practical terms as we were never introduced or are conscious of the common or constant, and the ego was the only entity we were ever aware of.

fred cannot die...he never really existed....just ignorance and misunderstanding of the truth.... names being simple labels without substance

I am not the same person I was when i was a ten year old boy.....I have altered physically and mentally and gained experience, perhaps knowledge and wisdom, used up karma, created new karma....but there is a subtle connection between me and that boy....as there is between that boy and the new-born baby...and the existence in a previous life. It is not necessary to be able to remember past lives for them to have been real and subtly connected to this one.

The suffering I cause other beings in this existence should be paid for...that is only fair.... and a continuum of this present being will suffer in a future existence for it....not necessary to remember this life and how we caused it.

Those born into a shitty life now cannot remember their past when they created the cause....but if they realise they are simply paying the bill off then they can ease their suffering and accept that it is fair and just....and be determined not to create more future suffering.

A baby born has not to pay the bill of a former life, a baby has to learn how not to pay the bill for bad deeds in this life. Enough. Metaphysical speculations the Buddha rejected, Abidhamma compilations of the suttas (Buddhaghosa) are not clean from translation problems at this topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whatever the truth of the matter, the Bible cannot be used to validate itself. If that were so, then the Qur'an is demonstrably the word of God (because it says it is).

Just to clarify, are you saying that the Dhamma can be used to validate itself?

Yes, law of nature.

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...